XPost: alt.politics.republicans, alt.college.republicans, alt.politics.usa.republican
XPost: soc.women, alt.politics.corruption, alt.society.liberalism
XPost: or.politics, seattle.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

He appears to have left reality on hold since 2016 and his mind isn't
getting any sharper.

Democrats handled the impeachment hearing like pros. Republicans, less so
Moira Donegan


It was clear that Trump used his power to advance personal interests - and
that Republicans have no idea how to defend him


Wed 13 Nov 2019 2
‘Taylor’s testimony in particular emphasized that the withholding of the
aid was ordered by Trump himself.’ Photograph: Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee faced a nearly impossible
task as public hearings in the impeachment inquiry began today: they had
to present the multi-character, multi-part story of how the White House
and the president’s unofficial associates made American military aid to
Ukraine conditioned upon political assistance by the Ukrainian government
with Donald Trump’s 2020 reelection bid. They had to do this clearly and convincingly, and they had to do it while managing the theatrics and
combating the misinformation issued by Republicans. The odds were stacked against them.

But with the help of procedural interventions in the impeachment inquiry
that limited opportunities for Republican grandstanding, and a damning set
of facts presented by the diplomat witnesses, Ambassador William Taylor
and Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent, Democrats largely succeeded in presenting a clear and morally stark narrative of the President’s actions.
By the end of the hearing it was clear that there is little doubt that
Donald Trump used his power as president to advance his personal interests
in ways that are legally dubious and ethically abhorrent, and that
Republicans have little sense of how to defend him.

Advertisement

In their opening statements, the witnesses established the geopolitical
stakes of the American military aid to Ukraine, with Taylor making a moral
case for the need to protect and encourage fragile attempts at autonomy
and democratic reform in the young country, and Kent making a strategic
case for advancing American interests worldwide by encouraging prosperity
in Europe and checking Russia’s expansionist ambitions. Their point was
that withholding the aid was directly in contrast with American global interests, undermining both American principles and American objectives.

Next came the men’s timeline, in which they recounted how they came to
learn that the aid had been withheld, how they came to learn that its
release had been conditioned upon a public commitment to investigate Joe
Biden and his son, and how they encountered a series of officials from the State Department—who were bewildered and anxious about getting the money released—and from the Ukrainian government—who Taylor described as
“desperate” to get the aid so that they could use it in their ongoing war against Russian incursion in the country’s East.

Taylor’s testimony in particular emphasized that the withholding of the
aid was ordered by Trump himself. He recounted a conversation with
European Union ambassador Gordon Sondland in which Sondland claimed that
Trump had ordered the quid pro quo, while also saying that the president
had described the exchange as “not a quid pro quo.” In another new
revelation, Taylor described an anecdote that had been described to him by
an aide. On July 26, the day after Trump’s infamous phone call asking the Ukrainian president for “a favor,” the aide had been at dinner with
Sondland, who had made a call to Donald Trump. On the phone, the aide
could overhear Trump asking about the investigations, and heard Sondland
say that the Ukranians were “ready to move forward.” (Taylor also
repeatedly referred to the Ukrainian president’s scheduled appearance on
CNN to announce the investigations, which was narrowly averted when the
money was finally released in mid September.) After the call ended, Taylor
says that the aid asked Sondland what Trump thought of Ukraine. “He’s more interested in the investigations” than in Ukraine, Sondland allegedly responded.

Not knowing quite what to do with the avalanching evidence against the
head of their party, Republicans focused almost exclusively on the
secondhand nature of much of this information, with Representative Jim
Jordan in particular complaining that the witnesses did not have firsthand information, and saying that if the impeachment proceedings were in a
criminal trial, which they are not, then their testimony would be
inadmissible as hearsay.

It is true that much of what Taylor and Kent spoke about in the hearings’
first public day were things that other people had told them, information
about the President’s motivations and decision making processes that they
had gathered secondhand. This would be a legitimate complaint if
secondhand information was not the only information available to the
inquiry: witnesses with first-hand information about the events in
question, such as White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former
National Security Advisor John Bolton, have been prohibited from
testifying by the White House.

Another line of attack seemed to be the Ukrainian’s public statements
claiming that he did not feel “pressured” by Trump’s actions. Republicans
like Representative John Ratcliffe repeatedly read President Zelensky’s on
the record remarks out loud, asserting that these statements were sincere declarations of feeling, rather than what they are much more likely to be—political statements and strategic flatteries meant to assuage
President Trump, who is still in power and whose help Zelensky still
needs. Ratcliffe did not seem interested in Taylor’s description of
Ukrainian national security officials as “desperate” for the aid.

Minor displays from Jordan and Ratcliffe notwithstanding, the hearings
were blessedly free from the nonsequitor showboating that usually
characterized televised congressional hearings, in part because of a
procedural intervention that mandated that most of the questioning time
would be monopolized not by congresspeople themselves, but by appointed
staff attorneys for each side.

For the Democrats, this worked quite well, with their counsel, Daniel
Goldman, using his questioning time to draw out facts from the witnesses, establish a timeline, and eradicate any doubt of wrongdoing. For the Republicans, things did not go so well. The Republican counsel, Steve
Castor, appeared confused, underslept, and meandering, pursuing strange
lines of inquiry that appeared to be drawn from conspiracies theories of
the far-right internet and, in a lawyer’s rookie mistake, asking questions
that he did not know the answers to. He was flailing; but then again, so
were all of the Republicans.

It seemed quite clear to the congresspeople themselves that the Republican party was having a very bad day. When the Republican members spoke, they
tended to yell and conspiracize, accusing their Democratic colleagues of
unfair treatment and condemning the process. They were not so much trying
to exonerate the president as trying to perform for him as he watched on
TV. The Democrats, meanwhile, were calm, speaking in smooth tones,
refusing to take the bait offered to them by Republicans, and on the
whole, using their time with great efficiency. They were in uncommonly
good form, and seemed in quite good spirits. Things were going exactly as
they planned.

Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)

XPost: alt.politics.republicans, alt.college.republicans, alt.politics.usa.republican
XPost: soc.women, alt.politics.corruption, alt.society.liberalism
XPost: or.politics, seattle.politics, alt.fan.rush-limbaugh

He appears to have left reality on hold since 2016 and his mind isn't
getting any sharper.

Democrats handled the impeachment hearing like pros. Republicans, less so
Moira Donegan


It was clear that Trump used his power to advance personal interests - and
that Republicans have no idea how to defend him


Wed 13 Nov 2019 2
‘Taylor’s testimony in particular emphasized that the withholding of the
aid was ordered by Trump himself.’ Photograph: Sarah Silbiger/Getty Images Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee faced a nearly impossible
task as public hearings in the impeachment inquiry began today: they had
to present the multi-character, multi-part story of how the White House
and the president’s unofficial associates made American military aid to
Ukraine conditioned upon political assistance by the Ukrainian government
with Donald Trump’s 2020 reelection bid. They had to do this clearly and convincingly, and they had to do it while managing the theatrics and
combating the misinformation issued by Republicans. The odds were stacked against them.

But with the help of procedural interventions in the impeachment inquiry
that limited opportunities for Republican grandstanding, and a damning set
of facts presented by the diplomat witnesses, Ambassador William Taylor
and Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent, Democrats largely succeeded in presenting a clear and morally stark narrative of the President’s actions.
By the end of the hearing it was clear that there is little doubt that
Donald Trump used his power as president to advance his personal interests
in ways that are legally dubious and ethically abhorrent, and that
Republicans have little sense of how to defend him.

Advertisement

In their opening statements, the witnesses established the geopolitical
stakes of the American military aid to Ukraine, with Taylor making a moral
case for the need to protect and encourage fragile attempts at autonomy
and democratic reform in the young country, and Kent making a strategic
case for advancing American interests worldwide by encouraging prosperity
in Europe and checking Russia’s expansionist ambitions. Their point was
that withholding the aid was directly in contrast with American global interests, undermining both American principles and American objectives.

Next came the men’s timeline, in which they recounted how they came to
learn that the aid had been withheld, how they came to learn that its
release had been conditioned upon a public commitment to investigate Joe
Biden and his son, and how they encountered a series of officials from the State Department—who were bewildered and anxious about getting the money released—and from the Ukrainian government—who Taylor described as
“desperate” to get the aid so that they could use it in their ongoing war against Russian incursion in the country’s East.

Taylor’s testimony in particular emphasized that the withholding of the
aid was ordered by Trump himself. He recounted a conversation with
European Union ambassador Gordon Sondland in which Sondland claimed that
Trump had ordered the quid pro quo, while also saying that the president
had described the exchange as “not a quid pro quo.” In another new
revelation, Taylor described an anecdote that had been described to him by
an aide. On July 26, the day after Trump’s infamous phone call asking the Ukrainian president for “a favor,” the aide had been at dinner with
Sondland, who had made a call to Donald Trump. On the phone, the aide
could overhear Trump asking about the investigations, and heard Sondland
say that the Ukranians were “ready to move forward.” (Taylor also
repeatedly referred to the Ukrainian president’s scheduled appearance on
CNN to announce the investigations, which was narrowly averted when the
money was finally released in mid September.) After the call ended, Taylor
says that the aid asked Sondland what Trump thought of Ukraine. “He’s more interested in the investigations” than in Ukraine, Sondland allegedly responded.

Not knowing quite what to do with the avalanching evidence against the
head of their party, Republicans focused almost exclusively on the
secondhand nature of much of this information, with Representative Jim
Jordan in particular complaining that the witnesses did not have firsthand information, and saying that if the impeachment proceedings were in a
criminal trial, which they are not, then their testimony would be
inadmissible as hearsay.

It is true that much of what Taylor and Kent spoke about in the hearings’
first public day were things that other people had told them, information
about the President’s motivations and decision making processes that they
had gathered secondhand. This would be a legitimate complaint if
secondhand information was not the only information available to the
inquiry: witnesses with first-hand information about the events in
question, such as White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney and former
National Security Advisor John Bolton, have been prohibited from
testifying by the White House.

Another line of attack seemed to be the Ukrainian’s public statements
claiming that he did not feel “pressured” by Trump’s actions. Republicans
like Representative John Ratcliffe repeatedly read President Zelensky’s on
the record remarks out loud, asserting that these statements were sincere declarations of feeling, rather than what they are much more likely to be—political statements and strategic flatteries meant to assuage
President Trump, who is still in power and whose help Zelensky still
needs. Ratcliffe did not seem interested in Taylor’s description of
Ukrainian national security officials as “desperate” for the aid.

Minor displays from Jordan and Ratcliffe notwithstanding, the hearings
were blessedly free from the nonsequitor showboating that usually
characterized televised congressional hearings, in part because of a
procedural intervention that mandated that most of the questioning time
would be monopolized not by congresspeople themselves, but by appointed
staff attorneys for each side.

For the Democrats, this worked quite well, with their counsel, Daniel
Goldman, using his questioning time to draw out facts from the witnesses, establish a timeline, and eradicate any doubt of wrongdoing. For the Republicans, things did not go so well. The Republican counsel, Steve
Castor, appeared confused, underslept, and meandering, pursuing strange
lines of inquiry that appeared to be drawn from conspiracies theories of
the far-right internet and, in a lawyer’s rookie mistake, asking questions
that he did not know the answers to. He was flailing; but then again, so
were all of the Republicans.

It seemed quite clear to the congresspeople themselves that the Republican party was having a very bad day. When the Republican members spoke, they
tended to yell and conspiracize, accusing their Democratic colleagues of
unfair treatment and condemning the process. They were not so much trying
to exonerate the president as trying to perform for him as he watched on
TV. The Democrats, meanwhile, were calm, speaking in smooth tones,
refusing to take the bait offered to them by Republicans, and on the
whole, using their time with great efficiency. They were in uncommonly
good form, and seemed in quite good spirits. Things were going exactly as
they planned.

Moira Donegan is a Guardian US columnist

--- SoupGate-Win32 v1.05
* Origin: fsxNet Usenet Gateway (21:1/5)