It Looks Bad, But Who Knows What was Really in the President’s Heart

It Looks Bad, But Who Knows What was Really in the President’s Heart

This is true. None of us knows what the President was thinking, and this may be his best defense. Similarly, one does not know what is in the heart of the man in a mask pointing a gun at the bank teller and handing them a note saying “give me all the money.” He could just be making an ordinary withdrawal while exercising his Second Amendment rights and making an unusual fashion choice.

A reasonable person, looking at the evidence and witness testimony, would conclude that the President was abusing his power.


For more info, visit Trump-Ukraine Central


– rob rünt

All Testimony was Meaningless Because the Whistleblower Didn’t Testify

All Testimony was Meaningless Because the Whistleblower Didn’t Testify

This is similar to saying that the witnesses to a bank robbery have nothing of value to say unless it is made known who called the cops. The tipster’s identity is irrelevant if there is evidence of a crime.

The push to expose the Whistleblower was an attempt by Republicans to delegitimize the hearings. They knew that, realistically, the Whistleblower’s life would be in danger if his or her identity was made public, and for that reason, the Democrats would not force the Whistleblower to testify. By raising this as an issue, Republicans could make it appear that the Democrats were trying to hide some important piece of evidence that would vindicate the President.


For more info, visit Trump-Ukraine Central


– rob rünt

The Hearings were Unfair or Illegitimate

The Hearings were Unfair or Illegitimate

The way Adam Schiff ran the impeachment hearings was not ideal. He continuously silenced Republican members and would not allow many of their requested witnesses to testify. He also had a clear bias against the President.

However, his role was to uncover evidence of wrongdoing by the President, which he did, and Republican members often appeared to want to call irrelevant witnesses and divert the topic into conspiracy theories.

Objectively, it seems that it would have been appropriate for Hunter Biden or Joe Biden to have been called to testify, and Schiff prevented that from happening.

Ultimately, the hearings themselves may not have been completely fair, and some could argue that the impeachment hearings for Bill Clinton and Richard Nixon were not completely fair. However, the law was followed, the process was legitimate, and an impeachment investigation is absolutely the correct, appropriate, and Constitutionally required action when a President appears to have abused his or her power.


For more info, visit Trump-Ukraine Central


– rob rünt

The Democrats Keep Changing the Charges

The Democrats Keep Changing the Charges

“The offense itself changes depending on the day, ranging from quid pro quo, to extortion, to bribery, to obstruction of justice, then back to quid pro quo.”

Devin Nunes
U.S. Representative, CA and Ranking Member of the House Intelligence Committee
(11/21/19)


Most of these are synonyms. “Quid pro quo” is Latin meaning “that for this,” and is a description of bribery. From a legal perspective, bribery and extortion are the same thing, involving an attempt to persuade someone to do something in exchange for something else.

Obstruction of justice is a separate charge, and refers to the actions taken by the President to hide evidence, prevent witnesses from testifying, and intimidate witnesses and members of Congress – acts that the President engaged in during the impeachment hearings.


For more info, visit Trump-Ukraine Central


– rob rünt

This is How Politics Works: We Pressure Other Countries

This is How Politics Works: We Pressure Other Countries

“I have news for everybody: get over it. There’s going to be political influence in foreign policy. That is going to happen. Elections have consequences, and the foreign policy is going to change from the Obama administration to the Trump administration.”

Mick Mulvaney
White House Chief of Staff
(Press conference on 10/18/19)


It is absolutely true that the United States pressures other countries to enact policies that we agree with. We often use financial pressure and “carrot and stick” tactics. The difference here is that those actions are taken for America’s national security interest, not for an individual’s personal interest.


“I found the July 25th phone call to be unusual, because in contrast to other presidential calls I had observed, it involved discussion of what appeared to be a domestic political matter.”

Jennifer Williams
Official at the State Department detailed to Vice President Mike Pence
(11/19/19)


“I couldn’t believe what I was hearing. It was probably an element of shock, that maybe in certain regards, my worst fear of how our Ukraine policy could play out was playing out, and how this was likely to have significant implications for U.S. national security.”

U.S. Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman
National Security Counsel Ukraine Expert, Director for European Affairs
(11/19/19)


“In retrospect for the Ukrainians it would clearly have been confusing. In hindsight, I now understand that others saw the idea of investigating possible corruption involving the Ukrainian company Burisma as equivalent to investigating former Vice President Biden. I saw them as very different — the former being appropriate and unremarkable, the latter being unacceptable. In retrospect, I should have seen that connection differently, and had I done so, I would have raised my own objections.”

Kurt Volker
Former US Special Envoy to Ukraine
(11/19/19)


For more info, visit Trump-Ukraine Central


– rob rünt