Volker and Sondland appear to scurry to seal the deal
The Guardian has a helpfully concise summary of the texts issue.
Just before midnight Thursday, three House committees involved in the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump released a letter advising colleagues of discoveries they had made over the course of nine hours of testimony that day by Kurt Volker, the former US special envoy to Ukraine.
Attached to the letter were six pages of transcripts of text messages among Volker; acting US ambassador to the Ukraine Bill Taylor; US ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland; and an aide to Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelinskiy.
I was misled by the matching “ambassador” titles earlier this morning until I read further. Bill Taylor is a career diplomat, a civil servant; Gordan Sondland is a hotel tycoon and big Trump donor. The two “ambassadors” have radically different loyalties and motivations and qualifications.
The text messages capture a running conversation among the diplomats about how to fulfill a demand from “Potus” and his personal agent, Rudy Giuliani, that Zelinskiy make a public statement that Ukraine would investigate a company tied to Hunter Biden, Joe Biden’s son.
In exchange for the public statement, the diplomats dangle an official White House invitation for Zelinskiy. Also on the table is a large military aid package for Ukraine that Donald Trump had suspended.
While Volker and Sondland appear to scurry to seal the deal, (“I think Potus really wants the deliverable,” Sondland writes), Taylor uses the text exchange to memorialize what he believes is outrageous conduct. “As I said on the phone, I think it’s crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign,” he says in one text.
Sondland replies, implausibly, that nobody is talking about a quid-pro-quo here.
At the center of the current impeachment inquiry against Trump is the allegation that he used the power of the presidency to wrest help for his political campaign from foreign countries.
Many people read the text exchange as jaw-droppingly powerful evidence of exactly that conduct.
All week I’ve been saying you never see direct written evidence of a quid pro quo. I stand corrected.
I keep imagining him walking around the last couple months asking “can you say that again a little more clearly and right into this lapel?”
Breathe.
I’ve always joked that this is going to end in such chaos the whole Trump clan will end up fleeing to Russia. Now I actually don’t think it’s a joke. In fact, I think it’s a plausible outcome. I can more easily imagine Trump fleeing the country than I can imagine him agreeing to sit down to be grilled in public by Congress.
It’s a nice thought, but I can’t imagine the scenario.
First, he’s not going to “sit down to be grilled in public by Congress.” Neither Andrew Johnson nor Bill Clinton testified or appeared during their impeachment trials. Any attempt to compel Trump’s testimony would almost certainly require a trip to the Supreme Court that would delay things unnecessarily, so I can’t imagine the Democrats would bother. (Mueller had the same reasoning, and he had less time pressure to worry about.)
Second, by far the most likely outcome right now is still impeachment by the House and acquittal — possibly in summary fashion via a motion to dismiss — in the Senate. Then we hope Trump loses the election, in which case he almost assuredly pardons everyone in sight, including himself, during the lame duck period. Can the President pardon himself? Dunno — ask John Roberts. Prosecuting Trump will also require a trip to SCOTUS to clarify the pardon issue, and if that hurdle is cleared, you’ve got to find a jury that will unanimously vote to convict — meaning all it takes is one MAGA-head who wants to become an instant Fox News celebrity with a best-selling book and appearance fees on the conservative grift circuit (meeting soon at a Trump hotel near you!) to hang the jury. Then years of appeals, during which time Trump is still out on bail because nobody wants to deal with the logistics of locking up an ex-President. Getting a final conviction and prison sentence before Trump dies or a future GOP president pardons him will be a difficult needle to thread, and whichever Democrat ends up as AG in 2021 will be sorely tempted to just let it go.
Even in the best-case scenario, where 20-some GOP senators decide to do their constitutional duty and remove him from office, you’ll still have the last-minute pardon scenario. Though in that case, Fox News and most of the conservative movement will probably have deserted Trump, so things become a little easier.
Don’t get me wrong — I’m glad these revelations have come out. I’m pro-impeachment, both morally and politically. I even think there’s a slight (5-10%) chance of removing him now. But Trump in an orange jumpsuit, or fleeing to Russia, I think remains in the category of fantasy.
Forgive my lack of knowledge on the subject (I didn’t grow up on the States), but didn’t Clinton have to testify before some Congress-controlled committee or other before impeachment happened? The whole “meaning of ‘is'” thing? I’m hazy about how all this works.
Still, I have a hard time imagining Trump agreeing to be scolded in front of any kind of panel, given his present mental state.
Clinton testified in a deposition in the Paula Jones civil case, and before the grand jury run by special prosecutor Kenneth Starr. Not before Congress, though of course Congress had access to and considered the recorded testimony.
Technically, he wasn’t “in front of” the grand jury, either — his testimony was videotaped in the White House, with his counsel present, pursuant to an agreement worked out between Clinton’s lawyers and Starr.
Frankly, any Trump testimony before Congress would be a joke. Look at what Corey Lewandowski did — refused to answer any hostile questions, either outright or through stalling tactics, while using the friendly questions from GOP members to give self-serving speeches. When a witness doesn’t fear any consequences (being held in contempt, or simply losing the support of the jury), there’s really not much to be gained from calling him. Dems don’t need Trump’s testimony to impeach him anyway; he’s said it all in front of news cameras and in his own documents.
.
Slightly OT, but I think relevant, is the lived experience of Australias, especially those in Queensland who suffered under an increasingly authoritarian state government of Joh Bjelke-Petersen. The economy was booming, but the authoritarian mindset had to become stronger to hide the stench of corruption starting to seep out.
When that government was finally removed, a Commission of Inquiry was established. Its findings led the jailing of 3 former Government Ministers and the former Chief Commissioner of Police.
A charge of perjury was laid against Bjelke-Petersen, but no conviction was obtained when a single Jury member was able to hold out and wear down the other 11 jurors until they had to give up with no verdict.
For those interested, an excellent Docudrama was made by the ABC and can be seen on Youtube.
Oops, earlier post munted entering my email address. Its was me, Ophelia.
Corey Lewandowski is not Donald Trump, though. Corey Lewandowski was able to heed his lawyers’ advice and remain calm and rebuff a public scolding from a panel of inquisitors. Donald Trump is one hundred percent unhinged at this point. He’s no Corey Lewandowski. I’m amazed Donald was able to get dressed in the morning today. If there’s any possibility at any point in this byzantine process to force Trump to sit in front of any kind of panel or tribunal to answer questions: I don’t think Trump would be capable of completing the task. Literally — I think he would not be capable of sitting in a chair and enduring a hostile interrogation, no matter how much or how little power, jurisdiction or authority such a panel actually has, in the real world. (At that level of American political reality, any semblance of the “real world” of fairness, justice, propriety or the rule of law is long gone by now anyways.)
@ScreechyMonkey,
Trump may be able to pardon himself for federal crimes, but he’d still be subject to prosecution by individual states. I’m pretty sure New York can find plenty of reasons to lock him up, even if they don’t have anything to do with his actions in office.
Yes, and that brings up the whole aftermath: what happens when Trump is no longer the president? It’s a piranha swarm of liabilities, civil and criminal. We can’t look to past precedent, because nothing this outrageous has ever happened before. So I genuinely think it’s at least in the realm of possibility that he will flee the country. I know, it sounds so crazy, right?! But then again, everything is crazy at this point. Propriety and precedent are not factors anymore. The only factor is: is it possible? Is it possible for Trump to flee to Russia to avoid prosecution? Yes, it is possible. Sounds outrageous (but that’s not a factor anymore); sounds utterly implausible (again, stop thinking like that); sounds utterly unprecedented (MmmHmmm now you’re thinking on the right track). Therefore, we need to actually consider the likelihood.
Yes, state charges are a possibility, but I’m not sure which state charges will not be time-barred by the time Trump is out of office. And more importantly, don’t confuse New York being a blue state with it being the kind of state that would prosecute the wealthy and powerful — there’s a reason Trump got away with his shit for decades there. NY is the state that actually asked a court to LOWER Jeffrey Epstein’s sex offender level. Maybe a really ambitious gung-ho state AG will actually chase after him, but there’s a lot of ifs there.
I’d be very happy to be proven wrong on this, but I would say all these scenarios fall into the category of “conceivable, but highly unlikely.”