Trump's impeachment letter is a big lump of coal
On the eve of his impeachment in the House of Representatives, President Trump sent House Speaker Nancy Pelosi an indignant letter riddled with false and misleading claims, illogical defenses and Trumpian boasts. The six-page screed served as a fitting coda to 2019. It read like a written version of Trump's campaign rallies — and it showcased almost all of the president's frenzied and false impeachment defenses, along with some of his other standard falsehoods Here's just a sample: "Fortunately, there was a transcript of the conversation taken, and you know from the transcript (which was immediately made available) that the paragraph in question was perfect." Trump's July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was highly unusual because he appeared to have no agenda except to ask for the Ukrainian government to work with his private attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to investigate a potential 2020 presidential rival and also investigate debunked conspiracy theories about possible interference by Ukraine in the 2016 election. Before the call took place, Trump with no explanation halted the expected delivery of military aid. Some U.S. diplomats believed the halt was connected to the president's demands for a probe of Biden, text messages released by Congress show. The Washington Post reported that at least four national security officials were so alarmed by Trump's ongoing pressure campaign on Ukraine that they lodged objections with a White House lawyer before and right after the call. "You know full well that Vice President Biden used his office and $1 billion dollars of U.S. aid money to coerce Ukraine into firing the prosecutor who was digging into the company paying his son millions of dollars." This sentence is a fountain of falsehoods. Trump falsely accuses former vice president Joe Biden of something he did not do. The Ukrainian prosecutor general's office had opened an investigation into the Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky, who owned Burisma Holdings, a natural gas company; Hunter Biden, a lawyer and businessman, joined Burisma's board in April 2014 and left in 2019. The prosecutor general, Viktor Shokin, let that investigation and others go dormant, and the United States and its allies decided he was not effective in his job and in fact let corruption flourish. Biden traveled to Ukraine in December 2015 and said the United States would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees unless Shokin was removed; it was not a demand to stop the Burisma prosecution, and there's no evidence of Shokin's "digging" into Burisma — nor is there any evidence Hunter Biden was ever under investigation. And Biden was not on a personal crusade. He was the point man for a concerted push by the West, including the Obama administration, Western allies and nongovernmental organizations such as the World Bank and IMF, who all wanted Shokin gone. For the full fact check, click here. Enjoy this newsletter? Forward it to someone else who'd like it! If this e-mail was forwarded to you, sign up here. Hear something fact-checkable? Send it here, we'll check it out. Warren, Buttigieg and the 'wine cave' business
Fireworks were spotted at the sixth Democratic presidential primary debate this week when Sen. Elizabeth Warren attacked South Bend, Ind., Mayor Pete Buttigieg for courting high-dollar donors, something she has eschewed this year as she campaigns on a platform to stem the influence of money in politics. "So, the mayor just recently had a fundraiser that was held in a wine cave full of crystals and served $900-a-bottle wine," Warren said. "Think about who comes to that. He had promised that every fundraiser he would do would be open-door, but this one was closed-door. The attack misfired somewhat. Buttigieg did hold a high-dollar fundraiser in a wine cave, but it was not closed off. In fact, it was the first fundraiser Buttigieg opened up after sustaining weeks of criticism from, among others, Warren. At the debate, Buttigieg responded by noting that Warren seeded her presidential campaign with a sizable financial transfer from her 2018 Senate campaign. For that race, Warren did not have the same restrictive fundraising practices in place that she does now. "Your presidential campaign right now as we speak is funded in part by money you transferred having raised it at those exact same big-ticket fundraisers you now denounce," he said. "Did it corrupt you, Senator? Of course not." Warren did seek out contributions from high-dollar donors when she last ran for Senate. Then, after winning reelection, she transferred $10.4 million from her Senate committee to her presidential campaign, which allowed her to get a head start in the primary race. (We previously gave Two Pinocchios to Warren for claiming her presidential campaign was "100% grassroots-funded.") We also reviewed five other claims from the debate. For the full fact check, click here. That's a wrap!
Thanks to our readers for following along as we tackled another hectic year for political fact-checking. Thank you for your suggestions and questions, and for indulging us on the cat GIFs. This newsletter will return Jan. 3. Happy holidays! We're always looking for fact-check suggestions. You can also reach us via email, Twitter (@GlennKesslerWP, @mmkelly22, @rizzoTK, @SarahCahlan or use #FactCheckThis), or Facebook (Fact Checker). Read about our rating scale here, and sign up for the newsletter here. Scroll down for this week's Pinocchio roundup. | | | By Glenn Kessler, Salvador Rizzo and Meg Kelly ● Read more » | | | | | | | 
Email
No comments:
Post a Comment