“Gaslighting” the Ukraine Investigation

This image has an empty alt attribute; its file name is Trump-Ukraine-Scandal-10-14-19-1024x576.jpg

“Gaslighting,” for those that may be unaware, is a pop culture reference, derived from a 1938 play and two follow-on movies, that describes a particularly insidious form of psychological manipulation.

This intrigue uses persistent denial, misdirection, contradiction, and outright lying to induce a target audience to question their memory, perception or belief. In essence, it is the ability to convince an individual that something that is provably true, is in fact, not true.

Through his career, and particularly during his presidency, Donald Trump has raised gaslighting to an art form, substituting his version of reality when the facts of a situation fail to match his expectations. From the President’s insistence that he had a larger inaugural crowd than Barack Obama, to the constant refrain that China is paying American tariffs, Trump has normalized gaslighting as a tool of presidential rhetoric on a day-to-day basis.

But nothing in the Trump presidency has prepared America for the sheer breathtaking scale of gaslighting that Trump and his enablers are attempting to hoist on America with the evolving Ukraine scandal.

As Senator Daniel Patrick Moynihan once famously said, “You are entitled to your own opinion. But you are not entitled to your own facts.” However, in the Ukraine investigation, Trump and his machine are trying to prove Moynihan wrong.

Despite the presence of documented evidence – provable facts – ironically, with the most critical piece thus far, provided by the President himself – Team Trump is intent on using the techniques of gaslighting to convince America that there is nothing here to see; that the provable facts are actually a contrived deception by Trump’s political opponents to enable something far more sinister and explosive – the removal of a President without cause – with absolutely no evidence to support it. This effort is nothing short of astonishing and deeply destructive to American democracy and the rule of law.

So here, now, I’m going to set out what is known. Not rumors, not anecdotes, but the facts. Facts that prove the lie of the Trump narrative in all its many strands. Facts that those who embrace Trump’s wild, dishonest, and irresponsible conspiracy theories cannot answer.

We start with three random quotes from President Trump on October 2nd. Feel free to substitute your own, they really are interchangeable. I chose these three solely because they all occurred on the same day for ease of reference. If you want to understand textbook gaslighting, with its “strawmen,” misdirection, and outright lies, you’d be hard pressed to find better material.

“Well, the whistleblower was very inaccurate. The whistleblower started this whole thing by writing a report on the conversation I had with the president of Ukraine. And the conversation was perfect; it couldn’t have been nicer.” ~ President Trump

“The whistleblower said terrible things about the call, but he then — I then found out he was secondhand and third-hand. In other words, he didn’t know what was on the call.” ~ President Trump

The Whistleblower’s facts have been so incorrect about my ‘no pressure’ conversation with the Ukrainian President.” ~ President Trump

So what is Trump trying to convey? My take away – this is an opinion for those keeping count, is that for a variety of reasons, the whistleblower is lying, and cannot be trusted as a source.

If all we had to go on was the complaint, Trump’s comments, as a first hand source, would have more credibility.

However, we don’t simply have the whistleblower complaint to review in a vacuum. Trump released the “rough notes” transcript of his call with President Zelensky, and we can objectively compare the complaint to the transcript. In addition, since Trump released the transcript, additional information has been released by the White House or is already in the public realm, that allows for a careful review and evaluation of the accuracy of the whistleblower’s allegations. That analysis begins below.

For your reference, here is the link to the Complaint, and here is the link to the Transcript. Other documents will have links as well

Complaint: According to the White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy to initiate or continue an investigation into the activities of former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son, Hunter Biden.CORRECT

Transcript: (POTUS) ” 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. “

Complaint: “According to the White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy to assist in purportedly uncovering that allegations of Russian interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election originated in Ukraine, with a specific request that the Ukrainian leader locate and turn over servers used by the Democratic National Committee (DNC) and examined by the U.S. cyber security firm Crowdstrike, which initially reported that Russian hackers had penetrated the DNC’s networks in 2016.” CORRECT

Transcript: (POTUS)”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. “

Complaint:According to the White House officials who had direct knowledge of the call, the President pressured Mr. Zelenskyy to meet or speak with two people the President named explicitly as his personal envoys on these matters, Mr. Giuliani and Attorney General Barr, to whom the President referred multiple times in tandem.  CORRECT

Transcript: (POTUS)”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. “… “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.”…” 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 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.” [5x]

Complaint: “Aside from the “cases” purportedly dealing with the Biden family and the 2016 U.S. election, I was told by White House officials that no other “cases” were discussed. “ CORRECT

Transcript: There are no other mentions of corruption in the phone call.

Beyond the official transcript of the call, other whistleblower statements have been confirmed.

Complaint: “White House officials told me that they were “directed” by White House lawyers to remove the electronic transcript from the computer system in which such transcripts are typically stored for coordination, finalization, and distribution to Cabinet-level officials.

Instead, the transcript was loaded into a separate electronic system that is otherwise used to store and handle classified information of an especially sensitive nature. One White House official described this act as an abuse of this electronic system because the call did not contain anything remotely sensitive from a national security perspective. “

Confirmation: “In a statement, a senior White House official said the move to place the transcript in the system came at the direction of National Security Council attorneys. “

Complaint: “On 26 July, a day after the call, U.S. Special Representative for Ukraine Negotiations Kurt Volker visited Kyiv and met with President Zelenskyy and a variety of Ukrainian political figures. Ambassador Volker was accompanied in his meetings by U.S. Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland. Based on multiple readouts of these meetings recounted to me by various U.S. officials, Ambassadors Volker and Sondland reportedly provided advice to the Ukrainian leadership about how to “navigate” the demands that the President had made of Mr. Zelenskyy.”

Prepared Statement of Ambassador Volker in Testimony Before Congress (October 3, 2019): “The Presidential phone call took place on July 25, the day before I met with President Zelenskyy, along with Amb. Sondland and Amb. Taylor.”

Complaint: “I also learned from multiple U.S. officials that, on or about 2 August, Mr. Giuliani reportedly traveled to Madrid to meet with one of President Zelenskyy’ s advisers, Andriy Yermak. The U.S. officials characterized this meeting, which was not reported publicly at the time, as a “direct follow-up” to the President’s call with Mr. Zelenskyy about the “cases” they had discussed.

Volker Testimony Before Congress: “In a few follow up messages, Mr. Yermak was concerned that he had not heard back from Mayor Giuliani about scheduling the meeting in Madrid, so I stepped in again to put them back in touch so the meeting would be scheduled. It took place on August 2, 2019.

Complaint: “It was also publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani had met on at least two occasions with Mr. Lutsenko: once in New York in late January and again in Warsaw in mid-February.

In addition, it was publicly reported that Mr. Giuliani had spoken in late 2018 to former Prosecutor General Shokin, in a Skype call arranged by two associates of Mr. Giuliani. 10 • On 25 April in an interview with Fox News, the President called Mr. Lutsenko’s claims “big” and “incredible” and stated that the Attorney General “would want to see this.”

Organized Crime & Corruption Reporting Project
“Parnas and Fruman’s work with Giuliani has largely centered on efforts to connect the president’s personal attorney with current and former senior Ukrainian prosecutors believed to hold information harmful to Trump’s rivals. “

Other Issues:

Two additional points that President Trump regularly raises, is that there was “no pressure” and “no quid pro quo.” These claims require additional scrutiny.

No Pressure: on or about May 14th, President Trump instructed VP Mike Pence to cancel his trip to visit Ukraine for President-elect Zelensky’s inauguration. The VP’s presence was sought after as a symbol of high-level US support for Ukraine. Or about July 18th, (some government accounts state the action occurred earlier) President Trump personally suspended $400 million in aid to Ukraine without providing any rationale, nor informing key officials of the change. This was one week before the call with President Zelensky.

Transcript: (POTUS) “I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine…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…… “I would like you to do us a favor…”

The Trump echo chamber insists that the bar for “pressure” is direct linkage to US actions for a result. They point to President Zelensky’s statement that he did not feel any pressure in the call.

Ukraine is fighting for its life against Russian forces that occupy a significant part if its territory. US military support and material/political support is crucial to staving off Russian advances and Putin attempts to undermine the Zelensky government. If Trump told Zelensky to drop his pants and sit on a block of ice, he’d do it, no questions asked so long as his country continued to get the aid. The pressure was real, if unspoken through direct linkage.

Quid pro Quo: Trump continues to state that there was no quid pro quo in the call, which is largely true. Specifically, Trump did not link military assistance that Trump personally held up to an investigation of the Bidens.

Of course, this obscures the explosive action that Trump did undertake by asking a foreign head of state to investigate his political rival, a direct violation of 52 USC 30121.

When actions outside of the call are taken into consideration, the idea of quid pro quo look far more substantive.

The text messages between US Ambassador Gordon Sondland (Trump appointee) and US Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor in August 2019 are illustrative.

Amb. Taylor: “As I said on the phone, I think its crazy to withhold security assistance for help with a political campaign.

Amb. Sondland: “I believe you are incorrect about President Trump’s intentions. The President has been crystal clear, no quid pro quo of any kind.”

Team Trump has maintained that this exchange debunks the “quid pro quo” claim. However, in upcoming testimony before Congress October 17th, Ambassador Sondland is expected to testify that the reply to Bill Taylor’s text was dictated by the President, personally.

Reviewing the public record , President Trump’s plans and expectations were hiding in plain sight. The whistleblower just put it all together in one document.

On July 25, 2017, POTUS tweeted, “Ukrainian efforts to sabotage Trump campaign – “quietly working to boost Clinton.” So where is the investigation A.G.”

In January/February 2019, Giuliani met with Ukrainian General Prosecutor Lutsenko, where Lutsenko states that Giuliani asked about the investigation into Burisma, the company that had hired Hunter Biden.”

In March 2019, Lutsenko opened two investigations. The first into Burisma, the second into the Manafort disclosures from 2016.

On April 21, 2019, Zelensky elected the new president of Ukraine.

On April 25, 2019, President Trump tells Fox News’s Sean Hannity that Attorney General Bill Barr is considering allegations that Ukrainians sought to help Hillary Clinton’s 2016 presidential campaign by revealing damaging information about Paul Manafort.

On May 9, 2019, Giuliani tells the New York Times he plans to travel to Kiev and meet with President-elect Zelenskyy to urge him to investigate the Bidens as well as Ukrainians who might have worked with Hillary Clinton’s campaign to reveal the Manafort information.

On May 10, 2019, President Trump says in an interview with Politico, “Certainly it would be an appropriate thing” for him to ask Attorney General Barr to open an investigation on Biden.

On May 16, 2019, Ukraine’s Prosecutor General Lutsenko tells Bloomberg News that he has “no evidence of wrongdoing” by either of the Bidens and that neither Hunter Biden nor Burisma were the focus of any current investigation.

On June 13, 2019, President Trump says he would accept dirt on his political rivals from a foreign government.

June 21, 2019, Giuliani tweets, “New Pres of Ukraine still silent on investigation of Ukrainian interference in 2016 election and alleged Biden bribery of Pres Poroshenko. Time for leadership and investigate both if you want to purge how Ukraine was abused by Hillary and Obama people.”

On July 23-26, 2019, During inter-agency meetings, OMB officials again stated explicitly that the instruction to suspend military assistance had come directly from the President.

July 25, 2019, Trump talks with Zelensky.

Far from being a Watergate-esque secret operation of political subversion, what the President and Giuliani have done was essentially broadcast to the public, but no one was listening. In sum, the whistleblower’s complaint was not only appropriate, it was, despite contrary to the barrage of attacks from Team Trump, entirely accurate.

In addition, the aggregate public record of statements and actions by Trump and Giuliani provide overwhelming evidence that the President and his attorney believed it was entirely appropriate to use the official levers of the US government to pressure a foreign nation to investigate a domestic political rival, and to receive derogatory information from foreign nations on same..

The constant Trump mantra of fighting corruption does not apply in the traditional sense. Trump’s concern was not about official, systemic Ukrainian corruption that was impeding Ukrainian development, (aka the Obama policy in 2014-2016) but rather about incredibly narrow domestic political concerns expressed by the President, where US foreign policy in Ukraine was held hostage to the Trump’s domestic political agenda.

It is a truly staggering departure from the norms of presidents of both parties since the United States emerged as a leading international power in the 20th century.

Whether this is impeachable is up the House. That it happened is not.

The counter-narrative, or “coups” and “deep state operatives” dedicated to taking down the president by any means possible – the gaslighting – divert attention from the jaw dropping corruption of national security apparatus for domestic political gain.

It’s true that opposition to President Trump is everywhere. Democrats have never accepted him as a legitimate president, and they have played insidious political games to create a crisis where none existed, which came to fruition with the Mueller probe and report. The players – who compromised their integrity in the Mueller probe, Adam Schiff in particular – make the Ukrainian investigation more challenging because of their efforts over the last two and a half years. Moreover, the DoJ IG will have the last word regarding operatives who exceeded their authority and good judgement in catalyzing a narrative of falsehoods with the Russia collusion miasma.

But critically, the fact that the Democrats have been on a “witch hunt” since 2017 does not negate or absolve the real and serious issues that have been raised in the last three weeks.

What was a stake in the Mueller investigation – which was largely outside of Trump’s hands as a candidate – and what is at stake today with the Ukraine probe, with actions taken and authorized by a sitting President, cannot be more different and significant.

For the nation, this all boils down to one question: Is it ethically, to say nothing of legally appropriate for the President of the United States to use the official powers of his office to pressure a foreign government(s) to dig up political dirt on a domestic political opponent?

Prior to 2016, that question answered itself.

Had President Obama asked Valdimir Putin to look into Donald Trump’s business dealings in Russia in the lead up to the election, the nation, and particularly Trump supporters would have been calling for impeachment, and rightfully so.

To the nation I ask, tell me how this is any different.