The cognitive dissonance of the Trump defense

[Ohioboy]

The Trump defense team would have us believe that Trump had some "legitimate" reason for asking another country's leader to open an investigation into corruption. But, how many "legitimate" requests to investigate corruption involve bribing a country's leader by withholding approved aid to said country? That's where the idea of a "legitimate" request doesn't fit with what the Trump defense must admit took place. Where does a "legitimate" request end, and a shake down begin?

[Caliman73]

1. At the beginning typically.

When we establish aid agreements, there are usually stipulations and rules for receiving the assistance. Sometimes that may include investigating certain officials known to be corrupt and meeting benchmarks. That is normal politics. It is open and transparent and usually serves a national interest goal.

What Trump did was purely self serving. He was not interested in anti-corruption in Ukraine because they were already meeting benchmarks for anti-corruption that were stipulated when Congress released the aid.

Trump is used to being able to get away with being a corrupt POS. Hopefully he bit off more than he could chew this time.

[Ohioboy]

3. Exactly

The fact that the aid was given without an investigation being mandated is further proof that Trump was acting for his own interests. In other words, the requested investigation was not necessary to meet any type of benchmark for fighting corruption.

[jmg257]

2. Ask Biden, he (legally) used this technique against Ukraine to force the firing of

a corrupt prosecutor, using a loan guarantee as the...'tool'.

On edit: Do not know if that '1Bil loan guarantee' was similar to the approved military aide at the heart of trump's high crimes.

"At one point, Biden withheld $1 billion in aid to Ukraine to pressure the government to remove Shokin from the Prosecutor General's Office."

[broiles]

4. Troll?

[jmg257]

6. truth.

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/10/03/what-really-happened-when-biden-forced-out-ukraines-top-prosecutor/3785620002/

[albacore]

9. Biden did that at the behest of the President...not for his own political purpose.

And Biden's withholding of aid was to pressure a corrupt prosecutor out.
Big diff.

[jmg257]

11. Thanks, I realize that. And about the purpose, as mentioned.

The question posed was related to if aide had been used before to get something done about the corruption in the receiving country.

"..how many "legitimate" requests to investigate corruption involve bribing a country's leader by withholding approved aid to said country?"

[Caliman73]

14. Frequently and legitimately

Aid is a huge tool for leverage to move policy and engage in anti-corruption.

As I said in another response in this thread, the major difference is that it is usually transparent and the goals are clearly stipulated and it is for some national or international interest goal.

You can certainly argue about whether those goals are appropriate. Aid to countries often follows pre-requisites like open elections, opening of markets, removal of corrupt officials, etc...

The problem is that is not what Trump did at all. He leveraged aid that was already approved because Ukraine had already met the benchmarks set. So the corruption issue was moot, except Trump wanted actual corruption to help him for 2020.

[Ohioboy]

5. Totally aware of that

The question with Biden would be: were there any benchmarks intended to fight corruption that were met? Trump released the aid without getting the investigation he claimed was necessary to fight corruption.

[jmg257]

7. Ah gotcha - yes With JB the guy was fired. nt

[Ohioboy]

12. That's my point

With Joe the request was out in the open, coming from multiple countries, and it was considered legitimate in fighting corruption. Trump was willing to ignore fighting corruption and give the aid anyway. If Trump's request for an investigation of Biden was so important to fighting corruption, he should have stuck by his request as Joe did. Instead, Trump proved that he was not about fighting corruption. He released the aid, then basically said 'nothing to see hear since they got their aid'. Trump was acting on his own and not in the open.

[jmg257]

15. Excellent points, and agreed! nt

[Johonny]

8. The real process is to ask our own agencies to investigate. Asking a foreign power to

do a criminal investigation for you is at the very least uncommon.

[rockfordfile]

10. Other un-American bs from Trump's "defense"

Would be that Democrats are trying to over turn the election of a traitor.

[spanone]

13. and if it was 'legitimate' it should have been thru the state dept. and not his PERSONAL attorney

we'll now have days of non-stop lies....cause that's all they've got.