We know what happened. Now it's time to compel Republicans to refute it or condone it.

[applegrove]

We know what happened. Now it’s time to compel Republicans to refute it or condone it.

By Jennifer Rubin at the Washington Post

https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions/2019/11/22/what-happens-next/?utm_source=reddit.com

"SNIP.....

This week we learned Republicans have no factual rebuttal to the bribery/extortion claim. No one on the July 25 call says the rough transcript is inaccurate. No one testified that he overheard the conversation between President Trump and U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland and can dispute Trump mentioning “investigations.” Go through every key fact, and aside from conflicts about how much Kurt Volker and Sondland knew (their obtuseness is not credible, says the very credible Fiona Hill), there is no significant factual dispute.

If there was any doubt Trump was soliciting a bribe — a political favor for a political act — after the July 25 call and after acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney confessed to a quid pro quo, Trump called into “Fox & Friends” on Friday morning, promoting the thoroughly debunked Crowdstrike conspiracy theoryand then confessing that is what he was asking Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate. “Well, that’s what the word is,” Trump said. “And that’s what I asked, actually, in my phone call, if you know. I mean, I asked him point-blank, because we’re looking for corruption. There’s tremendous corruption.”

He was repeatedly told that there is no evidence Ukraine conspired against him. It was his pathetic attempt to claim Russia had not assisted him in the 2016 election, but instead Ukraine had assisted Hillary Clinton. How that benefits anyone but Russian President Vladimir Putin is beyond me, but Trump’s interest in having Zelensky make one specific announcement that included the Biden investigation was in fact soliciting foreign help to promote his political agenda. As Sondland said, “There was a quid pro quo” — the meeting and aid were linked.

Trump could try to deny a quid pro quo if the condition he was placing on aid had been part of legitimate anti-corruption efforts. That, however, would require Trump to have shown interest in a single other aspect of Ukrainian corruption, to have told his foreign policy team that was what he was doing and to have said the words “corruption” during the two calls with Zelensky. In fact, his bag man Rudolph W. Giuliani was working with a corrupt former prosecutor to oust our corruption-fighting ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. Was Trump setting out a legitimate condition in our national interest, or did no quid pro quo occur at all? It seems Republicans must choose, because the two theories are mutually exclusive.

.....SNIP"

[PJMcK]

1. This is a brilliant column - K&R

Good catch, applegrove!

Here's the final paragraph of the column:

In sum, it’s not up to Democrats to disprove the unprovable conspiracy theories or to produce evidence Trump won’t provide. That burden is on Republicans. The task is to make sure the public understands that the reason there is no exculpatory evidence is that there is none. In the Senate, the House managers presenting the case should ask for a stipulation on the facts. We know what happened. Now it’s time to compel Republicans to refute it or to condone it.

Republicans will soon face a decision point: Do they support the Constitution or Trump.

The result of those decisions may very well determine the future of our nation.

[lastlib]

2. As I said on another thread, and on Facebook--

The GOPee and its allies are now confronted with a stark choice: Either STAND on the right side of infamy, or be BURIED by it. Choose Wisely.

[Brother Buzz]

3. If they have any information that is exculpatory...

then we look forward to seeing it. ...