Explosive new revelations just weakened Trump’s impeachment defenses

. . . That possibility is underscored by the Times report, a chronology of Trump’s decision to withhold aid to a vulnerable ally under assault while he and his henchmen extorted Ukraine into carrying out his corrupt designs.

The report demonstrates in striking detail that inside the administration, the consternation over the legality and propriety of the aid freeze — and confusion over Trump’s true motives — ran much deeper than previously known, implicating top Cabinet officials more deeply than we thought.

As early as June, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney worked to execute the freeze for Trump, and a top aide to Mulvaney — Robert Blair — worried it would fuel the narrative that Trump was tacitly aiding Russia. Internal opposition was more forceful than previously known. The Pentagon pushed for the money for months.

Defense Secretary Mark Esper, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and then-national security adviser John Bolton privately urged Trump to understand that freezing the aid was not in our national interest.

Trump was unmoved, citing Ukraine’s “corruption.” We now know Trump actually wanted Ukraine to announce sham investigations absolving Russia of 2016 electoral sabotage and smearing potential 2020 opponent Joe Biden.

The Times report reveals that top Trump officials did not think that ostensibly combating Ukrainian “corruption” (which wasn’t even Trump’s real aim) was in our interests.

Lawyers at the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) worked to develop a far-fetched legal argument that Trump could exercise commander-in-chief authority to override Congress’ appropriation of the aid, to get around the law precluding Trump from freezing it.

Beyond circular.

At first there was the anonymous media reports. Five authors listed on a by-line and some “high placed sources/leakers” and, “wow” that should do it. I mean, it’s the media who are all revered as being the ultimate source of what we think. They reported it, it must be true!!!

But that didn’t do the trick. As a matter of fact, it had the opposite effect of making people instantly assume the opposite of what the five by-line story told us to believe.

(Damn, that entire Russian Collusion crash sure put some nails in the coffin). What are they to do? What are they to do?

Ah ha!!!! Make the “high placed” anonymous sources/leakers into “whistleblowers.” But damn, that means the sourcing gets tested for whether or not it produced actual, firsthand knowledge. It didn’t, and makes one question all their sources, but forget that. Instead, they just keep shouting “whistleblower” and mix in some law profs.

Damn, that didn’t work. What are they to do? What are they to do? Going down in flames here!! I know, they can whip up a five author by-line story citing leakers and anonymous sources to breathe life into this. I mean, they are the media after all, they have instant credibility and tell us what to think.

Wash rinse repeat.

Cue Chaaaaaaaaas Shomaaaaaaah and his glasses on the Senate floor citing to a media report, from a media that was wrong in the first place, as being a “game changer!!!”

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.