Tuesday, November 19, 2019

New Trump-Zelensky Transcript Undercuts Dems' Main Impeachment Claim on White House Visit




President Donald Trump has outmaneuvered impeachment-obsessed Democrats yet again.
Friday morning the White House released a formerly eyes only memo record — for all intents and purposes a transcript — of the first telephone call between Trump and then newly-elected Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky, dated April 21, 2019.
The transcript kneecaps one of the Democrats’ main impeachment claims, namely that part of the alleged Trump quid pro quo (or bribery as Democrats now call it after having focus-grouped the term) was the arrangement of a Zelensky visit to the White House.
The other piece of the alleged quid pro quo was the delivery of security aid to Ukraine (which the U.S. provided before Ukraine diplomats ever knew it was in question) in exchange for investigations of alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and alleged improprieties committed by Joe Biden’s son and potentially Biden himself.
The transcript, however, completely undercuts the White House visit claim in the quid pro quo accusation.
TRENDING: Fox News Anchor Shannon Bream's Eye Pain Was So Severe She Contemplated Suicide




Do you think the investigation is only helping Trump's chances of re-election?

99% (3863 Votes)
1% (44 Votes)
The new transcript of the older call records Trump saying to Zelensky, “When you’re settled in and ready, I’d like to invite you to the White House. We’ll have a lot of things to talk about, but we’re with you all the way.”
Further driving the nail into the coffin is Zelensky’s response: “Well, thank you for the invitation. We accept the invitation and look forward to the visit. Thank you again. The whole team and I are looking forward to the visit.”
Clearly, as far as Zelensky knew, the invitation for a White House visit had been extended and he had accepted it.
Regardless of State Department claims that the White House set pre-conditions on the meeting, the President of the United States had personally invited Zelensky.
Those claims take us to another point: Where were those pre-conditions coming from? Democrats point to text messages like this, reported in The Washington Post, from U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker to Zelesnky aid Andrey Yermack: “heard from White House — assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / ‘get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington.”
RELATED: Lt. Col. Vindman Appears To Have Outed Himself as Perjurer During Impeachment Inquiry
That’s all well and good as far as it goes, but it doesn’t go far. That text was sent on July 25, hours before the Trump-Zelensky call. Volker might have been saying one thing to Zelensky’s aid, but Trump said something very different to Zelesnky according to the July 25 transcript: “Whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel free to call. Give us a date and we’ll work that out. I look forward to seeing you.”
Again, Zelensky responded as if there were no pre-conditions (even after the Volker texts): “Thank you very much. I would be very happy to come and would be happy to meet with you personally and get to know you better. I am looking forward to our meeting…”
That’s a second invitation from Trump and acceptance from Zelensky.
So the order of things is
  • April 21: Trump invites Zelensky for the first time.
  • July 25: Volker texts with Zelesnky aid about pre-conditions for meeting
  • July 25 (hours after Volker texts): Trump invites Zelensky a second time; Zelensky accepts for a second time. No mention or implication of pre-conditions.
Democrats might point to U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor’s texts with Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland: “Are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations,” and “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.”
Sondland responded, “The president has been crystal clear no quid pro quo’s of any kind.”
He went on to text, “The president is trying to evaluate whether Ukraine is truly going to adopt the transparency and reforms that President Zelensky promised during his campaign I suggest we stop the back and forth by text.”
What was missing from that text? Anything along the lines of “the president will not honor his invitation to Zelensky until Zelensky does x, y, and z.”
This leaves the Democrats with a distinct problem: There’s zero proof that Trump himself had any preconditions for the meeting. All the Democrats have are texts among bureaucrats from the State Department (which is notoriously liberal, establishment and globalist) discussing what they say the White House wants.
In addition to that lack of proof, the Democrats also have to contend with Trump personally inviting Zelensky to the White House, not once but twice.
Trump had absolutely no reason to invite Zelensky if he didn’t plan to honor the invitation.
Remember, we’re all told that Trump’s a bully, a jerk, a cowboy who intimidates people and uses brute force to get them to do what he wants.
The transcripts were classified and would only come out if Trump released them. No one would ever read what was said there. So why, if Trump was going to play hardball, did he not start right then and there? Why invite Zelensky, no strings attached, just to turn around and have his minions reverse the invitation? If anything that would make Trump look weak, either unwilling or unable to handle his own dirty work.
This new transcript of the first phone call between Trump and Zelensky should destroy all claims of any quid pro quo involving a Zelensky White House visit.
The Democrats will, of course, ignore it. But come November 2020, voters may well remember yet another time Democrats have attempted to deceive them

Nunes Dismantles Schiff's Claim Ukraine 2016 Interference Is 'Conspiracy Theory'


GOP Rep. Devin Nunes of California did not let stand House Intelligence Committee Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff’s claim that Ukrainian interference on behalf of the Democrats in the 2016 election is a “conspiracy theory.”
During his opening statement at a public impeachment hearing on Friday, Schiff twice characterized Ukraine’s involvement in the 2016 election as a “conspiracy theory” put forward by President Donald Trump and his supporters.
In his July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, Trump asked the newly sworn-in leader if his administration could work with Attorney General William Barr, who is investigating how the FBI’s counter-intelligence probe into the Trump campaign was launched in the summer of 2016.
Robert Mueller — appointed special counsel by the Department of Justice in May 2017 — carried the investigation forward for much of the first two years of the Trump administration. Mueller testified about his inquiry’s findings before Congress the day before Trump spoke with Zelensky.
“As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it’s very important that you do it if that’s possible,” Trump said on the call.
TRENDING: Fox News Anchor Shannon Bream's Eye Pain Was So Severe She Contemplated Suicide
That request, along with the president asking if Zelensky could look into the circumstances surrounding former Joe Biden’s demand — made while Biden was vice president — that a Ukrainian prosecutor who had overseen an investigation into the Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings be fired, is what launched the Democrat-led impeachment inquiry.
By Biden’s own account, he said unless the prosecutor was fired before the then-vice president boarded a plane back to the U.S., a billion dollars in American aid would be withheld.
Biden’s son, Hunter, sat on the board of Burisma at the time, and reportedly earned at least $50,000 per month in that position.
That sounds a looks a heck of a lot like the corruption and quid pro quo that Schiff, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and the rest of the Democrats have been accusing Trump of, but have no evidence to support.

Do you think the impeachment inquiry is helping Trump politically?

97% (691 Votes)
3% (22 Votes)
Trump released the aid in mid-September, and Ukraine launched no investigation of the Bidens or the 2016 election interference.
Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, argued that until the intelligence community whistleblower came forward following the July 25 phone call, Democrats “showed little interest for the last three years in any topic aside from the ridiculous conspiracy theories that President Trump is a Russian agent.”
He then offered multiple instances where Democrats worked with Ukrainians during the 2016 race in an attempt to damage Trump’s candidacy.
“Even as they were accusing Republicans of colluding with Russians, the Democrats themselves were colluding with Russians by funding the Steele dossier, which was based on Russian and Ukrainian sources,” Nunes said.
RELATED: Lt. Col. Vindman Appears To Have Outed Himself as Perjurer During Impeachment Inquiry
The Steele dossier was used by the DOJ to obtain a Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act warrant to spy on Trump campaign adviser Carter Page.
“Meanwhile, they turn a blind eye to Ukrainians meddling in our elections, because the Democrats were cooperating with that operation,” Nunes added.
The lawmaker pointed to a July 2017 letter from then-Senate Judiciary Chairman Chuck Grassley of Iowa to then-Deputy Attorney General Rod Rosenstein in which the senator quoted media reports detailing that “’Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump’ and did so by ‘disseminat[ing] documents implicating a top Trump aide in corruption and suggested they were investigating the matter…’”
Grassley’s letter further noted that “Ukrainian officials also reportedly ‘helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisers.'”
The letter highlighted that at the center of the scheme was Alexandra Chalupa, “described by reports as a Ukrainian-American operative ‘who was consulting for the Democratic National Committee’ and reportedly met with Ukrainian officials during the presidential election for the express purpose of exposing alleged ties between then-candidate Donald Trump, Paul Manafort, and Russia.”
You’ll recall that in August 2016, then-Trump campaign chairman Paul Manafort resigned his post following the revelation of his past lobbying work for pro-Russian Ukrainian oligarchs.
Politico reported at the time, “In recent days, Manafort had lost the confidence of Jared Kushner, Trump’s son-in-law and one of his closest advisers, and other members of Trump’s family, according to a source close to the campaign.”
At Friday’s hearing, Nunes quoted directly from Grassley’s letter: “Chalupa’s actions appear to show that she was simultaneously working on behalf of a foreign government, Ukraine, and on behalf of the DNC and Clinton campaign, in an effort to influence not only the U.S voting population but U.S. government officials.”
Chalupa “publicly admitted to the Democrats’ scheme,” Nunes said.
So, there you have it: The Democrats actively worked with the Ukrainians to put together the Steele dossier, get Manafort fired and begin to link Trump to Russia in the eyes of the American public.
Through the impeachment inquiry, the Democrats appear to once again be accusing Trump of the very thing that they are in fact guilty of.

Dem Rep. Van Drew Breaks with Party Over 'Third-World'-Style Impeachment



Far from leading a bipartisan attempt to save the American republic, Democrats can’t even seem to get their party on the same page when it comes to impeaching President Donald Trump.
Now, one Democratic lawmaker is sounding off over his party’s impeachment push, likening the process to something you’d see in a European nation’s power struggle or in a destitute third-world country.
New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew spoke about his opposition to the impeachment process during a recent episode of “Maria Bartiromo’s Insiders” on Fox Nation.
“We have to understand, impeachment is something that’s supposed to be exceptionally unusual. It is supposed to be bipartisan. It is supposed to be fair,” Van Drew said.
Van Drew and Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson, both Democrats, turned heads when they voted against an impeachment resolution pushed by their own party weeks ago.
TRENDING: 'She's in a Cult': George Conway Reportedly Wants Kellyanne Out of the White House for Sake of Marriage
With the exception of those two rebels, the vote was largely split down party lines.
Van Drew and Peterson might be the only two House Democrats who see impeachment for what it really is — a powerful tool in the constitutional system of checks and balances that should only be used in grave circumstances.
Instead, it seems the left is using the hallowed process as a method to undo the results of the 2016 presidential election.
“This has nothing to do with whether you like Donald Trump, or don’t like him, or want to see him have a second term or win in an election,” Van Drew said.

Will more Democrats join these two lawmakers against the impeachment process?

80% (137 Votes)
20% (34 Votes)
“This has to do with the institution of impeachment itself and not misusing it.”
Although Van Drew may not be a fan of Trump himself, that doesn’t mean he wants to see him impeached.
The impeachment process “should be rarely used,” he told Fox Nation.
Many other Democrats, who have been calling for the Trump’s removal since his first day in office, seem to have a different view.
But not Van Drew, who said the impeachment of a president is “more like something you would see in Europe or third-world nations.”
RELATED: Lt. Col. Vindman Appears To Have Outed Himself as Perjurer During Impeachment Inquiry
Instead of trying to oust an elected official, the lawmaker hopes House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and others will begin working with the president to pass meaningful and effective legislation.
Citing the United States-Mexico-Canada Agreement and the need to improve America’s infrastructure as two things that Republicans and Democrats largely agree on, Van Drew suggested much can be accomplished if impeachment is shelved.
“So wouldn’t it be wonderful at the end of this presidency, to the benefit of both political parties, but most of all, to the benefit of Americans,” Van Drew said, “if we actually got some of these very important issues finished and taken care of instead?”
“We have a job. We need to do it,” the lawmaker said, “whether we always like each other or not, whether we’re the same party or not, whether we agree on everything or not. That’s the deal, that’s what we need to do.”
Unfortunately for America, it doesn’t look like Democrats are ready to throw in the towel on impeachment just yet.
Despite the fact that their case against Trump seems to be crumbling more and more by the minute, most Democrats appear determined to see this impeachment process out to its ugly conclusion.