“Bribery” is a word Mr. and Mrs. America easily understand. Go with the simple stuff.
21 Likes
Don’t really like but, you know… We need to know these things.
2 Likes
I love the word “bribery”. Short, sweet, and to the point in simple English.
But Isn’t “extortion” the more accurate term here?
8 Likes
Brilliant synopsis Mr. Kovensky. This deserves to be front paged at NYT/WaPo and seriously discussed on major TV networks.
9 Likes
I was insulted after hearing Nunes compare the proceedings yesterday morning to the democrats running a “Star Chamber” and his liberal use of code word epithets. I listened to the testimony conducted by the lawyers from both sides and thru it all the ambassadors were solely working from fact, not one sided and abusive fantasy. Nunes said the two ambassadors had said things that in reality they had not. Nunes said they were one sided and against the republicans when in truth they took pains to avoid both sides. And the questions from the GOP members went down hill from there.
19 Likes
Nunes isn’t fit to clean dog poop off the shoes of any of those who have testified.
14 Likes
Hope we won’t get tied up in semantics while Jordan et al flat out lie. It’s probably both bribery and extortion.
Bribery is a nice, simple, robust word. Everyone understands it. Much better than quid pro quo, a Latin phrase we need to translate. The bribe: If you help me get re-elected, I will give you nearly $400 million from US taxpayers.
16 Likes
Which they considered a very real possibility because Poroshenko was as corrupt as DT is. This also explains a lot about the timeline. The Ukraine aid was passed in May 2018 and was to be distributed in early 2019. Various officials asked why it was delayed starting in February and got no answer beyond some vague references to corruption and more promises that it would be released soon. Poroshenko getting thrown out stymied DT’s plans to get in on the status quo corruption, and then he had to figure out how he could make another deal with the new guy. They finally decided that they had to come right out and ask for it on the July 25 phone call.
7 Likes
I was thinking the same thing yesterday, but bribery does apply.
https://criminal.laws.com/bribery/bribery-versus-extortion
11 Likes
Don’t know who Josh Kovensky is, but he seems quite knowledgeable about the Former Soviet Union countries and is able to connect the dots. Some of his recent work also brought new connections to light. Kudos.
8 Likes
Here is the problem. The military aid was coming without strings attached.
What trump did was threaten to withhold what Ukraine (and Congress) had every right to expect would happen. “Do what I want or you don’t get what Congress says I have to give you” does not scream bribery to me. Extortion, sure.
Now, “I’ll give you a big fat Oval Office meeting if you announce an investigation”, sounds just like a bribe.
Shorter: your average Joe is gonna associate “bribery” with a reward, and “extortion” with a threat of harm.
5 Likes
These stupid Queens/Brighton Beach shysters and gangsters thought they could use their two-bit Mob-boss-wannabe tactics on the global stage. It’s amazing they haven’t yet got us into a global thermonuclear conflict simply through half-witted bumbling bullying.
Lock 'em up. Take their hair products. Make 'em eat confinement loaf (Zappa tm). Seize their assets. Put their foul offspring in the street.
10 Likes
OMG! Another school shooting, and nothing will be done…again, and again, and again. What will it take?
4 Likes
From the above, "Steven Pifer, a former U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, told TPM that the “informal channel” had to have been created because all other options had failed.
“The only reason why there was an unofficial channel is because it wasn’t about the U.S. interest, it was about the personal political interest of the President,” Pifer said. "
So as was said yesterday in testimony and needs to be hammered by the Dem’s, the State department has refused to hand over any records of the time period from Feb 2019 - July 2019. These records would probably show that, the WH and/or State Dept in writing, had communicated the intent to with hold Military Aid and a state visit until the new administration complied. Heck maybe even the DOJ has some records that would clear this all up.
Who puts allies between a rock and Russia? Trump and his swamp does, that’s who!
As an aside, what is going on in subpoening these records? Does the House of Rep’s not have the authority to force the Executive branch to turn over records pertaining to these communications? Both Kent and Taylor said that the records they had kept had not been turned over.
12 Likes
It’s going to happen again. Every time, it’s somebody else’s school, it’s somebody else’s community, it’s somebody else’s town. Until one day, you wake up and it’s not.
David Wheeler , Newtown Dad
14 Likes
Honest people really put a crimp in their style
4 Likes
I’ll see your BRIBERY and Raise You an EXTORTION
EXTORTION EXTORTION EXTORTION EXTORTION EXTORTION EXTORTION
8 Likes
I disagree with this story because I do not believe Trump if left to his own (Putin’s) devices would ever, and yesterday ambassador Taylor confirmed to congress yet the media and most of congress did not seem to notice, have released the military aid to the Ukraine but for all this becoming public.
Taylor flatly stated he feared Zelensky would accede to Trump’s myriad demands, including interfering on Trump’s behalf in the American 2020 election, and still not get his military money, giving it so much credence he made it known that would result in his resignation.
That is as Putin’s puppet, but for the whistleblower’s complaint and its result, Trump would have stalled releasing the aid until after midnight 9/30/2019 which would have caused the funds to expire and under law being returned to the US treasury requiring Congress pass and the president sign a complete new authorization for Ukraine to receive any US help in fighting the Russians.
6 Likes
Thanks for excellent reporting, Josh. Your article sheds much light. One teeny, tiny caveat - “based off of”. Is this a thing now? “Based on” says it nicely.
9 Likes
It’s a very big mistake to make this about legal definitions.
The president corruptly tried to get a foreign government to interfere in a US election.
- He did that by trying to extort them by refusing to deliver required security assistance unless they delivered an announcement.
- He did that by conditioning a future in person meeting on help with his election
- But he also did it by involving government officials in his scheme to benefit his private electoral interests. He did this by putting government resources at the behest of a private citizen in order to further his electoral chances.
- He did this by inducing the Atty General to launch a corrupt investigation designed to assist his electoral campaign.
- He did this by hiding from the public and from Congress what he was up to.
This is all about the president’s corrupt acts.
14 Likes