The Shampeachement Follies

[TheDrake]

That kind of poll hacking isn't limited to right wing outlets. It's just as likely for Democrats and left leaning publications to tout a one month change in one particular poll without considering overall trend or margin for error.

BTW, that CNN/SSRS poll:

 The margin of sampling error for total respondents is +/- 3.7

So anybody who thinks a 5 point drop is significant when looking at just two samples doesn't really understand math. This is within the polling noise. Also a commonly overlooked reality, especially as pundits from every part of the political spectrum cackle about 2 point gains in popularity or policy based on just two polls.

[yossarian22c]

What I like (i.e., somewhat trust) about 538 is that they are a poll aggregator.  Most of the polls that are skewed pull to the right, and even though 538 includes them their impact is mitigated.  I don't completely trust them either, though, because of their seeming to lead the herd in predicting Hillary was a virtual shoo-in.  Statistics are still statistics, no matter how much you've got.

They had Hillary at about 70% on election day. Far from a shoe in. And honestly I think Comey's letter hadn't had time to fully percolate through the polls to get their weighted average (they do it over time as well) adjusted correctly. Another two days of polling and I'm guessing they would have had the race even closer.

Part of it is you just have to quit thinking about it as 70% means Hillary is a likely shoe in to thinking of her as a clear favorite but with a definite chance of loosing. To put it another way 538 had the odds of Trump winning higher than pulling out a coin and flipping heads twice in a row. The chances of getting heads twice isn't the most likely outcome but it isn't something that you would be all that surprised by either.

[Kasandra]

What I like (i.e., somewhat trust) about 538 is that they are a poll aggregator.  Most of the polls that are skewed pull to the right, and even though 538 includes them their impact is mitigated.  I don't completely trust them either, though, because of their seeming to lead the herd in predicting Hillary was a virtual shoo-in.  Statistics are still statistics, no matter how much you've got.

They had Hillary at about 70% on election day. Far from a shoe in. And honestly I think Comey's letter hadn't had time to fully percolate through the polls to get their weighted average (they do it over time as well) adjusted correctly. Another two days of polling and I'm guessing they would have had the race even closer.

If a poll (aggregate or otherwise) suggests there is a 70%-30% split and the margin of error is about 3.7% you would expect the outcome to be about 2:1.  You could still be wrong, but that's pretty reliable odds.

To put it another way 538 had the odds of Trump winning higher than pulling out a coin and flipping heads twice in a row.

Yeah but...We're not talking about 2 events combining for an unlikely outcome.  You would be closer to the situation if you placed a small weight on one side of the coin and flipped it once.  Hillary had that weight on her side and still lost.

[yossarian22c]

To put it another way 538 had the odds of Trump winning higher than pulling out a coin and flipping heads twice in a row.

Yeah but...We're not talking about 2 events combining for an unlikely outcome.  You would be closer to the situation if you placed a small weight on one side of the coin and flipped it once.  Hillary had that weight on her side and still lost.

I was just thinking of a situation with close to 30% odds of happening. Consider rolling a 1 or a 2 on a 6 sided die if you prefer. If I was placing a bet I would rather have 3-6 but it isn't a bet I would be wagering my mortgage money on even though the odds are favorable. That's the point I'm trying to get across 70% are good odds but there are limits to what you would be willing to bet on a single outcome of the roll.

Compare that to rolling a 2 with two 6 sided dice (~3%). Now the odds are getting good enough (assuming I'm getting everything else) that I would be willing to risk an entire months pay or more on the outcome of a single roll.

Something with a 30% outcome isn't that surprising. That's my only point, 538 had Hillary as a favorite but if you were interpreting their numbers in the right context it isn't that surprising Trump won.

[TheDeamon]

Or the "hundred year event" which actually is a 1 in 100 chance of an event happening in any given year.

When such "rolls" are being cast across tens of thousands of locations every year, well...

[Kasandra]

Or the "hundred year event" which actually is a 1 in 100 chance of an event happening in any given year.

When such "rolls" are being cast across tens of thousands of locations every year, well...

They included thousands of data points, which is enough (statistically) to smooth out outliers with the residue being the relatively small margin of error.  However, the polls should have measured only 50 things, the individual states (i.e., their electoral votes) instead of what the thousands of individuals preferred.  In other words, the polls were right - Clinton easily won the popular vote - but they were the wrong polls.

[TheDrake]

Predicting the electoral college is a much trickier beast than, say, predicting a Congressional race.

For anyone who geeks on statistics and simulations, this was the original 538 graph. The distribution is really interesting in the chart showing the data backing the 70/30 split.

[Kasandra]

Predicting the electoral college is a much trickier beast than, say, predicting a Congressional race.

For anyone who geeks on statistics and simulations, this was the original 538 graph. The distribution is really interesting in the chart showing the data backing the 70/30 split.

So 538 gave Clinton an edge of 77%-83% in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.  Don't you find it weird that those 3 geographically close and demographically similar states all went the other way?  Do you wonder that something else might have influenced the results in those states?

[TheDrake]

Predicting the electoral college is a much trickier beast than, say, predicting a Congressional race.

For anyone who geeks on statistics and simulations, this was the original 538 graph. The distribution is really interesting in the chart showing the data backing the 70/30 split.

So 538 gave Clinton an edge of 77%-83% in Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania.  Don't you find it weird that those 3 geographically close and demographically similar states all went the other way?  Do you wonder that something else might have influenced the results in those states?

Looking at Wisconsin, the raw vote prediction was 49.6, 44.3, 4.9 (the last being Johnson)

The result was 46.5, 47.2, 3.5

It looks like the undecideds (6.6%) were allocated evenly for the forecast. Michigan was 7% undecided, also split evenly. PA was the least undecided, at 4.8%, making it perhaps the least uncertain.

I went to wikipedia for the election writeup and found this:

Nate Silver found that the high number of undecided and third-party voters in the election was neglected in many of these models, and that many of these voters decided to vote for Trump.

And now we're way way off topic.

[TheDrake]

Or the "hundred year event" which actually is a 1 in 100 chance of an event happening in any given year.

When such "rolls" are being cast across tens of thousands of locations every year, well...

Statistics are fun. What's the actual chance of the 100 year event happening in 100 years?

Turns out, its actually 73%. 200 years, 87%. 300 years, 95%. For 10 years, it is pretty close to the intuitive 10%.

Aggregating locations would ignore that many 100 year flood plains are not independent rolls, but rather dependent on each other. Hurricanes cast a wide path, just like other storms that trigger such events. So predicting how many 100 year flood plains might flood in a given year would yield some interesting math that no one is probably interested enough in doing, except insurance companies, since their risk model has to account for the implication.

[Kasandra]

You're giving the reason why the reinsurance market is so profitable.  They have used models that calculate out 20,000 years from the current year's underwriting.  New software now allows them to use 100,000 year models. If you think that's just an esoteric fine point, consider that they are the most profitable segment of the risk insurance market and no general underwriter dares to issue policies without them.

[Crunch]

Chaos erupted at a town hall event featuring House Intel Chair Adam Schiff Monday; with pro-Trump protesters screaming “liar” and “treason” as the top Democrat took the stage.

“This shouldn’t be a partisan issue,” claimed Schiff.

“You’re a liar!” screamed a handful of protesters.

“You should be going to jail,” yelled another. “You’re guilty of treason.”

“You’re a disgrace to the House of Representatives. You should be going to jail for treason!” said another.

This doesn’t really give you a good sense of just how crazy it got - video shows the mob got pretty fired up. Schiff better have some security he can trust or stop doing public appearances.

[Kasandra]

Crunch, the question is what do you think of those so-called protesters who disrupted his town hall?  Were they right to do that?  Is Schiff really guilty of treason?

[Crunch]

People exercising their first amendment rights is ok by me.

[Pete at Home]

People exercising their first amendment rights is ok by me.

I did not like it when the Left systematically disrupted their enemies’ town halls, and I don’t like this either .

[ScottF]

I agree. It’s fine to protest outside, carry signs whatever. But infiltrating an event purely to disrupt it is gross.

[TheDeamon]

My understanding is that in at least a number of instances, there is some "honor" among the protestors. Once asked to leave, they leave. But up until then, they cause havoc inside.

Unlike a number of the leftist iterations, where Security had to remove them by force.

[Kasandra]

Trump supporters disrupt Schiff event, and also here.

Trump supporter disrupts Sanders event, and also here.

Trump supporters disrupt California Congressman's event.

Protesters disrupt Biden and Warren events.

Pro-Trump group organized disruption of Ocasio-Cortez event.

I'm sure there are anti-Trump protesters who try to go to Trump events, but they are prevented from going into the events for the most part.  The only one I know of was back in 2016 by Tlaib.  There are a few anti-Trump disruptions of other Republicans.  There are often fights between pro- and anti-Trump people outside.  There are also many instances of pro-Trump people disrupting state and local meetings.

Do you think both sides are equally guilty of doing this sort of thing?

[ScottF]

What do people thing Nancy's long game is by withholding the articles of impeachment, essentially leaving it unconsummated.

1. Occam’s razor, it’s simply a delay tactic to get the most press and potential leverage out of Trump being impeached, realizing that most people don’t really know what that means.

2. She has an angle, or is constructing one that virtually nobody knows yet. Something that will somehow de-neuter the impeachment and give it actual teeth.

3. She's doing it to piss Trump and Republicans off.

4 ?

[Kasandra]

Yes.

[TheDeamon]

What do people thing Nancy's long game is by withholding the articles of impeachment, essentially leaving it unconsummated.

1. Occam’s razor, it’s simply a delay tactic to get the most press and potential leverage out of Trump being impeached, realizing that most people don’t really know what that means.

At the moment, my guess would be this one, as the Senate already made clear the Trial wouldn't happen before they return to hold sessions in January. So her "delaying" the turnover to the Senate makes for more opportunities to generate political theater between now and then, as well as keep herself in the spotlight, because once she turns it over to the Senate, her part is done. Unless she decides to be part of the House Delegation presenting the evidence to the Senate at least. Which I believe would be unprecedented in relation to the two previous Presidential impeachments.

Although there are elements in press reporting going back to 2008 that certainly gives the vibe that she believes the Speaker of the House(at least, when she's in charge, Republican Speakers aren't supposed to be as powerful for some reason)  is the most powerful position in Washington, possibly more powerful than PotUS and SCotUS in her world view. So her dictating things to the Senate as the Speaker isn't out of character for that.

[TheDeamon]

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

From the Bloomberg bout the author

Noah Feldman is a Bloomberg Opinion columnist. He is a professor of law at Harvard University and was a clerk to U.S. Supreme Court Justice David Souter.

Souter was appointed by Bush 41, and is still among the living, but he retired in 2009, during the Obama Admin. Sonia Sotomayor occupies his former seat in the Supreme Court.

Somebody else can dig deeper into the politics of the author if they wish, but it is safe to say his politics likely lean to the left.

Now from his op-ed piece:

The relevant constitutional provisions are brief. Article I gives the House “the sole power of impeachment.” And it gives the Senate “the sole power to try all impeachments.” Article II says that the president “shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Putting these three different provisions together yields the conclusion that the only way to remove the president while he is in office is if the House impeaches him and the Senate tries and convicts him.

The provisions say nothing about timing. Taken literally, they don’t directly say that articles of impeachment passed by the House must be sent to the Senate. But the framers’ definition of impeachment assumed that impeachment was a process, not just a House vote.

The framers drafted the constitutional provisions against the backdrop of impeachment as it had been practiced in England, where the House of Commons impeached and the House of Lords tried the impeachments. The whole point of impeachment by the Commons was for the charges of impeachment to be brought against the accused in the House of Lords.

Strictly speaking, “impeachment” occurred – and occurs -- when the articles of impeachment are presented to the Senate for trial. And at that point, the Senate is obliged by the Constitution to hold a trial.

What would make that trial fair is a separate question, one that deserves its own discussion. But we can say with some confidence that only the Senate is empowered to judge the fairness of its own trial – that’s what the “sole power to try all impeachments” means.

If the House votes to “impeach” but doesn’t send the articles to the Senate or send impeachment managers there to carry its message, it hasn’t directly violated the text of the Constitution. But the House would be acting against the implicit logic of the Constitution’s description of impeachment.

Of note his comment about "But we can say with some confidence that only the Senate is empowered to judge the fairness of its own trial – that’s what the “sole power to try all impeachments” means." And here we have the Speaker of the House trying to dictate terms for the trial in the Senate. Yup, she certainly is a stickler for Constitutional law that Nancy Pelosi is.

[cherrypoptart]

"If you like your articles of impeachment you can keep your articles of impeachment, period."

[TheDeamon]

"If you like your articles of impeachment you can keep your articles of impeachment, period."

I'm getting a good laugh out of Pelosi's soundbyte about "a rogue President and a rogue Senate" being something the founders never envisioned. Coming so shortly after she had Republicans quoting the Federalist Papers on the House Floor where different writers in the Federalist Papers expressed concerns about the potential for purely partisan impeachment proceedings to be convened.

And in the wider context of the founders concerns about Democracy turning into Mob Rule, and the House being the most Democratic body in the Federal Government, what with it being "the People's House" as Speaker Pelosi loves to constantly bring up and all. They had concerns about the House being taken over by a populist mob, and well that's what you have a Senate for...

[Pete at Home]

I suspect Pelosi has an unplaced card up her sleeve. If she doesn’t, well, the markets and diplomatic front seem to have made ribbons of her impeachment scheme.

[DonaldD]

... or possibly, Pelosi doesn't and never did expect conviction, but was still duty-bound to constrain the president's overt attempts to subvert the upcoming election - and to provide 'direction' to future presidents who would be tempted to do the same.

[Kasandra]

At a minimum she's making Trump aware that she and the Democratic House aren't going to be his patsies.  She's had a string of successes lately where the content and timing were designed to diminish the spotlight Trump shines on himself.  She recently said, "I'm never afraid and I'm rarely surprised."  Trump hasn't had to deal with that sort of thing before now.  Her moves includes the following during the same week that he was impeached:

* Passing a labor-friendly TPPC on the same day impeachment passed. With the changes she made to the original wording, Republicans are now more uncomfortable with TPPC than Democrats were.
* Delaying sending the impeachment decision to the Senate in order to put pressure on Trump and McConnell to take Democrat concerns about the trial process into account. Technically, the House has no say in that, but if McConnell wobbles, she wins even more influence over Trump.
* Passing the budget deal including family leave and an increase in non-defense spending a few days later. Republican fiscal hawks have now totally caved and the deficit will increase even faster than before.  This makes absolutely clear to even his most ardent supporters in Congress that he can't control the budget and the tax cuts were never intended to pay for themselves.  The idea that Trump would ask for yet another tax cut is now ludicrous.
* Inviting him to deliver the SotU and setting the date to the day after the Iowa caucuses.  This also will create pressure on the timing of the impeachment trial. 

She's not done yet, and she's making it clear that Trump will keep being surprised and perhaps should be afraid.

[Kasandra]

And last night we learned that the hold on military funds for Ukraine was placed within hours after the July 25 call with instructions to keep that decision "closely held".  Perhaps all along she's known that there are shoes to drop, maybe a closet full of them.  The more that come out before the Senate can implement their trial plan the harder it will be for them to exclude witnesses with inside knowledge.

[Kasandra]

Duh!

* Passing a labor-friendly TPPC USMCA on the same day impeachment passed. With the changes she made to the original wording, Republicans are now more uncomfortable with TPPC USMCA than Democrats were.

[Pete at Home]

Deliberate or not, she’s created an invitation window for Putin to wreak more havoc. This ain’t a two player game, folks, and it’s time we remember it.

[ScottF]

I'm not really seeing the Trump should be afraid angle. His donor $s and signups have shot through the roof since the kinda-impeached decision came down. It seems to be galvanizing/growing his based and he appears to thrive in these kinds of environments. The more antagonistic or chaotic/random, the better.

[DonaldD]

I'm not sure why Putin would care about the window since Trump has been steadfastly holding the doors open for him for the past 3 years...

Of course, that's presupposing that stopping Trump from selling out the country's electoral process to foreign entities is in any way an invitation to foreign entities... the whole idea of blaming Democrats for, not just Trump's refusal to investigate Russian interference, but his active resistance to such investigations is... misplaced.

[TheDeamon]

... or possibly, Pelosi doesn't and never did expect conviction, but was still duty-bound to constrain the president's overt attempts to subvert the upcoming election - and to provide 'direction' to future presidents who would be tempted to do the same.

I have doubts that Trump was thinking much about 2020, it might have registered in his narcissistic brain, but I doubt it played any kind of major role in regards to Ukraine.

Trump has a track record of being exceedingly petty, he carries grudges for a very long time. He also does not appreciate assaults on his image. Ukraine in 2016 was ground zero for getting his attention in all categories, particularly after the Mueller report came out, which is the time-frame we're talking about all of this happening in. The Bidens were, if anything, likely to have been an afterthought for Trump rather than anything close to being a pivotal or decisive reason for doing what Trump did.

Without Trump being upset about the all the other 2016 shenanigans that involved Ukraine, the "ask" for the Biden investigation is likely to have never happened. Which basically nullifies the entire impeachment proceeding since Article 1 of his impeachment is fixating on interference on the 2020 elections as being the sole cause for Trump doing what he did.

[TheDeamon]

And last night we learned that the hold on military funds for Ukraine was placed within hours after the July 25 call with instructions to keep that decision "closely held".  Perhaps all along she's known that there are shoes to drop, maybe a closet full of them.  The more that come out before the Senate can implement their trial plan the harder it will be for them to exclude witnesses with inside knowledge.

If anything, I'd think that screws with the Democrats timeline more than anything else.

I thought the July 25th phone call was in response to the funds being held back. Now we find out the deliberate hold-back didn't even happen until after that phone call?

I also note your phrasing is very vague as to the source for that order, did Trump issue it, or some shadowy White House Official? Was Trump inside or outside of that particular decision loop at the time? (Could be a rogue Admin official who was privy to the call who put a hold on it in response to Trump's part in the call, and it being "closely held" was to keep Trump unaware for as long as possible--but that's deep-state talk, or talk from a certain "Anonymous White House official" who has asserted there are "grown ups" in the White House working to keep Trump in line; obviously Trump learned about the hold-back later)... But that also changes the significance of that funding hold back.

Funds were approved in May, the Trump Admin didn't implement a deliberate hold on the funds until the end of July. Funds were released by the first half of September. So it added maybe a 6 week delay on the release of funds? If that, considering we now don't know why they were still being held on July 25th?

[TheDeamon]

More ponderings on the funding hold back happening after the phone call.

The Phone Call is their centerpiece in claiming he was withholding the funds in order to get a Biden investigation. In fact, the phone call was due in part to that hold-back.

So Trump has a nice conversation with the leader of Ukraine, who sounds agreeable to looking into the Bidens among other things...Then Trump decides to withhold the money?

What kind of extortion deal is that?

[DonaldD]

The kind where one actually holds power over the extorted party until they actually do what one wants of them (as opposed to simply agreeing to the terms and then doing nothing)?  I suppose it's a good thing that you don't have a deep and personal understanding of the mechanics of extortion...

[TheDeamon]

The kind where one actually holds power over the extorted party until they actually do what one wants of them (as opposed to simply agreeing to the terms and then doing nothing)?  I suppose it's a good thing that you don't have a deep and personal understanding of the mechanics of extortion...

The withholding as "a guarantee of compliance" only goes so far, as it doesn't make sense in the larger picture. Trump would need to ensure they get the money by the end of the FY regardless, so the opportunity to play games with it is rather limited given a start date of July 25th and the FY ending on September 30th. That's only 2 months.

He'd be better off trying to expedite the money to them in "a show of good faith" on his end with an implied threat of future ramifications if they don't deliver. They've been fighting Russian insurgents for years now, they're probably going to be several years cleaning that up, given Russia is stirring the pot on the other side.

[Fenring]

The kind where one actually holds power over the extorted party until they actually do what one wants of them (as opposed to simply agreeing to the terms and then doing nothing)?  I suppose it's a good thing that you don't have a deep and personal understanding of the mechanics of extortion...

Your idea is that Trump was going to withhold funds until...what? Until Zelenskyy had demonstrated completion of an investigation? Or the beginning of one? How long do you think Trump could plausibly have kept the funds in limbo for this extortion, seeing as investigations of that sort can take quite a while? It doesn't sound plausible to me. And how would Trump explain that to Congress the longer it went on? The only way this hypothesis makes sense is to assert that Trump was so daft that he came up with a nonsensical plan.

[Kasandra]

I thought the July 25th phone call was in response to the funds being held back. Now we find out the deliberate hold-back didn't even happen until after that phone call?

You're a tad too fine grained.  Trump was looking for leverage and decided to hold back the money in case he needed to apply just a little more pressure.  Standard ploy in every crime b-movie plot.

I also note your phrasing is very vague as to the source for that order, did Trump issue it, or some shadowy White House Official? Was Trump inside or outside of that particular decision loop at the time? (Could be a rogue Admin official who was privy to the call who put a hold on it in response to Trump's part in the call, and it being "closely held" was to keep Trump unaware for as long as possible--but that's deep-state talk, or talk from a certain "Anonymous White House official" who has asserted there are "grown ups" in the White House working to keep Trump in line; obviously Trump learned about the hold-back later)... But that also changes the significance of that funding hold back.

You've got to be kidding.  Nobody does anything the boss don't like, don't need to be told and certainly wouldn't ask.

The Phone Call is their centerpiece in claiming he was withholding the funds in order to get a Biden investigation. In fact, the phone call was due in part to that hold-back.

The call wasn't the centerpiece, the whistleblower report about it was the first inkling.

[TheDeamon]

I also note your phrasing is very vague as to the source for that order, did Trump issue it, or some shadowy White House Official? Was Trump inside or outside of that particular decision loop at the time? (Could be a rogue Admin official who was privy to the call who put a hold on it in response to Trump's part in the call, and it being "closely held" was to keep Trump unaware for as long as possible--but that's deep-state talk, or talk from a certain "Anonymous White House official" who has asserted there are "grown ups" in the White House working to keep Trump in line; obviously Trump learned about the hold-back later)... But that also changes the significance of that funding hold back.

You've got to be kidding.  Nobody does anything the boss don't like, don't need to be told and certainly wouldn't ask.

If the NY Times is to be believed, and some of the testimony given to House unironically gives some credance to that specific leaker, people in the White House frequently go about deliberately undermining things Trump wants to do.

And last I checked, the NY Times is hardly a Trump apologist front.

The Phone Call is their centerpiece in claiming he was withholding the funds in order to get a Biden investigation. In fact, the phone call was due in part to that hold-back.

The call wasn't the centerpiece, the whistleblower report about it was the first inkling.

The call is an inkblot test that has lead to a non-falsifiable hypothesis for the left-wits.

[Kasandra]

If the NY Times is to be believed, and some of the testimony given to House unironically gives some credance to that specific leaker, people in the White House frequently go about deliberately undermining things Trump wants to do.

Ah, yes, if one report says that then it must be true across the board.  Except, of course, not.

The call is an inkblot test that has lead to a non-falsifiable hypothesis for the left-wits.

The call transcript is an admission by Trump that he did it. It's just that Trump insists it's perfectly fine and his troops all dial that into their think bots.  I hesitate to call you a member of that royal brigade, but in that comment you do veer in their direction.  Somehow he has lied over 14,000 times, but THIS time he's telling the stone cold truth.  Amazing.

[TheDeamon]

The call is an inkblot test that has lead to a non-falsifiable hypothesis for the left-wits.

The call transcript is an admission by Trump that he did it. It's just that Trump insists it's perfectly fine and his troops all dial that into their think bots.  I hesitate to call you a member of that royal brigade, but in that comment you do veer in their direction.  Somehow he has lied over 14,000 times, but THIS time he's telling the stone cold truth.  Amazing.

Trump participates in a phone call that runs for many minutes and covers a range of topics. Mentions Biden twice(in a single statement) in relation to corruption and events in Ukraine.

Democrats go "Wait Biden is a front-runner for the Democrat Nomination in 2020. This call must be about influencing 2020!" And promptly ignore everything else that call covered both before and after that statement by Trump.

Any attempt to demonstrate how some of what Trump brought up as relevant to 2016 also gets ignored.

After all, the Democrats already have their non-falsifiable position staked out that it is only about 2020 because the Bidens were mentioned. Everything else is just a cover-up, excuses, and conspiracy on the part of Trump's patsies. Often going to level of pointing to other things that tangentially involved Ukraine (Russian hacking) as having "already been disproven." But are not actually the things that are being pointed at.

[Ouija Nightmare]

UNCLASSIFIED
Declassified by order of the President
September 24, 2019
MEMORANDUM OF TELEPHONE CONVERSATION
SUBJECT: Telephone Conversation with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine
Participants: President Zelenskyy of Ukraine
Notetakers: The White House Situation Room
Date, Time July 25, 2019, 9:03-9:33 am EDT
and Place: Residence
The President: Congratulations on a great victory. We all watched from the United States and you did a terrific job. The way you came from behind, somebody who wasn't given much of a chance, and you ended up winning easily. It's a fantastic achievement. Congratulations.
President Zelenskyy: You are absolutely right Mr. President. We did win big and we worked hard for this. We worked a lot but I would like to confess to you that I had an opportunity to learn from you. We used quite a few of your skills and knowledge and were able to use it as an example for our elections and yes it is true that these were unique elections. We were in a unique situation that we were able to achieve a unique success. I'm able to tell you the following; the first time you called me to congratulate me when I won my presidential election, and the second time you are now calling me when my party won the parliamentary election. I think I should run more often so you can call me more often and we can talk over the phone more often.
The President: (laughter) That's a very good idea. I think your country is very happy about that.
President Zelenskyy: Well yes, to tell you the truth, we are trying to work hard because we wanted to drain the swamp here in our country. We brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type of government. You are a great teacher for us and in that.
The President: Well it is very nice of you to say that. 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.
President Zelenskyy: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000% and I can tell you the following; I did talk to Angela Merkel and I did meet with her I also met and talked with Macron and I told them that they are not doing quite as much as they need to be doing on the issues with the sanctions. They are not enforcing the sanctions. They are not working as much as they should work for Ukraine. It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European Union and I'm very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to thank you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost. ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.
The President: 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're 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.
President Zelenskyy: 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. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. 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 will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. 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.
The President: 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.
President Zelenskyy: I wanted to tell you about the prosecutor. First of all, I understand and I'm knowledgeable about the situation. Since we have won the absolute majority in our Parliament, the next prosecutor general will be 100% my person, my candidate, who will be approved, by the parliament and will start as a new prosecutor in September. He or she will look into the situation, specifically to the company that you mentioned in this issue. The issue of the investigation of the case is actually the issue of making sure to restore the honesty so we will take care of that and will work on the investigation of the case. On top of that, 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 with regard to the Ambassador to the United States from Ukraine as far as I recall her name was Ivanovich. It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.
The President: 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, their incredible people.
President Zelenskyy: I would like to tell you that I also have quite a few Ukrainian friends that live in the United States. Actually last time I traveled to the United States, I stayed in New York near Central Park and I stayed at the Trump Tower. I will talk to them and I hope to see them again in the future. I also wanted to thank you for your invitation to visit the United States, specifically Washington DC. On the other hand, I also want to ensure 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 and cooperating on energy independence with 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.
The President: 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.
President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much. I would be very happy to come and would be happy to meet with you personally and get to know you better. I am looking forward to our meeting and I also would like to invite you to visit Ukraine and come to the city of Kyiv which is a beautiful city. We have a beautiful country which would welcome you. On the other hand, I believe that on September 1 we will be in Poland and we can meet in Poland hopefully. After that, it might be a very good idea for you to travel to Ukraine. We can either take my plane and go to Ukraine or we can take your plane, which is probably much better than mine.
The President: Okay, we can work that out. I look forward to seeing you in Washington and maybe in Poland because I think we are going to be there at that time.
President Zelenskyy: Thank you very much Mr. President.
The President: Congratulations on a fantastic job you've done. The whole world was watching. I'm not sure it was so much of an upset but congratulations.
President Zelenskyy: Thank you Mr. President bye-bye

[Ouija Nightmare]

It’s fascinating to me that people can read that and come away with such completely different impressions of what went on.

[TheDeamon]

The President: 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're 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.

This is the part I'm amazed that the Democrats so casually hand-wave away with regards to Trump. This is 100% in character for Him. It's petty, it's tied to the Mueller Report and Trump's inability to let things go, coming right on the heels of the report being made public, and Mueller implicates Ukraine in multiple ways beyond just simply Russia using servers based in Ukraine. (That and thinking Trump has the tech-savvy to realize there is a distinction on even that much is another matter)

Everything in the above points very solidly at 2016 and/or Mueller, no ifs ands, or buts about it. Biden has absolutely nothing to do with that, or at least, he has no known connections to it.

President Zelenskyy: 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. For that purpose, I just recalled our ambassador from United States and he will be replaced by a very competent and very experienced ambassador who will work hard on making sure that our two nations are getting closer. I would also like and hope to see him having your trust and your confidence and have personal relations with you so we can cooperate even more so. 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 will make sure that I surround myself with the best and most experienced people. 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.
The President: 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.

Which is the Democrats promptly memory hole everything else in the conversation, zero in on Biden, and declare the entire conversation to be about the 2020 presidential campaign. Everything else is simply "cover" for Trump to get what he really wants, the investigation into the Biden family. Because somehow Ukraine, a nation with a history of corruption(and thus easy to ignore), announcing that they have an open investigation(no evidence, no findings, just an investigation) into Hunter Biden, a year before the election, is somehow going to play a pivotal and decisive role in Trump's 2020 election campaign bid. (It might now, but only because of how the Democrats reacted to learning about the above "ask" being made to Ukraine--and their decision to turn it into "a Constitutional Crises.")

It boggles the mind.

Further, for "influencing 2020" items, political news cycles being what they are. NOTHING in FY2019 was ever likely to have significant lasting damage on the Biden Campaign in time to influence much of anything by the time polls opened in January. Never mind the General Election in November the following year. The time line and strategy for that makes no sense. If Trump was going for damage on Biden with just the announcement he'd be wanting it to come out in late December or early January... Not August or September, so again, holding funds back makes no sense.

[TheDeamon]

It’s fascinating to me that people can read that and come away with such completely different impressions of what went on.

Part of it I'm seeing on Social Media is that at least the vocal Anti-Trumpers on my feed have fully disassociated the Mueller Report with that phone call, or it having any potential significance with regards to Trump's interest in Ukraine during this past summer. For them, it is all about Biden2020.

[Kasandra]

You don't think Trump can be corrupt on multiple issues at the same time?

[DonaldD]

Mentions Biden twice(in a single statement) in relation to corruption and events in Ukraine.

No.  You don't get to make this up.  Trump made zero reference to "corruption".  Zelensky arguably made an implicit reference to corruption, but Trump ignored that reference completely, and his reference to the Biden's was much more closely tied to his "favour" statement than to Zelensky's "swamp" reference.

[DonaldD]

it  doesn't make sense in the larger picture. Trump would need to ensure they get the money by the end of the FY regardless, so the opportunity to play games with it is rather limited given a start date of July 25th and the FY ending on September 30th. That's only 2 months.

a) as the witnesses have testified, the extortion started well before the July 25 call, and b) do you really think that Trump wasn't willing to have the Ukrainians believe he would allow the funds to go unspent (or to actually leave them unspent for that matter?)

[TheDeamon]

it  doesn't make sense in the larger picture. Trump would need to ensure they get the money by the end of the FY regardless, so the opportunity to play games with it is rather limited given a start date of July 25th and the FY ending on September 30th. That's only 2 months.

a) as the witnesses have testified, the extortion started well before the July 25 call, and b) do you really think that Trump wasn't willing to have the Ukrainians believe he would allow the funds to go unspent (or to actually leave them unspent for that matter?)

Evidently the extortion started on the 25th of July?

Unless you're saying Kasandra is a Trump apologist now?

And last night we learned that the hold on military funds for Ukraine was placed within hours after the July 25 call with instructions to keep that decision "closely held".  Perhaps all along she's known that there are shoes to drop, maybe a closet full of them.  The more that come out before the Senate can implement their trial plan the harder it will be for them to exclude witnesses with inside knowledge.