Trump in Transition (42): We're Not Done Yet

I thought that I was done with Trump in Transition posts, but I felt compelled to do one more, because of the threat a potential acquittal in the impeachment trial will pose.

I encourage you to read and thoughtfully consider this editorial in the Washington Post today, and understand what this impeachment is really all about and what it means if it is ignored.

The editorial notes, referencing the president's legal team, that

The defense brief they filed Monday argues that the president “did absolutely nothing wrong” when he pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to launch investigations of Joe Biden and a Russian-promoted conspiracy theory about the 2016 election. It further contends that Mr. Trump was entirely within his rights when he refused all cooperation with the House impeachment inquiry, including rejecting subpoenas for testimony and documents. It says he cannot be impeached because he violated no law.

Think about that last sentence, and think about this:

• Snitty Snitty Bill Barr, the United States Attorney General, believes that a US Attorney or Special prosecutor can determine that a that a president has committed a crime, but that a sitting president cannot be charged with the crime that the prosecutor identified.
• president Trump's attorneys have argued in federal court that the president could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue in New York City and be immune from prosecution, significantly expanding on the initial point of this scenario, which is that even if Trump did that, he wouldn't lose any votes.

The editorial continues by noting that asking for an acquittal on that basis, Trump's lawyers (again, emphasis added)

are, in effect, seeking consent for an extraordinary expansion of his powers. An acquittal vote would confirm to Mr. Trump that he is free to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election and to withhold congressionally appropriated aid to induce such interference. It would suggest that he can press foreign leaders to launch a criminal investigation of any American citizen he designates, even in the absence of a preexisting U.S. probe, or any evidence.

I'm not sure any Senator who goes along with that line of thinking really wants that to happen, especially if they consider the personal impacts on them. Pretend, for instance, that a spine miraculously appears and a Senator decides to go against the president on something he feels strongly about (other than not being impeached, of course). Say one of them decides to

• vote against his insane buildup of our military, on which we already spend more than then next seven highest-spending countries combined, and more than the rest of the world, another 140+ countries, combined?
• vote against his stealing appropriated money and putting it on the border wall?
• vote against his vast expansion of welfare for paid leave, child care and all the rest?
• vote against an environmental regulatory repeal that will jeopardize his or her constituents should a heinous failure of an energy company occur? (You know, a burst pipeline, or a coal mine collapse, poisoned water from a pig farm, or a few thousand fracking earthquakes...)

They already know that going against him now may lead to the threat that he'll withhold his "full and complete endorsement" - but if they were to cross the un-indictable and unimpeachable asterisk president? Who knows which country he'll call upon to dig up dirt on them? I'm thinking Senators might want to check their junket itineraries for their entire time in office to see what they're up against...

And, think about the consequences of allowing this expansion of power should someone else get elected this fall: picture a President Sanders asking a foreign country to investigate an opponent of 'Democratic Socialism' or a President Biden having a friendly foreign government dig up dirt on all of the nepotism hires in the government, or a President Buttigieg having an equality-centric foreign country go after anti-gay politicians and their families, or a President Warren asking another country for help in digging around in DNA databases for dirt on political opponents... 

Those investigations would need no evidence of a crime; they could be done merely to satisfy the whims of a petulant, thin-skinned president acting like - well, acting like the current president. 

Now, the likelihood that any of the leading Dems would resort to that kind of nonsense is pretty darn low, but ignoring the actions for which the president was impeached and focusing on who is bringing the charges, or on the process under which the issues were investigated, voted on and approved presents a huge personal risk to all current and future politicians. Because none of those actions could be considered an abuse of power, and all of them would be perfectly acceptable in the world the president's defense contemplates.

And it's also dangerous for regular folks like me. I mean, I've slammed Trump on Twitter, on this blog, on Facebook, in bars and restaurants, in letters to my Congressman, while walking down the street with my husband, while talking to myself as I worked in my garden; I curse a cardboard cutout of him, I shake my fist at him when I watch news clips of him telling bald-faced lies - and I'm not the only person who'll read this who does that.

Any number of people have done the same, some with different targets: Clinton. Obama. Sanders. Biden. Buttigieg. Warren. Pelosi. Schiff. Nadler. AOC. Ilhan Omar. Rashida Tlaib. Maxine Waters. The list is endless, on both sides. Do you really want a president to be able to investigate me, or you, or your family members, just because said president has his or her panties in a knot?

Lots of people with much larger audiences than mine criticize and castigate and challenge this president, every single day - many of them members of the media, or as the asterisk president calls them, the "enemy of the people." Do we even know which reporters he has had investigated, or is having investigated right now for the simple offense of telling the truth, calling out one of his lies, or spouting an opinion? No - we don't.

We honestly have no idea how far astray

his anger, his thin skin, and his unfettered pride have taken him -
or will take him in the future.

Beyond that, the editorial also notes that under his defense scheme, a president could "flatly refuse all cooperation with any Congressional inquiry" in total disregard of the United States Constitution, which gives the House the power to impeach the executive. And,

it would establish that no president may be impeached unless he or she could be convicted of violating a federal statute - no matter the abuse of power. Those are principles that Republicans will regret if they conclude that a Democratic executive has violated his or her oath of office.

If they can't selfishly protect themselves and their own longevity, and they aren't willing to selflessly protect you and me, is it too much to ask that they simply uphold their oaths and protect the Constitution?

We'll see - we surely will - and we may not have to wait all that long to find out.

Wondering on Wednesday (v192)

Ready... set... wonder! 

I spent the day listening to the arguments for and against impeaching Donald Trump and honestly my head is spinning. There's SO much to wonder about...

For example, I wonder why I can find no evidence that Ukraine President Zelensky met with president Trump at the White House? That was the meeting Zelensky requested, and that was the meeting that was held up pending the announcement of the investigation into the Bidens, and that is the meeting that has never happened.

Oh sure - they met at the UN for a while, but does that, in anyone's mind, have the same benefit for the former TV-star turned President as a face-to-face meeting in the Oval Office of the White House with the original Apprentice president? 

Not only that, but since the United Republican Party (as the president called it) despises the United Nations and what it stands for, I find it hard to believe that they can even pretend with a straight face that meeting between the two presidents in that venue came close to satisfying Zelensky's request for a White House meeting, or for a trip by the president to Ukraine.  

For example, I wonder why all the lawyers, former prosecutors and former judges on the Republican side of the aisle are so focused on finding legal crimes as defined in the criminal code? Nothing in the impeachment section of the Constitution requires actual legal crimes - two crimes are mentioned - bribery and treason - but 'high crimes and misdemeanors' is not a term meant to describe violations of law, those words define political crimes against the people of the United States of America. 

The Republicans have accused the Democrats of newly discovering the Constitution, for the purposes of impeachment and that they never pay any attention to the founding documents otherwise. One could reasonably wonder why the Republicans, who thump their chests about being the party of constitutionally-limited government and their most-favored amendments, have never read the lengthy material on impeachment. Perhaps it's the same lack of interest that has prevented so many of them from reading the Mueller Report. 

For example, I'm having a hard time getting my arms around why supporting impeachment is merely an act of obedience to the party's leadership and is therefore an act of blatant partisanship, but standing in lockstep in opposition to impeachment is not also merely an act of obedience and party fealty?

The assumption that without exception, Democrats are simply playing a game of follow the leader, and that none of them are acting in accordance with their oath of office, their conscience, or even the will of their constituents, is absurd. 

For example, I wonder why it took so long for anyone to mention that all of the military aid still hasn't been released to Ukraine? The Republicans have repeated countless times today that the aid was released and therefore there's nothing wrong with anything the president did, but the Pentagon is still sitting on some $20 million of it, ostensibly for updated cost estimates or some tomfoolery.

Similarly, I heard little mention of any concern with corruption in the first two years of the Trump presidency, when aid was sent without delay to Ukraine - before the corruption-fighting Zelensky was elected. And I wonder, does that make sense? 

And does withholding the aid months after your own administration had approved releasing it, certifying that Ukraine was making progress on corruption, make any sense at all, I wonder? 

For example, I wonder how the Republicans can ignore all of the evidence that the president himself has provided that supports his abuse of office? The best part, which I didn't hear anyone mention (and that saddens me) was when he was asked if he had ever asked any foreign leader to investigate corruption involving anyone who was not a political rival. Trump couldn't answer the question, saying (in effect) that they'd have to look into that. I don't believe he's ever identified a single instance of that occurring. Is there more that needs to be understood about what's happening here?

For example, to each person who has said that the people - not elected officials - have the right to get rid of a president, I wonder how they do not realize that they were sent there by the people to fulfill their oversight responsibilities? We, the people, do not have the power to impeach the president - we elect the people who do have that power, and we expect them to use it when necessary.  

I also wonder how late into a presidency would it be acceptable to have an impeachment vote? If we're too close to the election now, 10 months away, what would the Republicans find acceptable? During the first year? During the second year? Earlier in the third year? Never at all, as long as the president is a member of their party? I'm a cynic, and assume the latter timeframe would be the most acceptable. 

And I would ask, how do these folks not recognize that the makeup of the Congress is very different now than it was when the president lost the popular vote and won the Electoral College vote (by a count that he still cannot get right?) In 2018, the Democrats won the majority, gaining 41 seats - so the assumption that the will of the people is still that Trump should be president is not a foregone conclusion, and shouldn't be taken as such.

For example, I wonder if the Democrats are taking to heart the number of times they collectively have been accused of favoring impeachment from the date of the election, a goal they have arrived at today. 

All of the times they stood in front of microphones over the past nearly three years are out there, as readily available fodder, to diminish the arguments made for actually putting forth the articles of impeachment that will be voted on at the end of all of this debate. The multiple recitations of all of those instances from members new and old, leaders and non-leaders, are not falling on deaf ears, I can assure you.  

For example, how long will we have to wait to see the actual transcript of the July 25th call, I wonder? 

We heard repeatedly today about the "this is not a transcript" memorandum of the call but we have yet to see the real transcript, and we also have no idea what else has been placed on the secret server where, apparently, the president's most inflammatory and potentially dangerous words are tucked away, out of sight.

For example, wouldn't it be sad if we were to forget how we got here, and that it would have been impossible for president Trump to be in a position to demand an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden had Hunter Biden not been given a job, for which he was completely unqualified, by a foreign company located in a country in his father's vice-presidential portfolio?

I am not blaming the Bidens for Trump's abuse of power - not in the least. I'm as sure as the day is long that there would have been, and will be, another example of that before we are done with him and his antics. 

But I'm not blind to the optics of the younger Biden's job offer, which we all know only happened because the elder Biden was the Vice President. And no one else should be blind to that, either. 

I wonder, indeed I do, about all of this, and more.

Wondering on Wednesday (v190) Part 1

House Intelligence Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA), of whom I am not fond, and Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA), of whom I'm even less fond, presented their opening statements in the first public hearing in the impeachment inquiry. Let the wondering begin.

First, the Democrat; I recommend having at least a six-pack of 5-Hour Energy available.

In 2014, Russia invaded a United States ally, Ukraine, to reverse that nation's embrace of the West, and to fulfill Vladimir Putin's desire to rebuild a Russian empire. In the following years, thirteen thousand Ukrainians died as they battled superior Russian forces.

Earlier this year Volodymyr Zelensky was elected president of Ukraine on a platform of ending the conflict and of tackling corruption. He was a newcomer to politics and immediately sought to establish a relationship with Ukraine's most powerful patron, the United States. The questions presented by this impeachment inquiry are whether president Trump sought to exploit that ally's vulnerability and invite Ukraine's interference in our elections? Whether president Trump sought to condition official acts, such as a White House meeting or US military assistance, on Ukraine's willingness to assist with two political investigations that would help his reelection campaign? And if President Trump did either whether such an abuse of his power is compatible with the office of the presidency? 

The matter is as simple, and as terrible as that. Our answer to these questions will affect not only the future of this presidency, but the future of the presidency itself, and what kind of conduct or misconduct the American people may come to expect from their Commander-in-Chief.

The president is not the Commander-in-Chief of the American people - he is the Commander-in-Chief of the United States military. I wonder why Schiff doesn't know that?

There are few actions as consequential as the impeachment of a President. While the Founders did not intend that impeachment be employed for mere differences over policy, they also made impeachment a constitutional process that the Congress must utilize when necessary.

The facts in the present inquiry are not seriously contested. Beginning in January of this year,  the president's personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, pressed Ukrainian authorities to investigate Burisma, the country's largest natural gas producer, and the Bidens, since Vice-President was seen as a strong potential challenger to Trump.

Giuliani also promoted a debunked conspiracy that it was Ukraine, not Russia that hacked the 2016 election. The nation's intelligence agencies have stated unequivocally that it was Russia, not Ukraine, that interfered in our election. But Giuliani believed this conspiracy theory, referred to as "Crowdstrike," shorthand for the company that discovered the Russian hack, would aid his client's reelection.

Giuliani also conducted a smear campaign against the US Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch. On April 29, as a senior State Department official told her that although she had "done nothing wrong," president Trump had "lost confidence in her." With the sidelining of Yovanovitch, the stage was set for the establishment of an irregular channel in which Giuliani and later others, including Gordon Sondland -- an influential donor to the president's inauguration now serving as Ambassador to the European Union  - could advance the president's personal and political interests. 

As noted in testimony today, ambassadors serve at the pleasure of the president. Whether he independently decides he no longer has confidence in his diplomats, or he's told by a crazed minion that he no longer has confidence isn't really the issue, as far as I can see.

Yovanovitch's replacement in Kyiv, Ambassador Bill Taylor, is a West Point graduate and Vietnam veteran. As he began to better understand the scheme through the summer of 2019, he pushed back, informing Deputy Assistant Secretary Kent and others about a plan to condition US government actions and funding on the performance of political favors by the Ukrainian government, favors intended for president Trump that would undermine our security and our elections. 

Several key events in this scheme took place in the month of July. On July 10th, Ambassador Sondland informed a group of US and Ukrainian officials meeting at the White House that, according to Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, a White House meeting desperately sought by the Ukrainian president with Trump would happen only if Ukraine undertook an investigation into "the energy sector," which was understood to mean Burisma, and specifically, the Bidens. National Security Advisor Bolton abruptly ended the meeting and said afterwards that he would not be - quote - "part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up on this" - end quote. 

At least so far, Bolton is not scheduled to appear before the committee, his attorney's dangling of tantalizing teases notwithstanding. And I wonder about that. I'm guessing that Bolton is behind the foreplay, or at least supportive of it, otherwise why would his attorney be doing it? And Bolton's first-hand telling of the "drug deal" story would be significantly more impressive than Schiff's.

A week later, on July 18, a representative from OMB, the White House agency that oversees federal spending, announced on a video conference call that Mulvaney, at the direction of the president, was freezing nearly $400 million in security assistance authorized and appropriated by Congress and which the entirety of the US national security establishment supported. 

This next part comes from the alleged 'transcript' the White House released, the one that clearly states is not a transcript. The real transcript of the call? That's on the Donny Dearest server, where White House types put the stuff Trump says that is way more scary than what we hear him say with our own two ears.

One week after that, Donald Trump would have the now infamous July 25th phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky. During that call, Trump complained that the US relationship with Ukraine had not been "reciprocal." Later, Zelensky thanks Trump for his support "in the area of defense" and says that Ukraine was ready to purchase more Javelins, an antitank weapon that was among the most important deterrents of further Russian military action. Trump's immediate response: "I would like you to do us a favor, though."

Trump then requested that Zelensky investigate the discredited 2016 "Crowdstrike" conspiracy theory, and even more ominously, look into the Bidens. Neither of these investigations were in the US national interest, and neither as part of the official preparatory material for the call. Both, however, were in Donald Trump's personal interest, and in the interest of his 2020 re-election campaign. And the Ukrainian president knew about both in advance - because Sondland and others had been pressing Ukraine for weeks about investigations into the 2016 election, Burisma and the Bidens. 

Anyone still awake? How's that 5-Hour Energy stuff working for you? Hope it's holding out, because Schiff is going to recite more testimony for us.

After the call, multiple individuals were concerned enough to report it to the National Security Council's top lawyer. The White House would then take the extraordinary step of moving the call record to a highly classified server exclusively reserved for the most sensitive intelligence matters. 

In the following weeks, Ambassador Taylor learned new facts about a scheme that even Sondland would describe as becoming more insidious. Taylor texted Sondland, "are we now saying that security assistance and WH meeting are conditioned on investigations?"  

And now, let's all sit back and wonder about simpler things -- summer turning to fall, with a dose of insidiocity.

 As summer turned to fall, "[i]t kept getting more insidious," Mr. Sondland testified. Mr. Taylor, who took notes of his conversations, said the ambassador told him in a September 1 phone call that "everything was dependent" on the public announcement of investigations "including security assistance." President Trump wanted Mr. Zelensky "in a public box." "President Trump is a businessman," Sondland said later. "When a businessman is about to sign a check to someone who owes him something, the businessman asks that person to pay up before signing the check"

 In a sworn declaration after Taylor's testimony, Sondland would admit to telling the Ukrainians at a September 1st meeting in Warsaw, "that resumption of US aid would likely not occur until Ukraine provided the public anti-corruption statement that we had been discussing for many weeks?"

As I read this next part, the "get over it" part from Mick Mulvaney, part of me wonders if Schiff will ever get over any of this?

The president's chief of staff confirmed Trump's efforts to coerce Ukraine by withholding aid. When Mick Mulvaney was asked publicly about it, his answer was breathtaking; "We do that all the time with foreign policy... I have news for everybody: get over it. There's going to be political influence in foreign policy. That is going to happen." The video of that confession is plain for all to see.  

Some have argued in the president's defense that the aid was ultimately released. That is true. But only after Congress began an investigation; only after the president's lawyers learned of a whistleblower complaint about quid pro quos. A scheme to condition official acts or taxpayer funding to obtain personal political benefit does not become less odious because it is discovered before it is fully consummated. In fact, the security assistance had been delayed so long it would take another act of Congress to ensure that it would still go out. And that Oval Office meeting that Zelensky desperately sought - it still hasn't happened. 

And, I read somewhere, the White House was basically backed into a corner as the money needed to be released before the end of the fiscal year on September 30th; the money was released on the 11th. I wonder why Schiff didn't mention that, if it's true?

Now, I think we're getting to the meat of the issue (I think):

Although we have learned a great deal about these events in the last several weeks, there are still missing pieces. The president has instructed the State Department and other agencies to ignore Congressional subpoenas for documents. He has instructed witnesses to defy subpoenas and refuse to appear. And he has suggested that those who do expose wrongdoing should be treated like traitors and spies.   

And, in this part, he makes it clear that the investigation is not just about attempted extortion of Ukraine, it now includes Trump's obstruction of Congress.

These actions will force Congress to consider, as it did with President Nixon, whether Trump's obstruction of the constitutional duties of Congress constitute additional grounds for impeachment. If the President can simply refuse all oversight, particularly in the context of an impeachment proceeding, the balance of power between our two branches of government will be irrevocably altered. That is not what the Founders intended. And the prospects for further corruption and abuse of power, in this administration or another, will be exponentially increased.

This is what we believe the testimony will show - both as to the president's conduct and as to his obstruction of Congress. The issue that we confront is the one posted by the president's Acting Chief of Staff when he challenged Americans to  "get over it." If we find that the president of the United States abused his power and invited foreign interference in our elections, or if he sought to condition, coerce, extort, or bribe an ally into conduction investigations to aid his reelection campaign and did so by withholding official acts - a White House meeting or hundreds of millions of dollars of needed military aid - must we simply "get over it?" Is that what Americans should now expect from their president? If this not impeachable conduct, what is? Does the oath of office itself - requiring that our laws be faithfully executed, that our president defend a constitution that balances the powers of its branches, setting ambition against ambition so that we become no monarch - still have meaning? 

These are the questions we must ask and answer. Without rancor if we can, without delay regardless, and without party favor or prejudice if we are true to our responsibilities. Benjamin Franklin was asked what kind of a country American was to become, "A Republic," he answered, "if you can keep it." The fundamental issue raised by the impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump is: Can we, keep it?

Our sanity: can we, keep it?

Nunes is in Part 2.

Wondering on Wednesday (v183)

I don't know about you, but I'd say 'WoW' sure fits today.

Right off the bat, we've got an unhinged Rudy Giuliani doing an interview with Fox and Friends that would have left the hosts slack-jawed had they not been clenching their teeth to keep their mouths from allowing huge peals of laughter to spill forth. I wonder how they managed to do that? I mean, there were several times when I literally (not just Joe Biden literally) laughed out loud listening to Rudy. Do you think they practiced the stone-faced look while watching his interview with Chris Cuomo?

And next batter up, we've got the Official Readout of president Trump's conversation with Ukrainian President Zelensky, which is widely being referred to as "the transcript" by most people. And what does the readout say?  Let's take a look; and yes, I've taken the liberty of bolding parts of the conversation if you want to skim.

Zelensky was very complimentary to Trump, saying he learned a lot from him on how to run a campaign, and he'd like to keep running so he can keep talking to Trump; he even mentioned 'draining the swamp' in his country.

Trump, as you might imagine, lapped all of that up. And then, he got down to business. For anyone who looks at this and says there's nothing threatening here, I would strongly disagree.

...I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. Germany does almost nothing for you. All they do is talk and I think it's something that you should really ask them about. When I was speaking to Angela Merkel she talks Ukraine, but she doesn't do anything. A lot of the European countries are the same way so I think it's something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. 

Got it? You're a former comedian, reality star guy who ends up president, talking to a guy who has to be your idol, and you're not supposed to get a message from that?

Zelensky does get the message, saying Trump is not just 100% correct, but 1000% correct, and how the European Union should be doing more but the US is technically the bigger partner. And he expressed that they were "almost ready" to purchase more weapons from us, which of course is literally music to Trump's ears - nothing more important than selling our weapons to foreign countries, right?

And then Trump said this:

I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike ... I guess you have one of your wealthy people... The server, they say Ukraine has it. There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you are surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I  would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance- but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible. 

I want you to find out what happened, I'll have my people call your people, I would like you to get to the bottom of it...  Trump didn't come right out and say, yeah, maybe those arms sales won't be happening, and he didn't mention the hundreds of millions in aid that he ordered held up, but did he really have to?

Zelensky confirms his understanding, like a gambler would when threatened with collection action by his bookie.

Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine.

He talks about getting a new ambassador to the US, noting he's looking to see "trust and confidence" on Trump's part here, to allow for "cooperation even more so." And then, he tells Trump, hey - we're already dealing with your people on this stuff, and you're among friends - and provides additional reassurance that the message has been received.

I will personally tell you that one of my assistants spoke with Mr. Giuliani just recently and we are hoping very much that Mr. Giuliani will be able to travel to Ukraine and we will meet once  he comes to Ukraine. I just wanted to assure you once again that you have nobody but friends around us... I also wanted to tell you that we are friends. We are great friends and you Mr. President have friends in our country so we can continue our strategic partnership. I also plan to surround myself with great people and in addition to that investigation, I guarantee as the President of Ukraine that all the investigations will be done openly and candidly. That I can assure you. 

Trump comes back with a strong second serve, getting the Bidens into the mix. He also plays up the importance of this piece of the puzzle, even though everyone - the US government, the IMF, the EU - agrees it did not happen the way Trump presents it.

Good because I heard you had a prosecutor who was very good and he was shut down and that's really unfair. A lot of people are talking about that, the way they shut your very good prosecutor down and you had some very bad people involved. Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of New York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it ... It sounds horrible to me.

Zelensky allows as how since he holds the parliament the new prosecutor will be "100% my person" and will start in September and will look into things, "specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue." And then, knowingly or not, he invites the conspiracy theorists into the mix.

... I would kindly ask you if you have any additional information that you can provide to us, it would be very helpful for the investigation to make sure that we administer justice in our country.

He also thanks Trump for tipping him off to the previous ambassador being bad. Trump reiterates he'll have his people get in touch with Zelensky, and then dangles a carrot.

Well, she's going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it.  I'm sure you will figure it out. I heard the prosecutor was treated very badly and he was a very fair prosecutor so good luck with everything. Your economy is going to get better and better I predict. You have a lot of assets. It's a great country. I have many Ukrainian friends, they're incredible people.

You found the carrot, right, about the economy getting better? Is that just going to happen organically, or are we going to be player in that, I wonder? Bet Zelensky knows the answer, depending of course on how those investigations go.

The Ukrainian then adds another dose of flattery, saying he stayed at Trump Tower the last time he came to New York, and then he did exactly what someone under 'no pressure whatsoever' would do - he promises again to take care of business, and then tosses out his own carrot, which was well played. I guess he has been studying the Trump playbook.

I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC. On the other hand, I also wanted to (assure) you that we will be very serious about the case and will work on the investigation. As to the economy, there is much potential for our two countries and one of the issues that is very important for Ukraine is energy independence. I believe we can be very successful (in) cooperating on energy independence with the United States. We are already working on cooperation. We are buying American oil but I am very hopeful for a future meeting. We will have more time and more opportunities to discuss these opportunities and get to know each other better. I would like to thank you very much for your support.

Happy that his message was received, Trump's ready to wrap things up, but not without mentioning yet again Rudy and Barr.

Good. Well, thank you very much and I appreciate that. I will tell Rudy and Attorney General Barr to call. Thank you. Whenever you would like to come to the White House, feel free to call. Give us a date and we'll work that out. I look forward to seeing you.

Zelensky must have missed the cue that the call was over, now that he had committed to doing what Trump wanted. Suggesting they get together in Ukraine after a meeting in Poland, he says

We can either take my plane and go to Ukraine or we can take your plane, which is probably much better than mine.

I love that last part: you've got a better plane, let's take yours. He's still got a bit of the comedian in him, don't you think? And maybe he was trying to let Trump he had nothing to worry about?

But on the important stuff:

• Don't wonder whether this was a shakedown: it was.
• Don't wonder whether this was inappropriate: it was.
• Don't wonder whether this was ethical: it was not.
• Don't wonder whether this was a normal conversation: it wasn't.
• Don't wonder whether there was pressure on Ukraine: there was.

And don't wonder whether a quid pro quo was on the table: There was.  It wasn't directly expressed (do this or we won't sell arms to you, for example) but there is certainly an implied quid pro quo in Trump's comments:

• we're good to you, better than Europe, but you're not reciprocating.
• You do me a favor or two, and I predict your economy is going to start doing much better.
• It's very important that you look in to these issues.
• Speak to my personal attorney, that would be great, speak to the Attorney General, that would be great, that would be appreciated. Talk to them, and you can come visit me any time.

There was clear understanding that Zelensky had received the message, whether he recognizes or  admits he was being pressured on the call or not. After all, how can he say no to his country's biggest supporter, the country that protects him, the country with a petulant, retaliatory child sitting in the president's chair? 

A nothingburger? Who knew Trump could be so nice?  Everyone can wonder how those two statement can be associated with this call.