Congress, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Media, Politics

Transcript: Trump Asks For “Favor” in Investigating The Bidens But Stops Short Of A Quid Pro Quo

The release of the transcript of the conversation of President Donald Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy falls a quid short of a pro quo but still raises troubling questions. As I have discussed on CBS and BBC, the transcript shows that Trump never expressly tied military aid to the “favor.” However, he does push his counterpart to reopen the investigation and even promises to put together a call with his private counsel Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General Bill Barr. However, the Justice Department has released a statement that Barr was not informed of the call by Trump and never spoke with the Ukrainians. While Republicans have called the release of the transcript as a mistake, I believe credit again should be given for the waiver of executive privilege. As with the Mueller report, the White House erred on the side of transparency and that should be noted. There remains a serious question for Congress to investigate but the transcript does not establish the quid pro quo that is practically needed for a compelling case of impeachment.

As I discuss in my column today, the transcript contains some positive elements for Trump. Yet, the subject of the call is deeply troubling and, at a minimum, shows appalling judgment on the part of the president.

The Democrats however will need far more than the whistleblower to make this case. They will need a witness who can tie Trump to a direct linkage between the military aid and the push for an investigation. There is no question that using public office for personal benefit would constitute an abuse of office and an impeachable offense.

There remains considerable skepticism that Pelosi is truly an impeachable convert. The Speaker can still effectively kill impeachment by pushing issues into court and letting the clock run out. The problem is that Democratic voters are clamoring for an actual impeachment and Pelosi may find it increasingly difficult to slow this train down.

I am on my way to Tampa to speak at the Biometrics conference, but will try to update with any developments on this fast moving story.

328 thoughts on “Transcript: Trump Asks For “Favor” in Investigating The Bidens But Stops Short Of A Quid Pro Quo”

  1. From The Transcripts:

    TRUMP PORTRAYED GIULIANI AS AN ENVOY

    WHILE DISSING CONFIRMED AMBASSADOR (A WOMAN)

    The President: “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 the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news I just want to let you know that.”

    Here the president is pushing Mr. Zelensky to deal directly with Mr. Giuliani, his personal lawyer and close ally, while disparaging the United States’ Senate-confirmed ambassador.

    Mr. Giuliani has repeatedly pushed conspiracy theories about the Bidens and encouraged the Ukrainian government to ramp up investigations into them. He told The New York Times in May that he was doing so “because that information will be very, very helpful to my client, and may turn out to be helpful to my government.”

    At the time of this call, Mr. Giuliani had recently spoken on the phone with a top representative of the new Ukrainian president, and would soon meet him in person in Madrid. Mr. Giuliani has said he was acting on his own as a private citizen, but with the knowledge and assistance of the State Department.

    Edited from: “The Trump – Zelensky Phone Call: 6 Key Moments”

    Today’s New York Times

    1. The Female Ambassador was corrupt. She had issued a “Do Not Prosecute” List to the Ukranians and one was–Burisma.

  3. Are funds authorized by congress as aid to countries like Ukraine considered mandatory expenditures? That’s how this aid involving Trump has been characterized. Was the $1 billion aid package approved for Ukraine involving Biden also mandatory? I would hope that president’s have some discretion to withhold as necessary.

    1. Trump has no say-so in holding up military assistance funds appropriated by Congress. He is NOT a king or emperor. He has NO discretion as to spending taxpayer money. Read the Constitution. Even if he had discretion, withholding funds as leverage to try to get a foreign government to create false evidence to be used by his campaign would be illegal.

      Olly: this latest crisis isn’t about Biden or his son–they were cleared. it is about Trump.

      1. Trump has no say-so in holding up military assistance funds appropriated by Congress. He is NOT a king or emperor.

        If that were true, then Biden has no say-so in holding up military assistance funds appropriated by Congress. He is NOT a king or emperor.

        Right?

  4. From The Transcripts:

    TRUMP THINKS UKRAINE HAS SERVER..

    USED BY DNC HACKERS

    Trump said Barr would call the Ukrainian president about another investigation.

    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 in 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.”

    Mr. Trump appears to be referencing an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory pushed by Rudolph W. Giuliani, the president’s personal lawyer, that Ukraine had some involvement in the emails stolen from Democratic National Committee.

    Mr. Giuliani said in a previously unpublished portion of an interview with The New York Times in April that he was in touch with people “who said that the Ukrainians were the ones who did the hacking,” then participated in an effort to blame the Russian government and link it to the Trump campaign.

    The special counsel’s report, which Mr. Trump disparages here, made clear that Russian military officers hacked the D.N.C. mail server. There is no evidence that the Ukrainians were involved. But in May, Attorney General William P. Barr launched his own investigation into the Russia investigation and its origins.

    Edited from: “The Trump – Zelensky Phone Call: 6 Key Moments”

    Today’s New York Times
    ……………………………………………………………………………………………………………………….

    Here Trump is confronting Zelensky with an unsubstantiated conspiracy theory that was pushed earlier by Rudolph Giuliani. Apparently Giuliani had spun the hacking as a ‘false flag’ operation. This despite findings by every major intelligence agency that the hacking had been overseen by Russian Intelligence Units.

    Interestingly Trump refers to Robert Mueller who had testified before Congress the day before. It seems Mueller’s lackluster performance may have inspired Trump to make this call.

    1. Nope. The FBI can’t say squat about the server. 1) They never examined it, and relied on information supplied by Crowdstrike. 2) The FBI never talked to Julian Assange, to whom the info was given.

      Sooo, unless the FBI is clairvoyant, they can’t make any real determinations about Russia or anybody else.

      That is pretty simple to understand, isn’t it???

      Squeeky Fromm
      Girl Reporter

        1. No.

          “….The claims are based on metadata from the files, which were leaked by their purported hacker, Guccifer 2.0, during the 2016 election season.

          Metadata is information recorded in a file for archiving purposes and is not displayed when a file is open. It can include the last date a file is modified and note what software and devices were involved in creating the file, among other information.
          When files are copied to a new device, the metadata can record the time each file finishes being duplicated as the time it was “last modified.”

          A blogger named “The Forensicator” analyzed the “last modified” times in one set of documents released by Guccifer 2.0. Based on the size of the documents and the times they were downloaded, Forensicator calculated that a hacker was able to copy the files at a speed of more than 20 megabytes per second.

          That is faster than consumer internet services in the United States can upload documents.

          As a result, Forensicator concluded that the documents could not have been copied over the internet. Instead, someone with physical access to the network must have copied them in person to a USB drive, the blogger concluded.

          “This theory assumes that the hacker downloaded the files to a computer and then leaked it from that computer,” said Rich Barger, director of security research at Splunk.

          But, said Barger and other experts, that overlooks the possibility the files were copied multiple times before being released, something that may be more probable than not in a bureaucracy like Russian intelligence.

          “A hacker might have downloaded it to one computer, then shared it by USB to an air gapped [off the internet] network for translation, then copied by a different person for analysis, then brought a new USB to an entirely different air gapped computer to determine a strategy all before it was packaged for Guccifer 2.0 to leak,” said Barger.

          Every time the files were copied, depending on the method they were transmitted, there would be a new chance for the metadata to be changed.

          Hultquist said the date that Forensicator believes that the files were downloaded, based on the metadata, is almost definitely not the date the files were removed from the DNC.

          That date, July 5, 2016, was far later than the April dates when the DNC hackers registered “electionleaks.com” and “DCLeaks.com.” Hulquist noted that the DNC hackers likely had stolen files by the time they began determining their strategy to post them. …”

          https://thehill.com/policy/cybersecurity/346468-why-the-latest-theory-about-the-dnc-not-being-a-hack-is-probably-wrong

      2. The FBI has is a red herring. The Mueller Probe and every major intelligence agency determined that Russian Military Intelligence units oversaw the hacking.

        1. Hill – they based it on what evidence? There is no evidence except what Crowdstrike told them.

          1. Paul, what you talking about? You’re saying our intelligence agencies were just taking Crowdstrikes word for it..?? I don’t think so!

            1. actually that is precisely the suspicion.

              let’s look at a story from wired. whilst it goes to pains to maintain your illusions about this, but i will interpolate the significant facts that a defense lawyer would immediately seize on and comprehend as a very important “Chain of custody” problem.

              https://www.wired.com/story/trump-ukraine-call-crowdstrike-dnc-russia/

              “…As part of that remediation, the DNC, CrowdStrike, and government investigators had to “decommission more than 140 servers, remove and reinstall all software, including the operating systems, for more than 180 computers, and rebuild at least 11 servers,” according to court documents filed by the DNC in 2018.

              Trump has had a very public, long-held fascination with that process, for years referring to the DNC’s “missing server.” But when CrowdStrike or another firm investigates an incident, they typically don’t physically remove a client’s devices. [STOP RIGHT HERE: UNDERSTAND THAT WHEN FBI INVESTIGATES, THEY NORMALLY DO PHYSICALLY REMOVE DEVICES!!!!] Instead, they make “images” of the hard drive and memory of every relevant device so that they can preserve a sort of snapshot of the compromised systems. Over time, digital forensic evidences washes away, as people reboot their devices or add and delete files.

              In other words, there is no missing server. There’s no physical box locked away in a vault somewhere. There are simply copies of what the DNC’s systems looked like at the time of the attack, which both CrowdStrike and the DNC confirm were shared with the FBI during the investigation, no U-Haul required.

              “With regards to our investigation of the DNC hack in 2016, we provided all forensic evidence and analysis to the FBI,” CrowdStrike said in a statement. “As we’ve stated before, we stand by our findings and conclusions that have been fully supported by the US intelligence community.”

              2 KEY OMITTED POINTS.

              A. NORMALLY FBI DOES NOT TAKE A PRIVATE THIRD PARTY VENDOR’S WORD FOR IT. THEY TOOK CROWDSTRIKE’S WORD FOR IT THAT THEY MIRROR IMAGED ALL THE RELEVANT SERVERS. NORMALLY THE FBI TAKES ALL THE PHYSICAL MEDIA INTO THEIR OWN CUSTODY AND DOES IT THEMSELVES. PROCEDURE IN THIS INVESTIGATION WAS ANYTHING BUT “NORMAL”

              B. THE FACT THAT THE CROWDSTRIKE REP SAYS “WE GAVE YOU ALL THE STUFF, HONEST WE DID!” DOES NOT NORMALLY WASH IN ANY OTHER SORT OF INVESTIGATION.

              so going back to paragraph one above: how many of the relevant servers were taken into FBI sole custody and mirror imaged by the FBI? was it 1, 14, or 140? 140, 180, or 11?

              see, the way English works, lots of things in that conclusory statement are not clear. like how many boxes the fbi actually examined themselves without crowdstrike telling them what to think. And also, where it says “crowdstrike and government investigators…. that could mean “and” in the logical sense of “or,” like, the FBI took one box into custody, and Crowdstrike actually kept the other 139. Or was it 11?

              in the usual scenario, FBI would have just made Crowdstrike cough them all up, into evidence vans they go, off to FBI labs for forensic exams.

              Oh, and don’t let the over writing thing confuse you. If a private party tells FBI hmm these servers were over written the FBI would normally say GIVE THEM UP AND WE WILL CONFIRM THAT, THANK YOU

              NORMAL SOPS NOT FOLLOWED IN THIS CASE.
              BOTTOM LINE: THE FBI TOOK THE DNC’S WORD FOR IT.

              So yeah. Maybe Trump is right. Maybe the original servers are in a server farm off in Ukraine. And he’s the top cop and would like to have them delivered. now, maybe that’s useless now and too late, but, maybe not. and more importantly, we know that the “Hack” was not technologically possible. It was a leak. The files were too big to be sucked like a golfball through a garden hose. they had to have been downloaded onto a thumb drives or like that and sneaked out of DNC hq. This is not a secret. I have posted the analysis here many times.

            2. Hill – other than Crowdstrike, there is NO evidence that anyone hacked the DNC computers.

                1. Hill – the Mueller Report named ghosts who will never be questioned or tried. Don’t you find that suspicious?

                  1. Paul, Trump is chasing ghosts by thinking Ukraine has the server. That’s far more ridiculous than anything in the Mueller Report.

                    Mueller’s report is based on extensive investigations. Trump pretended to accept the report when he thought it ‘exonerated’ him. But supporters like you want to pick and choose which part of the reports you want to accept.

                    Early in Trump’s term every official in his cabinet went on record as saying they believed Russians hacked. When Trump stood beside Putin and said he was siding ‘against’ our intelligence agencies that created a huge uproar. Arguably Trump should have been impeached for that.

                    1. Bullsh*t! How frigging extensive could it have been if they never talked to the real live guy who released the info, Julian Assange??? How frigging extensive could it have been if Mueller supposedly did not know who Fusion GPS was??? Or, if they never actually examined the computer?

                      This ain’t all that hard.

                      Nope, just more shilling by a shill.

                      Squeeky Fromm
                      Girl Reporter

                    2. Trump impeached for having an opinion that differed with the CIA huh?

                      I’m amazed at how much the New Liberals like you trust the CIA. oh for yesteryear when things like the Church committee struck fear into both sides of the political spectrum for the mischief they often do. You are old enough to remember that Peter or at least know about it, what happened to make you such a booster of spookdom?

                      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Church_Committee

        2. Bwahahahahahaha! How did the FBI do anything without actually seeing the computer and examining it??? You just can not get from that failure, to “every major intelligence agency”. . .

          Squeeky Fromm
          Girl Reporter

          1. in a run of the mill illegal porn case or any other case in which electronic evidence is at the heart of the matter, what is SOP? standard operating procedure?

            well, the answer to that question since it’s actually quite well known to lawyers who actually go to court.

            the FBI will generally try and take physical custody of the relevant computer or phone and make a mirror imaged hard drive copy. i don’t mean virtual custody. I don’t mean leave it in private hands. I mean they send people in to assess the location, unplug the box, haul it out, and go make a mirror copy of the hard drive in an FBI forensic lab.

            subject to all possible limiting factors, they do this as much as they can. it’s in here if you know where to look.

            https://www.ncjrs.gov/pdffiles1/nij/199408.pdf

            why then in a case as important as this, would the FBI just rely on the biased opinion of the hirelings of the DNC, eager to cast their own interpretation on the evidence?

            um um um……. any defense lawyer would shoot a big fat hole in these procedures

            william binney would be our expert

            https://raymcgovern.com/2019/02/14/evidence-mounts-dnc-emails-got-to-wikileaks-via-a-leak-not-a-hack/

          2. Squeeky, it doesn’t sound like you ever made any serious effort to read up on this issue.

    1. It’s one of the professor’s signatures that what he perceives as establishment opinion is given the benefit of every doubt.

  7. There are demands that the whistle blower be brought before Congress to testify and reports that the whistle blower wants to testify. That person should be careful what he/she wishes for. Since it has been established that the person was not present during the conversation and did not see any transcript, the WB will be asked where the information came from. I think the WB should hire some security and a food taster.

  8. I am not seeing the crime. The Donald did see the crime, the Ukrainian PM didn’t see the crime. Evidently, you have to be infected with TDS to see the crime.

  9. The depth of the hypocrisy in the Congress is staggering.

    By that reasoning every single time a CongressCritter asks for a corporate ‘donation’ it’s an implied QPQ for their incumbency. How is asking for ‘a favor’ any different than Obama asking Medvedev to wait until after the election when he ‘will have more flexibility’? Of course he can and will ask.

    Pelosi screeching about ‘Not above the law” – that brings to mind Congress’ disregard for insider trading laws despite the STOCK Act. Or despite passing the FOIA, exempting itself. “Do as we say, and we’ll do what ever we want”

    No wonder Congress has such a dismal record of achievement. No wonder Congress commands so little respect..

  10. Professor Turley says, “The release of the transcript of the conversation of President Donald Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelenskiy falls a quid short of a pro quo but still raises troubling questions.” But Professor Turley provides no facts or evidence to support his statement that the call “still raises troubling questions.” What troubling questions?

    And then later in his unsupported political statement, Professor Turley claims that President Trump “shows appalling judgment.” Really? How does he do that? Professor Turley does not say.

    Professor Turley would do well to make his articles more concise when he analyzes such things. How about this, Professor Turley? “The phone call is a nothingburger, but I still hate Trump and I hope my fellow Democrats continue to attack the President, even if their accusations have not merit whatsoever.” See? Short, sweet, and to the point.

    2. So far, our President has showed GREAT Restraint against a corrupt political class of Republicans and Democrats. This is the fourth attempt that we know of to take Trump out. I for one, have had enough. He has risen above their Coup attempts with resolve and humor. I admire him more, for it.

  12. Impressively fair, balanced and accessible analysis. I doubt that a scholarly analysis or professional legal opinion at this point of knowing things could improve much on it. You have a gift for getting down to it and making your analysis accessible without sacrificing nuance. Part of your ability to do that, I think, is your excellent judgment. I say this as a litigation lawyer who has done appellate work and knows what legal writing is about.

  13. Enough hysteria, incoherence, chaos, anarchy and nascent insurrection.

    “Crazy Abe” Lincoln seized power, neutralized the legislative and judicial branches and ruled by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Union.”

    President Donald J. Trump must now seize power, neutralize the legislative and judicial branches and rule by executive order and proclamation to “Save the Republic.”

  14. The sole definition of a crime of high office and impeachable offense by President Trump is comprised of 218 communist (i.e. liberal, progressive, socialist, democrat) votes in Congress.

    Nothing more; nothing less.

  15. So, if Biden committed a crime does running for President give him immunity??? Face it, the Obama administration investigated Trump when he was running, and on the flimsiest and phoniest basis of all – partisan oppo research. Here, on the other hand, Biden admittedly went the quid pro quo route and came right out on TV and bragged about it!

    I doubt Trump will be impeached over a Biden family scandal.

    Squeeky Fromm
    Girl Reporter

  17. So when the mafia don says, I’d like you to do me a favor…..it’s not a quid pro quo. He’s really innocently asking for a favor. A President asking a foreign government head to do him a favor and investigate a political rival is in the same vein, The target knows that the President has the power to release money to him or not and he knows that this president doesn’t shy away from punishing those who don’t comply with his wishes. It’s extortion. Please Professor let’s be real.

  18. How in the name of god is that NOT a QPQ? The president of Ukraine says he wants to buy more military materiel (and needs the funds for it, which Trumps says “we’ll give you….but) we need a FAVOR. What the hell can be more clear than that? Trump brings up the desire to get an investigation to Zelinsky 7 or 8 times in different ways. There is NO QUESTION the way Zelionsky gets the money is by opening up the investigation.

    Please! Professor Turley. Take off your MAGA underwear & Donald Trump wig, and smell the coffee. His days are now numbered.

    1. here’s how. they were talking about a whole list of different stuff. not like they get to chat every day. the items on the agenda are on the agenda, and there’s no QPQ except if you imagine one.

      this is kind of like one of those conversations where someone asks you a question, you tell the truth, and they say ah that confirms that you’re lying. you just cant win with some people who always want to find a problem! its actually a form of abuse.

  19. what would you call fusion gps paid for by Hillary and the dnc using a retired british mi 6 agent and two Russians to get dirt on president trump and his campaign ?

        1. No you are the liar but that is the least of your character faults. But going along with your delusion, it would have been campaign financed versus tRump’s extortion using taxpayer funds.

  20. Getting really tired of the continuing coup.

    Tired of the partisan media.

    Tired of Pinkos in general.

    I suspect that the Dems will pay on 11/20 for their intransigence.

Comments are closed.