Did DOJ Destroy the Special Counsel Audio Interview With Biden?
ISIS Terrorists Crossed Our Southern Border. Rand Paul and Lindsey Graham Are Demanding...
WaPo Executive Editor Has Resigned. The Reason Behind It Isn't Hard to Figure...
Is It Fair to Say That Jimmy Carter Is Dead, But No One...
Jen Psaki Agrees to Transcribed Interview on Afghanistan Withdrawal, but There's Still a...
Here's How a Majority of 'Palestinians' Feel About a 'Two-State Solution'
Texas Gov. Abbott: Here's Proof 'Voter Fraud Is Real'
KJP: 'Right-Wing Critics' Are Sharing Videos of Biden in 'Bad Faith' With History...
A School District Mandated Students, Staff to Participate in ‘Equity Summits’
‘Savage Animal’: Republicans React to the Arrest of an Illegal Alien Charged With...
Biden Expects Us to Believe He Cares About 'One Flag. One America.'
A Month of Shame and Humiliation as the West Seeks to Appease the...
Palestinians Have Once Again Shown How the 'Two State Solution' Remains a Dangerous...
Biden’s Insane Title IX Regulations Will Not Take Effect in Several More States
Florida Police Intercept Illegal Immigration Attempt

Texts and Testimony: Emerging Evidence of a 'Quid Pro Quo' in the Ukraine Story?

Two potentially consequential things happened yesterday: First, recently-resigned State Department official Kurt Volker testified in private on the Hill for more than nine hours. Democrats are saying his sworn statements behind closed doors further confirm the nefarious nature of the Trump administration's foreign policy conduct vis-a-vis Ukraine (a "shadow shakedown," one member claimed), while the Republicans say Volker blew a "massive hole" through the Democratic narrative.  Who is correct, or at least more correct?  Let the people decide.  The White House released the Trump-Zelensky transcript and the full whistleblower complaint.  Key GOP figures are now demanding that House Democrats display the same commitment to transparency here:


Unless there is an extremely compelling reason to keep these transcripts secret, they should be released -- especially because Democrats have been pushing out damning-looking snippets of information, which their counterparts say do not capture the full context of what was gleaned.  Let's see it all.  Second, we saw the release of those aforementioned damning-looking snippets of information.  Based on what we can tell -- and again, recognizing that key context may be missing -- they look like much stronger evidence of a 'quid pro quo' negotiation of some kind with the Ukrainian government, with pledges of investigations at the center of the back-and-forth.  Just how incriminating are these chains of messages among several US diplomats?  That's open for interpretation, and may be informed by additional context.  But what seems clear is that the Trump administration wanted something in return for something else.  


The former 'something' was a statement from the Ukrainian government, possibly including a speech by Zelensky) about seriously pursuing in-country corruption -- including specific references to Ukraine's 2016 meddling in the US election (a real thing that many in the media are pretending doesn't exist) and/or the gas company by which Hunter Biden was paid a small fortune.  The latter 'something' appears to be a Zelensky visit to the White House, although there's some indication that the 'quo' may also have entailed delayed military aid that Congress had previously approved (a delay the Ukrainians weren't aware of during the now-famous call between the two nations' leaders) and was finally sent to Kiev last month.  What's also clear is that despite not being a governmental official, Rudy Giuliani was a central figure in the discussions over Ukraine's end of the would-be bargain, insisting that it explicitly address Trump's two biggest priorities on this front:

Giuliani's role in all of this has always felt very slimy and suspicious, and represents a rich, deserving avenue for legitimate investigation.  As for the topics Team Trump wanted addressed in Ukraine's public statement, the previous Ukrainian government's anti-Trump, pro-Hillary electoral interference in 2016 is an entirely legitimate area of concern for the administration (even if this strand of the overall allegation is conspiratorial absurdity).  It seems totally defensible, for example, for an American president to tell a foreign government, "unless and until I'm satisfied that your country is taking steps to account for and prevent the sort of underhanded meddling you engaged against my campaign last time, we're not rolling out the red carpet for your leader in Washington."  A White House visit was unquestionably a major carrot being dangled.  If this was the extent of the evidence, I'm not scandalized by it, beyond what we already knew.  In isolation, it's not a 'wow:'


But there are other elements floating around.  The Burisma piece, for example, is trickier.  I think it's highly likely that Trump was eager to see that probe jump-started again because it could hurt the Biden family, and therefore muddy up one of his top 2020 rivals.  He raised the issue himself with Zelensky, after all.  This wasn't subtle.  Did Burisma merit an investigation?  The discredited story that Biden critics have repeated was that Vice President Biden improperly forced the firing of a prosecutor looking into the company, using US taxpayer dollars as leverage.  That doesn't appear to have been the case, as the prosecutor in question was seen as corrupt by virtually the entire western world -- and it appears that he wasn't digging into Burisma at the time.  That helps debunk an anti-Biden storyline (I still think the clear appearance of a conflict of interest is an ethical problem for Biden), but it doesn't settle the question of whether Burisma deserved or deserves to be investigated.  


It was wrong for Trump to make such a request (on this, it looks like I'm on the same page as a majority of voters, including Tucker Carlson).  Full stop.  And the notion that it's somehow fine for a sitting president ask a foreign government to investigate his partisan opponents back home under the guise of anti-corruption measures, while in the process of conducting US foreign policy, is an appalling and unacceptable standard that too many in the GOP are foolishly embracing.  It's especially bad if the foreign government in question is an adversary.  But was Trump's 'ask' conditioned on Congressionally-appropriated military aid?  Read this:

Trump wanted a "deliverable."  One diplomat, a career official, seemed to believe there was a quid pro quo involving said "deliverable" and military assistance.  The other, a Trump appointee, disagrees: "I believe you are incorrect about President Trump's intentions. The president has been crystal clear no quid pro quo's of any kind," the latter official wrote, suggesting that the conversation move off line (which also happened another time) and recommending his colleague speak with Secretary Pompeo's office for an explanation.  We need more information, but there's a bit of a stench emanating from all of these communications.  I'll leave you with my concern about the growing pattern of leaking the contents of presidential calls with foreign leaders:


Also, read this thread from Ben Shapiro, which feels pretty plausible.

Join the conversation as a VIP Member


Trending on Townhall Videos