[Admin note: title and text edited to remove ambiguity of “CrowdStrike” and “CrowdStrike Conspiracy Theory”]
I’ve been waiting for this moment in the impeachment saga, rubbing my hands with glee. The moment every stupid lying GOPer would be forced to defend the CrowdStrike CT, their act of fealty to the Frankenstein monster who owns their asses. Choose between incurring the wrath of Trump and his Cult, and putting the clown shoes on their own feet.
So Brian Williams interviews James Lankford, asshole senator from Oklahoma, asks him about the CrowdStrike CT. Yes! At last. Can’t wait to see how this goes.
And of course Williams lets him off so fucking easy.
So, to ease the screaming in my head, I turn to this outlet to shout the follow up questions that should have been.
Senator Lankford’s glib story: President Trump, he gets some information from one source, he gets some information from another source, he wants to get to the bottom of it. So he asks President Zelensky to investigate. Nothing wrong, nothing wrong at all, for a president to ask another leader to carry out an investigation.
Jesus.
Follow up Question 1: No one is saying there’s anything wrong with Trump asking another leader to look into something he wants cleared up. Trump is not being impeached for asking for help in an investigation. He’s being impeached for extorting an investigation.
Are you saying there’s nothing wrong with extortion? Trump used the power of his office, withholding aid and the support that would be signaled by an oval office meeting, to extort a vulnerable ally under attack from our enemy Russia. That cool with you?
Follow up Question 1A: Or are you saying there was no extortion? The House managers spent hours laying out the evidence of extortion, aka quid pro quo. Do you dispute any of the facts alleged by witnesses? Do you have a credible alternative explanation for what was revealed in testimony and text messages? Do you know of any evidence for that alternative theory? Let’s do hear it.
And: If you do not believe the House has proven its quid pro quo case, is not the House—and more importantly, the American people—entitled to see the evidence the president is hiding?
Follow up Question 2B: You say all the president did was ask for an investigation. But that’s not what the evidence shows, is it? He did not ask—or rather, demand, extort—for an investigation, he “asked” for a public announcement of an investigation. What was the purpose of that?
And why did he not go through the proper, usual channels—the FBI, the treaty procedures—that are in place for precisely this purpose, asking foreign governments to assist us with investigations?
And why did the president go to such lengths to hide the “ask”?
Follow up Question 2: Yes, there’s nothing with one leader asking another leader to assist in an investigation—when it’s to further the nation’s interests. Is it proper to ask for that investigation, to use the powers of the office to get it, when it’s for the president’s personal benefit?
Follow up Questions 2A and 2B: Do you dispute that President Trump wanted the investigation for his own personal benefit? Didn’t the House present compelling evidence of that motive, for example, the fact that it was not enough for Zelensky to agree to investigate, Trump insisted Zelensky make a public announcement on cable news? Where was the national interest in that?
And again, (a) do you have facts or analysis for a different conclusion—let’s hear ‘em—and (b) if you did not find the House’s evidence convincing, are not the House and American people entitled to hear the rest of the evidence?
Follow up Question 3: Even if you stumbled your way through those questions, are you not troubled by the—what’s a polite word?—thinness of the evidence for the proposition Trump apparently finds credible enough to not only have investigated, but extort a vulnerable ally to investigate? Indeed, to risk our national security in the pursuit of that goal?
In short:
JESUS CHRIST ARE YOU GOING TO STAND THERE AND SAY YOU THINK THERE IS MERIT TO THE CROWDSTRIKE CONSPIRACY THEORY? WHEN OUR OWN INTELLIGENCE AGENCIES UNANIMOUSLY CONCLUDE IT WAS RUSSIA THAT ATTACKED US?
Yes yes, we’ve heard thE dodge, first put out by the president, and recently tweeted by the White House, to the effect that: We Do Not Doubt the Assessment of our IC, that Russia interfered in our election. But! That does not mean there were not other countries that also interfered, right?
Cool cool. Maybe there were indeed other countries with their fingers in the pot. Like maybe Israel. But we are not talking about whether Ukraine did things to favor Hillary Clinton’s chances over Trump’s. The “CrowdStrike” CT is not about generic election interference, it is a very specific proposition, namely, that it was Ukraine that hacked the DNC’s emails and passed them on to Wikileaks to dump during the election.
Our IC says Russia did the hacking and leaking. You say you accept their assessment. Please then explain how both Russia and Ukraine hacked the same emails and make the same hand off to Wikileaks.
(In fairness, Adam Schiff made this excellent point.)
And there are more reasons to doubt the CrowdStrike theory. The CrowdStrike CT points the finger at Ukraine because CrowdStrike is owned by “wealthy Ukrainians.” (You see Trump alluding to “wealthy Ukrainians” in the July 25 phone call.) In fact, CrowdStrike was founded by a US citizen. The “CrowdStrike” CT posits that the physical DNC server was taken and is now hidden somewhere in Ukraine, in order to keep the FBI from discovering Ukraine’s role in the hack. But there was no physical server, the DNC’s emails were stored in a cloud system. And if those “wealthy Ukrainians” were all about hiding their act, why not destroy the server?
The House has produced evidence that our IC has repeatedly attempted to show the President that there is no basis to the CrowdStrike CT. So he knows all that, and probably more.
And you know all that too. So again:
ARE YOU GOING TO STAND THERE, WITH A STRAIGHT FACE, AND SAY YOU AGREE WITH TRUMP, YOU THINK THERE IS SO MUCH MERIT TO THE CROWDSTRIKE THEORY THAT UKRAINE SHOULD INVESTIGATE?
How do those clown shoes feel?
Finally, one follow up question for Ted Cruz: Did your dad kill JFK?