,
16 tweets,
3 min read
Read on Twitter
The stories of what @realDonaldTrump did and what @JoeBiden did with regards to Ukraine aren't even close to the same. Let's look at how:
1. Trump brought up a political rival and, if the WSJ story is true, he was pressuring a foreign leader, not only ACCEPTING foreign intervention on his behalf, like many in his campaign did in 2016 from Russia, but ASKING for it.
2. He employed his personal lawyer to lay the groundwork for this political attack and in seeking the foreign intervention. This is something Giuliani ADMITS to (cited in WSJ)
3. Giuliani's role is very peculiar in all this -- mtg with Ukrainian officials in Madrid and Paris and having the STATE Department set up the Madrid meeting. There are lots of questions about appropriateness and the Trump admin using State as an arm of the president's campaign
4. The WSJ story says there was no "quid pro quo" explicitly mentioned on the call between Trump and the Ukranian official. But the timing and the changing amounts of $ raise questions that reporters and Congress aren't getting answers to
5. And remember, all of this stems from a whistleblower complaint, from someone concerned enough in the intelligence community to say, this isn't right and is unprecedented. And yet -- Congress isn't even getting to see the complaint.
6. Republicans on the Hill say if what is reported to have taken place, actually took place, then it would be inappropriate (see Toomey on Meet the Press). But conveniently because of pt. 5, they may never KNOW if just how inappropriate it was.
7. That insulates Republican elected officials from actually taking a position of criticizing the president, as they hope this story dies down and instead hope the deflection toward Biden and his son paper over what the president did.
8. But this, these tactics, will be an ongoing story because why would anyone expect Trump and his campaign NOT to employ these same tactics through the 2020 campaign, especially with no real consequences.
9. What's more, the president has already ADMITTED now to bringing up Biden on the call and said what he views as the former VP's "corruption" needs to be looked into. It's not too far a bridge to get from one to the next.
10. All of this has led the center to move on Capitol Hill and has increased the likelihood of impeachment. Democrats see this as blatant corruption and abuse of power.
11. As to Biden: the IMF, the World Bank, Western European countries/Western alliance were unified in their belief that the prosecutor in Ukraine had to go and was corrupt in order to continue to get aid. Biden has talked about it and touted it.
12. Now, Hunter Biden WAS on a board of a gas company that that prosecutor was looking into. And that doesn't LOOK good, but there's a difference between the look of something and reality. The fact is: this was a policy of the administration, not Biden freelancing
13. Hunter is undoubtedly going to continue to be a headache for his father, as have lots of relatives of many presidents. And he appears to have been cashing in on the Biden name. But what other children of someone in power are cashing in on a president's name?
14. Just look at Ivanka Trump getting trademarks fast tracked in China or even having a job in the White House at all. There are myriad other ways the Trumps have tried to cash in on their family name.
15. Whatever your political leanings, if you take your partisan hat off and be reasonable (which I realize is pretty much impossible, especially in this medium) these two storylines when it comes to Ukraine
