Trump Releases Ukraine Conversation; Impeachment Open Forum (UPDATED)

UPDATE: 9/26 – The DNI complaint has been declassified and is available to the public. You can (and should) read it here.

UPDATE: 9/27 – Now the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s letter about the DNI complaint has been released to the public. You can read it here.  Readers should remember that the IG is a Trump appointee. He believes there is reason to believe laws may have been broken by the conduct described by the whistleblower and that the matter is of urgent concern.

……………………..

Yesterday was dominated by news of Nancy Pelosi directing House committees to explore articles of impeachment and then today President Trump released a summary of his conversation with Ukrainian president Zelenskyy.

You can read the summary of that conversation here.

My purpose with this post is to give regular readers a place to comment and contribute links to reactions from evangelical leaders on these topics. I haven’t seen anything specific from any of the usual suspects but I imagine they will come out soon with defenses of Trump. There are serious problems in the conversation with Zelenskyy and I hope some evangelical leaders will think of the country first.

UPDATE: Hunter Biden did nothing wrong according to Ukrainian prosecutor at the heart of the Trump controversy.

93 thoughts on “Trump Releases Ukraine Conversation; Impeachment Open Forum (UPDATED)”

  1. Then why is Dad so defensive? Why is he shirking interviews? Far be it from me to judge if a foreign company decides to pay an American board member $50K a month, but what were his qualifications outside of “Biden”? And why would anyone who wants a middle-of-the-road perspective on this ever expect to believe anything published by the Washington Post or CNN? They are no less a mouthpiece for the DNC than Fox is for the RNC. In fact, in 2019, they’re probably worse.

    1. Your whataboutery and false equivalencies in this comment section aren’t working. Better find another obfuscation tactic to hide behind.

    2. I had forgotten about “magat”. A very clever pun indeed! Maybe someday we can work our way up to effective meme-ing.

    3. Any good father will defend his child against false accusations.

      what interviews has Biden “shirked”?

      “what were his qualifications outside of “Biden”?”

      He is a lawyer. He previously served on the board of directors for Amtrak as well as World Food program USA. He has experience as a venture capitalist. what qualifications do you think he needed to have to be on that board of directors?

      1. In other words, a nepotist if there ever was one. If he’s qualified for all these lofty positions, then so is Jared Kushner. Or neither are. Which one will it be?

        1. You didn’t answer my questions: What qualifications do you believe Hunter Biden needed to be on that board that he didn’t have?

          I have no idea whether Kushner is qualified to be on the board of directors for Burisma. I don’t see how it matters one way or another.

  4. AAAAACCCKKK! I wish Pelosi & Co. would slow down. There needs to be time to convince the doubters that Trump is as corrupt as they say he is. Their apparent desire to focus tightly on Trump’s demanding a quid pro quo for aid to Ukraine is going to make their chances of not getting a guilty verdict so much greater than if they covered more of the huge number of instances of corruption available to them. While not every Senator is likely to be convinced by the evidence on every charge, enough may be convinced to vote by a 2/3 majority on at least one charge. If there are several charges, Trump has to be found guilty on only one of them to be removed from office.

    Spell them out in detail, in every media possible, until EVERYBODY at least knows about them, preferably–in my opinion–all the way up to the 2020 election. Democrats don’t necessarily have to send their information to the Senate, which, unless things change considerably, wouldn’t vote Trump guilty, no matter what. If voters know, and still vote for Trump, then we deserve what we get–to have the Republic dismantled in Trump’s second term.

    1. Actually the impeachment inquiry IS going to be looking into ALL the various examples of corruption by Trump, not just the latest.

      The concern I have is that too many democrats in congress will just be interested in using the inquiry to hurt Trump (and other republicans) politically, rather than doing their jobs and properly investigating Trump.

    2. Actually, rightly or wrongly, a lot of Democratic supporters have grown extremely frustrated by Pelosi’s slow roll over impeachment, arguing that the fallout of the Muller investigate was enough to get the ball rolling. I doubt she’s suddenly going to go wading in all guns blazing.

      While the moral imperative for impeachment is pretty clear, the unavoidable political calculation is much murkier. I really have no idea what impeachment, slow or fast, is going to do the election chances of the eventual Democratic challenger next year.

    3. Actually, rightly or wrongly, a lot of Democratic supporters have grown extremely frustrated by Pelosi’s slow roll over impeachment, arguing that the fallout of the Muller investigate was enough to get the ball rolling. I doubt she’s suddenly going to go wading in all guns blazing.

      While the moral imperative for impeachment is pretty clear, the unavoidable political calculation is much murkier. I really have no idea what impeachment, slow or fast, is going to do the election chances of the eventual Democratic challenger next year.

  5. Dr. Throckmorton, I wonder if you intend to continue your earlier coverage of NRA corruption given additional reports that the NRA functioned as a “foreign asset” for Moscow leading up to the 2016 election.

    Unfortunately for the NRA, their followers over at Patheos Evangelical, and every politician financially tied to the NRA, these substantial ethical and legal concerns will not be going away anytime soon.

    1. Ah, the Odious Jeffress, who wouldn’t recognize Jesus of Nazareth if he stumbled over him on the Jericho Road.
      The Constitution also does not say, “One man, one vote,” so vote early, and vote often.

  7. Just added this to the post:

    Now the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community’s letter about the DNI complaint has been released to the public. You can read it here: https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/26/politics/read-icig-report-dni-whistleblower-complaint/index.html Readers should remember that the IG is a Trump appointee. He believes there is reason to believe laws may have been broken by the conduct described by the whistleblower and that the matter is of urgent concern.

  9. If the president suspects a federal official has been abusing his powers to coerce favours from a foreign government, isn’t he supposed to investigate that, and to talk to that foreign government to try to get to the bottom of it? The fact that this is a political opponent means it is indeed politically charged and there is a conflict of interest, but isn’t it his responsibility to ensure that the matter is looked into?

    Don’t get me wrong, Trump is no angel. But I don’t think this particular issue is as big as it’s being made out to be. We can’t let legitimate dislike of Trump and his character lead us into jumping on every bandwagon.

    2. Except Biden is NOT a federal official. He is a candidate for the democratic presidential nomination.

      Further, IF the president suspects wrong doing by someone in the US government, then he would ask the appropriate US government agency (i.e. FBI, CIA, NSA etc) to investigate.

  10. … I hope some evangelical leaders will think of the country first.

    Fat chance… I fear this lot of Court Evangelicals are in it for the power, and have irrevocably tied themselves to Trump’s apron strings.

  11. Franklin Graham did weigh in on Twitter earlier in the week:

    “I wish President @realDonaldTrump’s
    enemies would give it a rest. For 2 years all the American people heard
    was collusion. Not true. Then accusations seemed to come out of the
    woodwork by various women. Then all we heard was impeachment. Now it’s a
    whistleblower claim.”

    1. And your point? (…other than Frankie Graham is a power-hungry MAGAt who’s hitched himself irretrievably to Trump’s destiny.)

    2. And your point? (…other than Frankie Graham is a power-hungry MAGAt who’s hitched himself irretrievably to Trump’s destiny.)

          1. Yes, as Warren notes, I was responding specifically to his request to
            “contribute links to reactions from evangelical leaders on these
            topics.” But since I am clarifying here, I will also say that I strongly
            disagree with Graham’s take on this, which (predictably) is to
            categorically defend everything Trump says and does, and to dismiss
            out-of-hand every critic and criticism of Trump. I believe we are seeing with Graham
            the inherent problem in serving two masters, and we are learning every
            day which one he is truly devoted to.

  12. I saw Zelenskyy sitting with the president* and giving answers to press questions. After carefully trotting out the “I am not pressured” answer that the president* wanted him to say, Zelenskyy then – just moments later- could not hide the look of betrayal on his countenance when Trump, without making eye contact with anyone (especially Zelensyy) gave a long windy remark that if Zelenskyy would only have a talk with Trump’s friend Vlad Putin, all this messy stuff between Russia and Ukraine would just so easily go away.
    President Zelenskyy looked like he felt a long, cold knife being put into his back. And I bet President Zelenskyy still hasn’t got his Javelins.

  13. I have uploaded a copy of the whistleblower report to the post. Everyone should read it. This is the point of decision for Republicans. I think it is much more likely today that conviction on the article or articles of impeachment could succeed.

    2. Dr. Throckmorton: on the issue of U.S. Evangelicals responding to these events, the Reverend Jim Wallis, founder of Sojourners, just posted an article today, “How the Impeachment of Donald Trump Could Help Us Rediscover Jesus.”

      Wallis is of course deeply despised by U.S. White Evangelicals, going all the way back to the mean-spirited condemnations from Falwell Senior and his followers.

      1. Wallis himself deeply despises white Evangelicals and writes about it regularly at Sojourners, where he and his staff paint them all with a very, very broad brush. Not all Evangelicals move in lock step with Jerry Falwell, but you wouldn’t know it from Jim’s “pleaful, heartfelt” call for them to renounce trump in a recent RNS article. I’m sure they’ll oblige–he really appeals to them while he’s rapping their knuckles.

        It’s interesting that he reserves his rancor for white Evangelicals, but not surprising given that he is more of a political figure than a religious one. Evangelicals don’t demonstrate the same widespread rancor toward nonwhite persons of faith who disagree with them politically. One clear indicator is their ardent support for Israel, despite the fact that 70-80% of Jews do not identify as socially conservative or Republican. Another is their ardent opposition to abortion, which affects African-American children disproportionately…though African Americans still vote Democrat around 90% of the time.

        I’m not an Evangelical. Not even a believer, but Wallis is no more of a good-faith participant in the culture wars than Robert Jeffress.

        1. Prove your accusation and leave a quote of Jim Wallis right next to Robert Jeffress threatening Civil War if the rule of law is followed. By all means, quote Jim Wallis threatening wide-scale murder. Go ahead, I’ll wait.

          1. You sound deeply triggered. And of course, predictably, expect me to counter with something I cannot deliver, rather than argue the essence of what I’m saying.

            I didn’t say Wallis is threatening civil war. I merely said he’s just as much a partisan hack as Jeffress. I know that’s triggering–cue the beloved “False equivalency!”–but it takes 5 minutes at Sojourners to see that they’re obsessed with white evangelicals, just like most on the “woke” left. Here’s something they recently excreted: https://sojo.net/media/anti-christ-politics-trump-era-0

            Fairly predictable trump-is-a-racist stuff. It must be deeply frustrating that nobody worries about being called a racist anymore. It’s a cudgel that a political wing continues to use with diminishing effect since is fundamentally incapable of reforming itself. And #45, a 90s Democrat, not only saw the ideological rot and walked away, but he’s pointing them in the right direction on how to salvage their movement, which absolutely does have moral merit. Instead, we see more of the same: the party loyalists, shrinking though they may be, remain under the delusion that the Dems have some high ground on “rule of law” or that Wallis is legitimately interested in “reclaiming Jesus”. Wallis is on par with Jeffress because wants to derail a democratically elected president using the same hyperbolic choreography that failed for two years during the Russia tinfoil hat conspiracy theory. Rinse and repeat. Like I said, he’s a political figure in religious garb. Pretty much the same as Falwell, really.

            As a centrist–which I know you will never grant me credence since I’ve flogged your sacred cow–it’s probably best not to get too steeped in the Gospel of any of these Elmer Gantrys.

          2. Thank you for confirming that Jim Wallis is in no way comparable to Robert Jeffress. Glad I could help you with your struggle.

          3. Indeed, he could be an even greater charlatan. Fortunately (like most progressive Christians) his reach is small and shrinking.

            Either way, glad I could help! Let the Civil War begin! Tee hee.

  14. with this being a debatable issue no matter what side of the fence you are on, with legal experts on both sides voicing their opinions, it appears this is another instance of the president doing something kinda stupid but legal.

    1. He need not break a law to be impeached. Not all things which are wrong for a president to do are illegal. This is what the process of impeachment is for. That said, if using financial duress to coerce a foreign government to investigate a domestic political rival is not illegal, it should be. And does anyone believe that the Ukraine did not feel pressure to find something on Biden at that point, even if it had to be manufactured? This is the kind of thing a president is never supposed to do, and it takes incredible partisanship to not see this as such. It is, however, exactly the sort of thing that Trump has done all his life, through attorneys or otherwise.

      1. Remember the clarion call of the GOP during the Clinton impeachment- “He lied!!”
        Guess who lies all the time , every day, multiple times. What is the count now? 2000 lies since inauguration? 3000 lies?

        1. Well, that was, silly as it sounds now, about lying to Congress. Apparently, that’s OK now, considering how many people do it without consequence.

          1. Actually the first lie was in court. Bill’s lawyer , Robert Bennett, managed to make a stipulation that when the word “sex” was used in court- “sex” only referred to sex that wasn’t oral sex. And though Bill could say he didn’t have “sex” with Ms. Lewinsky in court and be technically correct- the GOP folks were outraged. I always was of the opinion Bill should have just said what he did right from the start- and the American people likely would have thought much less of him- and then moved on.
            These days conservatives- even the fundamentalist Christian variety- don’t seem to mind if their leader (who is like a cult leader somehow) – is moral, ethical, has integrity – or even intelligence.That’s the really scary part.

      4. Eh. Lindsey Graham is a weather vane. He follows the way the wind blows–or maybe the way the people who give him campaign funds tell him to. He is not alone.

    2. The complaint which I have a link to in the post makes it clear that what the president did is more than stupid. It may be illegal and certainly is an abuse of power and a cover up of that abuse.

      1. further I suspect it is part of an overall pattern of abuse. I hope Trump’s tax records become available SINCE he has been in office. I specifically would like to see what stock trades he (or his companies/family) have made since he has been in office, esp. the activity around the times he has made tweets that caused the stock market to tank.

        1. You will probably find that he has paid no income tax for years, just like the big corporations that used carried interest to carry forward paper losses.

    1. We already know how it started (and given the pile of evidence for it, it’s hardly a “hoax”) — one of Trump’s campaign flunkies bragged about it to an Australian diplomat, who reported it to the FBI.

      This is their problem from Trump on down — they’re too darn stupid to know to keep their mouth shut about their own criminality.

    2. Oh, I don’t know, maybe Trump Junior welcoming a meeting with Russian agents, in Trump Tower, to get dirt on Hillary piqued their interest. Or Manafort’s activities. Or all the Russian oligarchs buying Trump properties.

      Hey, I’m just spitballing here.

  16. I’ve not come across any Evangelical responses in social media, but I imagine some will begin surfacing soon. History will not look kindly upon the Evangelical “Court Jesters” (coined by Dr. Throckmorton, but my wording is incorrect here?).

    Casual comments and posts on Facebook from Evangelical turncoats that are unsurprisingly in favor of impeachment include Frank Schaeffer, John Fugelsang, Dr. Susan Thistlethwaite, reverend Mark Sandlin and related groups such as the Christian Left and Vote Common Good. Most interesting will be what we hear from hegemonic Evangelicals and their multi-million dollar parachurch media empires that still hoard all the social capital and maintain the loudest clashing cymbals voices.

    1. Yeah, I haven’t seen any responses yet from the Court Evangelicals regarding this latest abomination. It will be interesting to hear, though I could probably write their lines for them.

  17. For what it’s worth, I think the “transcript” (which isn’t a transcript) confirmed what Trump and Giuliani have already copped to: Trump asked Zelensky, repeatedly, to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden, Joe Biden being at the time the frontrunner among potential Democratic candidates. This was why Pelosi went ahead and announced the impeachment inquiry before seeing the “transcript”. What they had already said was sufficiently damning to require the inquiry.

    This is the kind of behavior the Framers feared when they put impeachment into the Constitution. It is using the office of the presidency not to advance the interests of the U.S., but to advance the personal, political interests of Trump. There is no excusing it. It is time, past time really, to impeach Trump.

      1. Biden clearly committed quid pro quo…

        Evidence? No? I didn’t think so.

        The only quid pro quo is Trump holding up the military aid to Ukraine to pressure them into opening a bogus investigation into Biden. And no, none of the Pathological Liar-in-Chief’s ever-changing excuses for why he held it up hold any water.

      2. Biden clearly didn’t. In fact, every reputable organization, print or online, agrees that there is no evidence of wrongdoing by Biden. Biden didn’t ask for the prosecutor’s firing because he was going after his son (the prosecutor wasn’t even investigating Burisma at that point). Rather, he went after the prosecutor because every Western nation wanted him gone because he was corrupt. On the other hand, Trump responds to a discussion of what Ukraine wants for help by saying “I need a favor from you.” And then proceeds to ask for dirt to help his political fortunes. Not help for the U.S. Help with his reelection. That is solicitation of a thing of value from a foreign country in connection with an election, and is illegal. It is a total abuse of power.

      3. Republicans looking at the complaint tonight are disturbed by it and say it is troubling. The complaint was put forward by a Trump appointee. At some point, you are going to have to deal with reality as it is, not as you would like it to be.

          2. of course he sees it, that is why he is trying to shift the conversation away from what Trump did to what Biden did.

          5. My guess is that he will be impeached but not convicted. My hope is that his impeachment will ‘encourage’ the Republican Party to get its house in order. (As they say: “the last thing to die is hope!”)

          6. not “convicted”, you mean “not removed from office.” The senate trial isn’t a criminal trial. It is simply a trial to determine if he should be removed from office or not.

          10. I hope I never become so devoted to a political party or ideology that I can’t see wrongdoing and call it out. Since you clearly are, your opinions are of no value.

          12. Are we supposed to just pretend that you are making any sense here? You appear to be living proof that what Trump said was true about being able to shoot someone on 5th Ave. I’ve voted for both Republican’s and Democrats for president. I have no problem calling either out on their misdeeds. I have never seen a more clear-cut instance to do so than this. If all you can do is call the obvious facts a “hoax,” then your input is hardly useful.

          13. Big K is correct and I’m not the least bit devoted to a political party or ideology. Didn’t vote for trump in ’16 and am not (nor ever will be) a Republican. Have donated to two Democratic candidates so far (though neither stand a chance of winning).

            The only clear-headed analysis you can find is independent creators on YouTube. Which, of course, YouTube (who sides with the dying legacy media) is trying to suppress in favor of trashy corporate sites like CNN or Fox.

            Have you thought that you may be guilty of that which you are accusing your enemies of? And that this could very well be the defining ethos of the Democratic party? I mean, isn’t that one of the underlying strategies advocated in Rules for Radicals? I remember it being so, right up there with farting in a crowded theater, which sounds more like something trump would do. The idea that people can still think Rachel Maddow is more credible than Alex Jones defies belief. Both goofballs. One gets treated like it; the other is cited by academics.

          14. Have you thought that you may be guilty of that which you are accusing your enemies of?

            This Pee Wee Herman style retort is something Big K uses and I don’t see the purpose except to cause the other person to become defensive and derail the discussion.

            I’ve never heard of “Rules for Radicals” so I can’t comment. You get your current events insight from YouTube videos and you can’t see any difference between Rachel Maddow and Alex Jones. I think that is enough said.

          15. Yes, indeed, if you still think there is an ideological difference between Rachel Maddow, then the conversation truly does speak for itself. The only difference is Maddow hasn’t experienced widespread deplatforming in the wake of her tinfoil hat conspiracy theories. The only backlash she’s received has come in the form of precipitously declining ratings.

            What sort of discussion do you expect to have? An echo chamber where 100% of your statements get validated? The answer, as always, appears to be yes.

            It’s sad to say, but in 2019, saying you get your political analysis from Youtube is an edgy act of rebellion. Even though Youtube props up the legacy liars (CNN, MSN, Fox) the anti-establishment still shines through. The fact that a neckbeard in his/her basement can command as large of an audience as CNN doesn’t speak highly for your much-esteemed normie news, does it? How many more will get the pink slip well in advance of the Christmas bonus?

            I would think you’d know about “Rules for Radicals” though. Even though Saul Alinsky is broadly associated with the Left, these days it’s far more common to hear references from him on rightwing media, which of course, to the nu-Left, is nothing more than “antisemitic dogwhistles”. But then, isn’t everything?

          16. If you believe this forum to be so useless, why do you bother posting comments here, particularly this boring claptrap so common to the internet? Try engaging someone instead of these mini-monologues. I’m sure you enjoy writing them (which may be the answer to my first question), but that’s about as far as they go.

          19. Or maybe you have just become accustomed to your president doing things wrong and think nothing of it?

          20. No, you are the one engaging in the baseless conspiracy theories that: (i) the Russia investigation was a “hoax” (in spite of mountains of evidence that the Trump campaign were seeking Russian help getting dirt on Clinton), and (ii) that there was a ‘Biden quid pro quo’ (a claim that has no reality outside Dirty Donnie’s addled brain).

      4. Biden clearly committed quid pro quo…

        Evidence? No? I didn’t think so.

        The only quid pro quo is Trump holding up the military aid to Ukraine to pressure them into opening a bogus investigation into Biden. And no, none of the Pathological Liar-in-Chief’s ever-changing excuses for why he held it up hold any water.

    2. A week has passed, and this blog thread sure hasn’t aged well, has it?

      At some point the NeverTrumpers will have to peel themselves away from the echo chamber legacy newsmedia.
      Then again, it may just as easily die in their hands. Already happened to some of the little guys (Village Voice, Western Standard, Think Progress) and a few more are dying on the vine (Salon, BuzzFeed, Mic).

      1. Market forces. Many sites are charging for access now, as it sinks in that the Internet does not exist outside of economic laws. If I could access the sites I became used to reading for free, it would cost me literally hundreds of dollars per month.

        That of course means it costs others that kind of money, and there are just so many sites they will fork over money for.

        Advertising alone does not pay for this, as they are finally beginning to realize.

Comments are closed.