There was a couple of references to 'Giuliani' who was acting in Trump's personal interest, and so there's more to the story there as we now know - but I don't see how this call itself would generate the scrutiny we've seen.
I'd be interested in knowing how this call unfolded into an investigation.
I think it really depends on how it was said in the call, it's difficult to say for sure if he was just going off a bullet point list of concerns with Ukraine, or had his mind set all that time on attacking Biden.
I guess we'll never know for sure, wouldn't be at all surprised if that was the intention though.
Edit: Also about the aid approval. I think the approval happened shortly after the call became public, not after some action was made against Biden's son, so it may be a case of "dammed if you do, damned if you don't".
The call itself is not damning, but there's clear evidence that Trump tried to hold up military support.
Now, how illegal or immoral that is, is a separate question entirely as well.
How many times does he say he’s going to have his personal attorney, representing private citizen trump, call the president of Ukraine, along with the Attorney General of the US, representing America (and trump) to discuss opening an investigation into a political rival? While simultaneously withholding congressionally appropriated aide meant for a strategic ally who’s at war with Russia, literally the country that was in a Cold War with us for 40+ years.
And to make the timing even better, it happens right after the special counsel investigation and report into election meddling that culminated in Trump campaign leadership criminal convictions and prison time, with 20+ indictments of Russian nationals (GRU) in addition. So we just finished a saga of election interference from a foreign power, and he has this call.
Nah, nothing to see here, folks...
Because the very first thing is discussing planned defense procurement?
> How many times does he say he’s going to have his personal attorney, representing private citizen trump, call the president of Ukraine, along with the Attorney General of the US, representing America (and trump) to discuss opening an investigation into a political rival?
Hold on. Most of the discussion (the part after “favor”) concerns whether the Mueller investigation was rooted in faulty information from the Ukraine. This is my first time reading the transcript, but it looks like he doesn’t mention Biden until the end. It’s not quite “in passing,” but the focus of the “favor” is clearly on investigating Ukrainian information on which the Mueller investigation was based (which is the subject of an ongoing DOJ investigation).
> And to make the timing even better, it happens right after the special counsel investigation and report into election meddling that culminated in Trump campaign leadership criminal convictions and prison time, with 20+ indictments of Russian nationals (GRU) in addition.
The Mueller investigation failed to turn up anything significant. Almost all those convictions were for lying to investigators. For a federal prosecutor, securing those kinds of convictions is child’s play, because people reflexively lie when questioned about these sorts of things. (This is why obstruction shouldn’t be chargeable as a stand-alone crime, but that’s a separate rant.) Charging obstruction and Section 1001 is what federal prosecutors do to save face when an investigation hasn’t turned up what it sought to turn up. (I should note that while suddenly people are big fans of convicting people not for what they did, but lying during the investigation, pre-Trump there was a bi-partisan view among criminal justice reformers that obstruction charges like 18 USC 1001 are abused: https://www.forbes.com/sites/harveysilverglate/2012/04/18/wh...)
Most white house staffers and former white house staffers I've read have mentioned it's highly unusual to classify a transcript of this type for code word clearance.
"why was it classified at the highest level"
Well, it's a very sensitive conversation between two heads of state. Would seem to me that this is classified.
More cynically, because Trump didn't want to give one iota of support to his investigators. 'Anything you say can be used as evidence against you'
Finally, the argument is problematic because it was the Trump team who declassified it, and want people to read it.
My point is mostly about the whistle blowing and how this blew up. The real problem must be with Guliani acting on Trump's behalf because there's nothing on this call that would raise red flags.
No it's not.
You're conflating the fact that this is mostly a political issue, not a legal one, and that even impeachment is mostly a political process.
Every politician on this earth will move to obscure information that is regularly private, so as to not make it available for their opponents as fodder.
In the management of 'perception' it's not 'evidence' it's just fodder for spin, talking points etc..
If Trump was legally required to submit the letter, and did not, this would be a problem, but otherwise, it's rational for him to want to hold it back as the story broke.
Once the team looked at the materials, surely they're going to let go of that which they feel helps their case publicly, which is perfectly normal.
I don't like Trump at all - but this specific transcript and even the handling of it - is a complete nothing burger.
I'm completely skeptical of all of the press because of their constant misrepresentation of all of these issues.
I feel slightly more enlightened having actually read the transcript myself.
Apparently, the White House instructed the Pentagon to withhold aid, which is illegal, and that's cause for concern, but given the total lack of any material exchange in this transcript, Congress will have to provide materials that show the direct quid pro quo.
I basically hate Donald Trump, but that doesn't mean I want him committed to bad justice.
Top secret is described as "Top Secret shall be applied to information, the unauthorized disclosure of which reasonably could be expected to cause "exceptionally grave damage" to the national security that the original classification authority is able to identify or describe."
And this was classified at a level above top secret.