Giuliani: Ukraine quid pro quo intended to benefit Trump personally

margaux

Giuliani is the gift that keeps on giving. He incriminated Trump with a Tweet.


This opinion piece was published in the Washington Examiner, a RW media source often quoted by Trumpers.

After the White House released the transcript of the July 25 call between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump had a defense. He could argue that his mention of the $400 million aid package for Ukraine, and his suggestion that Ukraine investigate Joe and Hunter Biden and Burisma Holdings, did not make the former contingent on the latter.

But Ambassador William Taylor's opening statement to the impeachment proceedings indicated that the aid was indeed being made conditional upon the announcement of an investigation. And so Trump's best defense at that point was that they were only linked insofar as Trump cared about investigating Ukrainian corruption, including Biden.

Then, after the House Intelligence Committee released Ambassador Gordon Sondland's addendum to his testimony yesterday, Trump's best defense was to claim that Sondland went rogue when he specifically demanded a "statement" committing to a Biden investigation rather than just an investigation.

At every point, the core argument Trump has needed to make is that presidents initiate quid pro quos all the time, not for their personal political interests, but for that of the people they're elected to serve.

But Rudy Giuliani might have just blown up whatever remains of that defense.


Here, the president's personal attorney has conceded that he used formal diplomatic channels and the powers of the Oval Office to prioritize Trump's personal gain over that of the people.

Trump's only option at this point is to throw Giuliani and his back-channel under the bus.

It's evident that Burisma only hired Hunter Biden for access to his father, even though it's unclear that the vice president ever allowed the oil company or his son to exploit that connection. Furthermore, we know for a fact that Ukraine favored Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election. But we have diplomatic channels and strategies to combat legitimate corruption and investigate malfeasance. Furthermore, Trump's personal legal defense should not involve using the powers of the presidency — potentially without the property security clearances — to gain exculpatory evidence.

For a personal attorney to use congressionally approved aid to advance a president's personal interests over national interests is unconscionable. If Trump signed off on that, then yes, it's clearly an impeachable abuse of power that proves he's willing to illicitly interfere with the 2020 election.

https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/giuliani-ukraine-quid-pro-quo-intended-to-benefit-trump-personally

SaveComment5Like1
Comments (5)
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie)doineedtoaddanamehere(8a)

Bump

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
chase_gw

Wonder if the Republican Senate will call RG as a defense witness........my bet is not. Wonder if they will call any defense witnesses at all.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
miss lindsey (stillmissesSophie)doineedtoaddanamehere(8a)

What I find particularly curious is that so many people are willing to defy white house orders not to respond to subpoenas in order to give evidence against Donald Trump—but no one will defy those orders to testify for him.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
Izzy Mn(4)

Trump and Guiliani are now throwing each other under the bus. Is Guiliani not counting on a presidential pardon? Will he sing like a bird to help any legal trouble he may be in?

This would be entertaining if it were not so sad this is happening.

Save    
Thank you for reporting this comment. Undo
BetsyJ

Bill Barr’s screw-up on the whistleblower complaint set the stage for Trump’s impeachment – here’s how

According to a report in the Daily Beast, Attorney General William Barr could have forestalled the impeachment proceedings against Donald Trump if he had simply followed standard procedures when the Justice Department was given the now pivotal government whistleblower’s complaint to investigate.

According to the Beast, Barr’s hubris may eventually contribute to Trump’s ouster because he believed his DOJ could bury the whistleblower report.

Barr’s DOJ set out to prevent the whistleblower’s grave allegations against the president regarding Ukraine from even coming to light, let alone being investigated,” the report states. ” It was the DOJ that instructed acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire to violate his express statutory obligation to turn over the whistleblower’s complaint to Congress. The DOJ went so far as to create a widely mocked opinion from the previously respected Office of Legal Counsel purporting to justify this audacious violation of the law. “

However, as Barr came to find out, the future of investigating the complaint fell on the DOJ’s criminal division, and that is where things went awry.

“As later came to light, the DOJ’s Criminal Division claimed that it had exclusive jurisdiction to investigate the merits of the whistleblower’s claim,” the Beast reports. “In a DOJ that followed normal-course ethical and law enforcement standards, the attorney general (who, rightly or wrongly, had been directly implicated in potential misconduct by the president) would have recused himself and the deputy attorney general would have appointed a special counsel, as occurred in the Russia investigation.”

“The criminal division then apparently closed its file, without conducting any factual investigation into what turned out to be a wide-ranging criminal scheme involving numerous high-level government officials, including the president,” the report states, which, in turn, led to the intelligence community’s inspector general stepping in and finding the complaint met a statutory “urgent concern” standard and that Congress needed to be alerted.

Save    
Browse Gardening and Landscaping Stories on Houzz See all Stories
Selling Your House Staging vs. Decorating: What's the Difference?
Unlike decorating, staging your home isn't about personal style — it's about creating ambiance and appeal for buyers
Full Story
Most Popular From Queasy Colors to Killer Tables: Your Worst Decorating Mistakes
Houzzers spill the beans about buying blunders, painting problems and DIY disasters
Full Story
The Art of Architecture Design Workshop: Is It Time to Let Basements Become Extinct?
Costly and often unnecessary, basements may become obsolete — if they aren’t already. Here are responses to every reason to keep them around
Full Story