If you were here with me yesterday, you know that a FOIA case resulted in an email release showing that Trump ordered the Ukraine money withheld just ninety minutes after his phone call with Zelensky. This makes it harder for Repubs to argue there was no quid pro quo, that Trump was concerned about corruption, it wasn’t about Biden (Biden was the only one mentioned), it becomes near impossible to separate the decision to withhold money from the phone call, with just ninety minutes in-between. But beyond filling in details we didn’t know, the email release is also demonstrating why direct witness testimony is still necessary, thus putting increasing pressure on McConnell as more and more details emerge. I am not the only one smart enough to put together the obvious: CNN’s Joe Lockhart on Monday argued that these new emails bolster Democrats’ case for the president’s impeachment and give them new justification to call for additional witness testimony. The emails also show just how little even we know at this late date. Who the hell is this guy who sent the emails? What does he do? And why did he know anything about it? The emails prove that Trump has succeeded in suppressing critical details in the story, even from people like us, political junkies that follow each move closely. Trump’s strategy to “give them nothing,” has worked, too well. “A lot of bad stuff has come out,” he said. “There’s been live witnesses, enough to impeach the president of the United States. If the whole story was out, you would dump it all out, dump it all out on Christmas Eve, and maybe there would be a couple more embarrassing little tidbits, and move on and say you’ve got what you need. They’re doing this because we don’t know the half of it. It is much worse than what we already know, which is why they’re fighting it in court.” Okay, okay, I admit that I have no idea what Lockhart is talking about in that paragraph, either. And he was a White House press secretary, so he is supposed to be able to put a few sentences together a little better than that. But I think he’s getting at the fact that there are LOTS of FOIA suits out there, probably too many for even DOJ to keep track of each little element. These lawsuits will result in cross-wise rulings, some denials, some wins, but ultimately, we are becoming privy to a better picture of what happened. As we continue to learn new details, the public – which already supports hearing from witnesses at 70% – might become increasingly frustrated with McConnell’s refusal to have any testimony. There is also the slight possibility that one of these FOIA releases will release the diamond in the rough, that tiny but necessary fact that proves the craven political selfishness at the heart of the entire matter. A piece of evidence so compelling even Republicans cannot really argue around it. No, it wouldn’t change votes, it might make the ultimate vote more politically painful. That’ is about the best we could do right now. But all things considered, I sure didn’t think we’d still be learning important new details this late in the proceedings. That is a surprisingly good news for […]
We continue to hear from Republicans that there is insufficient evidence of the Trump quid pro quo with Zelensky to impeach him. Yet each new revelation consistently builds upon the same story, not one bit of evidence released (in a trickle) ever casts doubt on the original charge. Late Friday, the DOD was forced to turn over emails showing that Trump officially decided to freeze Ukrainian aid just 90 minutes after speaking to President Zelensky. On that fateful day: Duffey sent an email to the Pentagon comptroller on July 25 that suggested Trump was asking questions about the $250 million in military aid that Congress allocated to Ukraine after reading a Washington Examiner piece about in June. Notice the cover in there? “After reading a Washington Examiner piece …” There is no possible way that Trump had questions about the aid because of a Washington Examiner article, Trump doesn’t read. “The email raises further questions about the process by which Mr. Trump imposed the hold on the military aid, and the link between the hold and the requests he made of Mr. Zelensky in the telephone call, which prompted concern among national security officials with knowledge of the conversation,” said The Times. “Raises further questions?” Were there ever any questions to raise? Maybe early on, but since then we’ve seen nothing but a drip drip drip of evidence that all points in the same direction. He did it. Surprise! As Mulvaney bragged; “Get over it.” But the revelation becomes more important as it appears to shed light on why Trump continues to hide or withhold testimony from White House officials who have direct knowledge of all that happened. This email from Michael Duffey—approximately 90 minutes after President Trump’s call with the president of Ukraine—is all the more reason why we need Duffey and others to testify in a Senate trial. The “sensitive nature”? What is that about? pic.twitter.com/P6kNKEfIOV — Chuck Schumer (@SenSchumer) December 21, 2019 Schumer needs to find a way to catch the country’s attention with this. We need six out of ten Americans furious with the fact that Trump won’t allow testimony from the people “that were there.” We cannot allow Trump to claim “hearsay, hoax, no evidence,” while also continuing to assert executive privilege to block testimony from the people that know the very most, the ones with direct testimony, like Duffy. Schumer should make it a New Year’s resolution to make every American know Duffy’s name, and all those facts to which Duffy could testify. Every interview, on every channel, the Democrats need to continue to pound on each new bit of evidence that finds a crack to the outside. It never controverts or conflicts with the Democrats’ theme. Because, surprise, “He did it.” But we won’t get over it. ***** Peace, y’all Jason firstname.lastname@example.org
Sometimes people in Washington get it plain wrong!
If conservatives support police killing citizens without justification, climate denial, fact denial, science denial, racist and misogynistic behavior, or a litany of other absurd points of view about numerous important issues, we call them out.