Posted on 11/06/2019 3:21:27 AM PST by Kaslin
The July 25 call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Vlodomyr Zelensky is the central piece of evidence in the Democratic drive to remove the president from office. "That call was a smoking gun," Speaker Nancy Pelosi said after House Democrats voted to formalize their impeachment inquiry.
Trump has repeatedly said the call was "perfect," or, as he described it recently, "perfecto." His defenders, or most of them, have declined to adopt that characterization. But importantly, the president, and others as well, have also pointed to the circumstances of the Trump-Zelensky conversation as evidence that Trump had no intent to commit any sort of offense, and certainly not one that the House would later deem impeachable.
"It's common sense," the president said recently in an expansive Oval Office conversation after the House vote. "I've got 20 to 25 people on the phone call. I've got stenographers and all of these people on the telephone. Am I going to make a statement that's illegal or bad? I'm an intelligent person. Who would do a thing like that?"
To that end, Trump has urged everyone to "read the transcript" of the call. That is a reference to the memorandum, which reads like a rough transcript, prepared by the National Security Council. On the morning of the House vote, Trump tweeted, simply, "READ THE TRANSCRIPT!" In his Oval Office conversation, he said his campaign has had T-shirts made with the same message.
attempt to achieve a corrupt bargain, as I see it."
No, no, no, say Democrats. Trump's behavior, according to presidential candidate Sen. Kamala Harris, showed "clear evidence of consciousness of guilt." The call is not a "straight call," as the president said. It's a confession of a crime.
Part of the problem with that position is that Democrats have had a difficult time coming up with a law that Trump violated in the Zelensky call. Some have said it was extortion. Some have said it was a campaign finance violation. Some recent speculation has focused on an obscure statute called the Hobbs Act. But nobody has made a slam-dunk case that Trump broke the law.
Still, Democrats say, the White House move to restrict access to the rough transcript shows an awareness that something was amiss. "People involved in the preparation of this transcript had, in effect, a consciousness of guilt," CNN's Jeffrey Toobin said recently. The problem with that argument, in the context of impeachment, is that it refers to White House staff, not to the president himself.
Some of Trump's most determined adversaries say his "read the transcript" mantra is the work of a sociopath, of someone who is incapable of knowing right from wrong, or perhaps it is an in-your-face defense strategy that comes naturally to a man who almost never admits a mistake.
But the simplest explanation is that Trump really doesn't believe he did anything wrong.
"Everybody knows I did absolutely nothing wrong," the president said in the Oval Office before ticking down impeachments past. "Bill Clinton did things wrong. Richard Nixon did things wrong ... I did nothing wrong, and for [Democrats] to do this is a disgrace."
In recent days, both sides in the impeachment debate appear to be hardening their positions. House Democrats are dead-set on impeaching Trump, and Republicans seem more and more determined to resist. In the Senate, Republicans appear to be moving toward arguing not that the Trump-Zelensky call was "perfecto," but that it was inappropriate and yet still does not rise to the level of an impeachable offense.
The president has a counter to that argument, too, which he put in a recent tweet. His advice: Read the transcript.
It’s a weak centerpiece.
No, Byron, the dems are showing THEIR consciousness of guilt. They know their side can not withstand sunlight on this matter.
I'm pretty sure Byron York hasn't read the transcript either.
I wonder if Byron York has read the Steele Dossier?
The Steele Dossier is the work of a sociopath. It's packed with lies about the actions and motivations of Trump and his associates.
Alinsky brand transference of criminal wrongdoing onto one's rivals. It's the tired textbook example.
All the rest is just filler.
Another sneaky reference to Watergate. I'm not sure what effect that has, as I wonder how many people are old enough to remember Watergate.
Why don't Repubs do what the Dems did during the Clinton impeachment? Talk about how "we need to stop this partisan charade and get back to doing the work of the people. They demand it, they deserve it!"
IIRC, York is a #NeverTrumper.
Breaking news Sondland has changed his testimony to say he now recalls a 9/1 meeting with some Ukraine and Sondland told him funding would not resume until they provided anti-corruption statement that they were to provide 2 weeks prior. Supposedly he changed it because of other witnesses saying something different.
Some theories.
FBI/CIA planted porn on his computer
Have him on tape with something illegal said or done
Was being wire tapped
Orange man bad. Be succinct.
>
Why don’t Repubs do what the Dems did during the Clinton impeachment? Talk about how “we need to stop this partisan charade and get back to doing the work of the people. They demand it, they deserve it!”
>
A: ‘Cuz they too would like to oust Pres. Trump & return to the days of ‘biz as normal’\lining their own pockets.
Silly is as silly does. York, a NeverTrumper, is engaging in wishful thinking.
Irrelevant noise by the DNC directed Fake Media. To start win “Quid pro quos” are normal operating process of Diplomacy. We absolutely should be concerted that foreign aid be used appropriately and not to fund corruption. W
Even if this spin were true, which is doubtful since we only have the Democrat Fascist noise machines “analysis”, the fact Sondland told someone something is meaningless.
If true, what it indicates is that Sondland assumed something directly contrary to the President’s direction. In the 4th he specifically said the President Trump directed “no quid pro quo”
What the Democrat Fascist media is doing is manufacturing spin around paragraph 5 and totally ignoring paragraph 4.
If the GOP does not fervently support Trump, it’s the end of the party. They will be relegated to minority status and get the smaller half of the corrupt benefits they all seek.
Why are the Democrats so dead set against investigating corruption?
Trump has a legal obligation CREATED BY CONGRESSS to certify that Ukraine is making serious efforts to halt corruption before it receives US aid. Is Trump’s crime that he thought they meant it?
You recall incorrectly. York was never a nevertrumper. In fact, during the period I was demoralized by Trump’s rise I got the feeling he was in the tank for York. Eventually I calmed down and came to see him as the Salena Zito sort. He is a straight shooter, like journos are supposed to be.
I never read anything by York that makes me think he is a nevertrumper. Including this piece.
I’m all for just getting on with it.
Go ahead, Nancy, have your phony impeachment, vote it in and send it to the Senate.
The Senate can say not guilty and we can get on with the 2020 election.
My prayer is your party loses enough House seats to take you gavel away from you AGAIN.
It seems every time you get in charge you blow it on stupid crap everyday Americans do not want.
You’re politically stone deaf.
York is merely a good reporter. He follows stories whether they are favorable or unfavorable to anyone. If he had a negative scoop on Trump he would publish it.
I’m pretty sure Byron York hasn’t read the transcript either.
+++++
I’ll take that bet.
Byron York is both a straight shooter and one of the very best supporters we have in the media. The was a pro-Trump article, start to finish.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.