Should Eric Ciaramella be summoned to testify

Impeachment Proceedings Against Trump - The Current State of the Senate Hearings

The impeachment proceedings in the Senate against Trump are currently running surprisingly quietly, at least if you compare it with the hearings in the House of Representatives. Still, there were some interesting reports.

The trial concerns whether Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine to press Ukraine to investigate the activities of Joe Biden's son, Hunter Biden. It's about corruption allegations against the Bidens, the details can be found here. The key question is whether Trump blackmailed Selensky and demanded something in return, a so-called quid pro quo, for US aid. This is not clear from the phone call (here you can find the wording of the phone call) between Trump and Selensky on July 25th, Trump raised the issue but did not put any pressure on it. He didn't need to, because Selensky himself has a domestic political interest in clearing up the corruption under his predecessor Poroshenko, you can find the details about allegations against Poroshenko here.

One of the questions that now arises is whether other witnesses will be questioned in the Senate. The Republicans with their majority can prevent that and they want to end the process quickly. Personally, I think that's a shame, I would have been delighted if the Biden had been questioned because it would have shed some light on the origins of the proceedings. Especially since Joe Biden has repeatedly said publicly that he will not testify in the Senate. The question here would have been whether he would have ignored an official summons and what would have happened then. But we won't find out if no witnesses are heard in the Senate.

That there will be a public interrogation of Biden is all the more unlikely since Trump's defense lawyers have also said that they did not want to "base their strategy around Biden".

Another witness who may be inconvenient for Republicans is former security adviser Bolton. He has just announced a book in which he accuses Trump of actually linking military aid to Ukraine to the start of an investigation against Biden, and Bolton is now suddenly ready to testify before the Senate, after he had always refused to do so.

However, Bolton has its own political agenda. He is a radical hawk who wanted to start a war against Iran and probably also against Venezuela. That might be the reason why Trump finally fired him, because Trump doesn't want any new wars. On the contrary, he promised his constituents that he would bring the US soldiers home and end the wars. A new war would almost certainly cost him re-election.

After Trump and Bolton have separated in a dispute, Bolton's statement should at least be treated with caution. He is an experienced politician who conducted international negotiations under Bush Junior and who certainly knows exactly how to spray a lot of poison at a hearing under oath without being guilty of perjury. Bolton may be telling the truth, but he would not, by itself, be a convincing witness in the trial.

Trump immediately denied Bolton's testimony and accused him of only trying to advertise his book.

Otherwise, the proceedings in the Senate are the usual theater, which is an inseparable part of politics, especially in the USA. The Democrats have urged Republican senators to follow their conscience, not the party line. That sounds good, but it's not reliable news.

Nevertheless, Der Spiegel naturally recorded it and once again presented everything as if Trump was undoubtedly guilty. The Democrats were quoted verbatim, while all statements made by the Republicans were presented as allegations. For example, it looked like this in the mirror:

“Even before the pleadings, you argued that the President was not guilty of anything. "Assumptions, guesses and speculations based on hearsay" are the only things the Democrats relied on. "

The problem is that the Republicans' claim is true. All the witnesses only said what they wanted to hear from someone or what impression they had of something. There was no witness who was there who could actually testify to anything from his own experience. Hence the Republican statement is that everything is based on "Assumptions, assumptions and speculations based on hearsay" factually correct. Here is a summary of all the testimony.

Unsurprisingly, the Republicans are now rejecting all allegations against Trump in their argument before the Senate.

It is absurd how the German media repeatedly report Trump's “threats”. So wrote the mirror:

“US President Donald Trump has sharply attacked the head of the prosecution in impeachment proceedings. Trump cursed Adam Schiff on Twitter as corrupt and "probably a very sick man". Trump also wrote that Schiff had "not yet paid the price for what he did to our country". "

Schiff called this a threat and that is how it can be understood. But you have to know how brutal the language has become in US politics. And that doesn't just apply to Trump. Leading Democrats also vexed Trump in the course of the proceedings and threatened him that he would pay for anything or even go to jail.

I don't believe in verbal battles like this, but that's how it works in the United States. Politics has nothing to do with factual issues there, it is only about headlines and verbal battles.

The German media, however, portray Trump as the only one making such threats against his opponents. And that is simply untrue. But since the German media want to demonize Trump at all costs, they cite every allegation against Trump and downplay the failures of the Democrats if they even report on them. Or they take over their formulations themselves and also demand that Trump be put in prison.

Everyone has their own opinion, but there is one thing they don't: It's not objective reporting, it's opinion-making. In other words, it is propaganda for one side and against the other.

Finally, a message about the upcoming US election campaign.

The Democrats will soon decide who will be Trump's opponent. The race is close, but so far Biden seems to be still leading, even as his lead is shrinking. Bloomberg also campaigned late last year, hoping to make it to the Democrats. His fear was that Biden would lose to Trump and so he was of the opinion that he now had to fix it himself.

It doesn't seem to work out. Billionaire Bloomberg has put $ 250 million in advertising out of pocket in a very short space of time, but it doesn't seem to be well received by voters. So far, in any case, he has been far behind the favorites in the polls and the decisive primaries will start in early February.

2 answers

  1. Do not take it amiss, but I see the German reporting on this topic, which, without mentioning the battle and the specific statements, declares that everything is just a power struggle, I can only laugh. I don't laugh at anyone, I laugh because the situation is laughable: the German mind doesn't like the kind of battle. I see that as an interesting cultural-political phenomenon.

    In a nutshell, just a few facts:

    1. Trump's legal team showed the Senate on Saturday - * showed *, not alleged - how Adam Schiff lied to them, the assembled Senators, 7 times. Of course, because the Senate is the "upper house" where people are kindly treated politely with one another, the lawyers did not speak of "lies", they showed how Schiff's statements were "not accurate".

    2. Bolton: Nobody knows what Bolton accuses Trump. The outcry is about a "leak" in the New York Times, with no quotes. Bolton himself is completely silent on his Twitter account, https://twitter.com/AmbJohnBolton. Bolton's book text was submitted to the NSC - National Security Council - because the NSC has to check whether there is any secret or security-relevant information in it. The government can prevent the publication of such information. Bolton's lawyer asserts that Bolton had not caused a "leak". This results in two possibilities: either anti-Trump moles are still active in the NSC, or the Dems are lured into a trap. The first possibility may have to do with the fact that a little over a week ago, the National Security Council Senior Director for European and Russian Affairs, Andrew Peek, was physically removed from the NSC office and opposed a "National Security Investigation" he runs.

    3. Trump's tweet:
    ✔ @realDonaldTrump

    Shifty Adam Schiff is a CORRUPT POLITICIAN, and probably a very sick man. He has not paid the price yet, for what he has done to our Country!

    It's not a threat, it's just a statement. Trump's Twitter messages are not yet one of the favorite foods of the German media (at all), and that's a shame because you can learn a lot. The spice is in the brevity, they say ... if one can read in the brevity. "CORRUPT POLITICIAN" is capitalized here. Why? The first sentence has two parts: CORRUPT POLITICIAN and then “probably a very sick man”, Schiff is “* probably * a very sick man”. Why only * probably *? Trump is making the statement / claim that Schiff's corruption is out of the question, but that his illness is only "likely". So if he pays for what he did to our country, how will Schiff be prosecuted? - As we know, Al Capone was put behind bars for tax evasion, not murder. - Anyone who does not suffer from the final phase of TDS could see in the Senate last week at the latest that Schiff is sick. You can probably prove that Schiff knows he's lying. In doing so, he is embarrassing and damaging the entire Congress. However, prosecuting him for this might not be fair or adequate payment.

    So, Adam, now you know: you will end up behind bars for your corruption, and for a very long time. The disease, your complicity with the secret services that you trust so much that you are ready to jeopardize the existence of the Democrats along with the existence of the US Constitution, is being eradicated around you.

    The future will tell whether this interpretation is correct or not. Anyone who prefers the interpretation that Trump is "threatening", that is, bluffing, now places the bet. Or instead of reading Trump's words, you can try to read Trump's mind with the sick ship and, if anyone is listening, try to blame them. Schiff lies for his life.

    Trump also tweeted today:

    "Schiff must release the IG report, without changes or tampering, which is said to be yet further exoneration of the Impeachment Hoax. He refuses to give it. Does it link him to Whistleblower? Why is he so adamant? " / “Schiff has to release the IG report without changes or falsification, which is supposed to represent further relief from impeachment fraud. He refuses to give it. Is this associated with the whistleblower? Why is he so persistent? "

    This relates to the fact that the Dems, in a secret session, recorded statements from Michael Atkinson, the General Inspector of the Secret Services, who changed the whistleblower form to suddenly allow hearsay reports. The transcripts from this hearing have never been approved by the Dems, i.e. by Schiff, but the contents are known to some people. It is also known that Atkinson and the CIA whistleblower, Eric Ciaramella (not to be named if you are a slave) tell very different stories, and that Atkinson's statement wholeheartedly supports Trump. For a short summary, see from around 3:80 - https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2020/01/26/sunday-talks-representative-john-ratcliffe-discusses-house-fraud-within-impeachment-articles/.

    I wanted to make it really short, but in the end something from CNN (calculated) (https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/24/opinions/adam-schiff-is-the-one-helping-putin-destabilize -us-democracy-schiff / index.html): "Adam Schiff is the one who helps Vladimir Putin destabilize US democracy". - On the floor of the US Senate, Democratic MP Adam Schiff finished what Russian President Vladimir Putin had started in front of the American people. “The wrongdoing of the president cannot be decided at the ballot box, because we cannot be sure that the vote will be won fairly,” Schiff thundered this week and pleaded for the removal of President Donald Trump. That remark startled me (and many in the Senate GOP conference) because the US intelligence community's conclusion was that Russia's interference in the 2016 election was aimed at “building public confidence in the US democratic process undermined, ”an assessment endorsed by the Senate Intelligence Committee. What could more fulfill Putin's desire to sow discord and distrust than a high-ranking member of Congress appearing in the Senate's well and declaring the 2020 election illegal before a single ballot has taken place? Putin himself could not have suggested a better finale for his operation. "

  2. If it goes on like this, Mr. Röper could soon write part two of “Mirror, mirror in hand”.
    The mirror never tires of delivering new material over and over again.

Back
Next post: How the coronavirus is reported in Russia