Originally posted by Mountain Man
View Post
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/31/u...peachment.html
Even this witness, a Trump appointee loyal to Trump, had this to say
This is the witness who claimed he saw nothing 'illegal' in the call itself, but that begs the question. In the call Trump asks Zelensky for a favor. The favor being the investigation of corruption that we know from other sources and other contexts was focussed on Biden and Burisma. In fact, we know from Vindman's testimony that specific mention of Biden and Burisma was in fact in this very call and removed from the official record of the call, even when Vindman pushed for it to be included.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/29/u...p-ukraine.html
We also know that officials in the Ukraine goverment were aware early on following the July 25 call. As early as the first week of August.
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/23/u...peachment.html
So we know that they understood the aid was on hold early in the process. We know that Trump had asked for a 'favor' at the point in the call where the aid was mentioned. That is a causal correlation. There is no credible claim these could not be correlated, and no diplomat worth his salt is going to miss that implication. The investigation was something Trump 'needed', with the direct implicit tie to the aid.
And the aid is held up. And Zelensky has NOT announced - publically - the investigation Trump has requested as a 'need' in relation to the aid itself in the July phone call. So Zelensky has not met Trump's 'need' and the aid is not coming.
Indeed, Mulvaney told us the aid was, in fact, tied to that 'needed' investigation:
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/17/u...p-ukraine.html
Now let's be clear hear. Mulvaney did not say - directly - that Trump held up the aid to forward his political interests by having Ukraine investigate Biden. But there is a Domino like cascade of facts here that drive that as the only logical conclusion:
Trump is asking 'needs' a favor. Trump 'needs' an investigation if Biden and Burisma. This is all very clear from the transcript. But that doesn't mean Trump is holding up the money to satisfy that need.
Yet we have testimony from Taylor and Vindman and now Mulvaney that the Aid was held up to force a 'corruption investigation'. And that (alone) doesn't mean the money was being held up to investigate Biden.
But these two sets to fact, taken TOGETHER, does. Because if the money was held up to force a public declaration of a corruptions investigations, and if that primary focus of that investigation is to include Burisma and specifically Biden and his son, the transitively we have:
Trump was holding up aid to force an investigation into Biden with 'general corruption' as it cover.
And we also know that Biden was Trump's most dangerous 2020 political rival at the time all of this is going down. The evidence then, confirmed through mulitiple avenues and independent testimony is that Trump was engaged in a Quid Pro Quo for personal, political gain. He 'needed' an investigation of his chief political rival from Zelensky, and Zelensky needed that money for weapons to sustain their fight against Russian aggression.
Jim
Comment