General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsWe know what happened. Now it's time to compel Republicans to refute it or condone it.
We know what happened. Now its time to compel Republicans to refute it or condone it.
By Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/22/what-happens-next/?utm_source=reddit.com
"SNIP.....
This week we learned Republicans have no factual rebuttal to the bribery/extortion claim. No one on the July 25 call says the rough transcript is inaccurate. No one testified that he overheard the conversation between President Trump and U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland and can dispute Trump mentioning investigations. Go through every key fact, and aside from conflicts about how much Kurt Volker and Sondland knew (their obtuseness is not credible, says the very credible Fiona Hill), there is no significant factual dispute.
If there was any doubt Trump was soliciting a bribe a political favor for a political act after the July 25 call and after acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney confessed to a quid pro quo, Trump called into Fox & Friends on Friday morning, promoting the thoroughly debunked Crowdstrike conspiracy theoryand then confessing that is what he was asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate. Well, thats what the word is, Trump said. And thats what I asked, actually, in my phone call, if you know. I mean, I asked him point-blank, because were looking for corruption. Theres tremendous corruption.
He was repeatedly told that there is no evidence Ukraine conspired against him. It was his pathetic attempt to claim Russia had not assisted him in the 2016 election, but instead Ukraine had assisted Hillary Clinton. How that benefits anyone but Russian President Vladimir Putin is beyond me, but Trumps interest in having Zelensky make one specific announcement that included the Biden investigation was in fact soliciting foreign help to promote his political agenda. As Sondland said, There was a quid pro quo the meeting and aid were linked.
Trump could try to deny a quid pro quo if the condition he was placing on aid had been part of legitimate anti-corruption efforts. That, however, would require Trump to have shown interest in a single other aspect of Ukrainian corruption, to have told his foreign policy team that was what he was doing and to have said the words corruption during the two calls with Zelensky. In fact, his bag man Rudolph W. Giuliani was working with a corrupt former prosecutor to oust our corruption-fighting ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. Was Trump setting out a legitimate condition in our national interest, or did no quid pro quo occur at all? It seems Republicans must choose, because the two theories are mutually exclusive.
.....SNIP"
PJMcK
(22,048 posts)Good catch, applegrove!
Here's the final paragraph of the column:
Republicans will soon face a decision point: Do they support the Constitution or Trump.
The result of those decisions may very well determine the future of our nation.
lastlib
(23,286 posts)The GOPee and its allies are now confronted with a stark choice: Either STAND on the right side of infamy, or be BURIED by it. Choose Wisely.
Brother Buzz
(36,463 posts)then we look forward to seeing it. ...