The July 25 Trump-Zelensky Phone Call is Clear Cut Collusion
The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.
After 2 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...
- Publication date
- Last updated date
- Type
- Standard
- Number of rounds
- 3
- Time for argument
- Three days
- Max argument characters
- 10,000
- Voting period
- One week
- Point system
- Multiple criterions
- Voting system
- Open
RESOLUTION: The July 25 Trump-Zelensky Phone Call is Clear Cut Collusion
The JULY 25 TRUMP-ZELENSKY PHONE CALL was a short phone call between the POTUS and Volodymyr Zelensky ostensibly to congratulate the new President of Ukraine on his assumption of office. The White House transcript of that phone call can be read here:
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html
CLEAR CUT [adjective] is "straightforward, obvious, simple, or basic."
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/clear_cut
COLLUSION [noun] is secret agreement for an illegal purpose; conspiracy.
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/collusion
BURDEN of PROOF is shared
PRO must establish that Trump made a secret and illegal offer.
CON must establish that Trump did not make a secret and illegal offer.
PRO is requesting sincere and friendly engagement on this subject.
No trolls or kritiks, please.
- RULES --
1. Forfeit=auto loss
2. Sources may be merely linked in debate as long as citations are listed in comments
3. No new args in R3
4. For all relevant terms, individuals should use commonplace understandings that fit within the rational context of this resolution and debate
I’m going to follow cons description here, as it’s the simplest, most concise and doesn’t appear to be challenged.
Was there an “offer”?
Con argues there is uncertainty about what was said. Whilst pro pointed out several reasons why what was said should be accepted: that if it wasn’t said then an official memo had been doctored, or people would have challenged the content. My issue here is that con appears to be implicitly arguing that as the transcript is not verbatim it may not show anything closely resembling what it said: in my view con has not shown good reason to believe the transcript is not materially different.
In terms of quid pro quo - con argues there was nothing given or offered; yet pro points out the close relationship to the javelin missiles; and the withholding of military aid - which it is unreasonable to presume the ukranian president didn’t know about. Even then as pro points out - solicitation does not itself require quid pro quo.
Was this “secret” - or covered up.
Pro, imo concedes this point with this line : “Trump has been moving phone calls to a classified server frequently to avoid information leaks, not to hide any illegal actions”
Pro concedes that Trump classified the memo (and other), with the express intent of avoiding its wider distribution that may allow its contents to become public. By definition - this was thus a secret call.
Was it illegal.
This is the trickier portion. The idea pro forwards is that the investigation into the political opponent is a “thing of value”. That the investigation would have helped Trump, would have otherwise cost lots of money for his campaign to have achieved - if it could have been achieved at all - and thus the request constituted an attempt to illicit an illegal in kind donation.
Con doesn’t appear to contest this legal definition - and I think this was a mistake on his part. I feel this was the ripest if the three bullets points to attack.
Given that, cons objection seems mostly related to how direct and explicit the request was; with a side bar relating to whether the act had an alternate valid executive purpose.
For the valid alternative purpose - con argues that it wasn’t an investigation in to Bidens specifically as much as a generalized investigation.
Pro pointing out that the approach was very much not the appropriate mechanism for doing that, and that Trump was fixated solely with his rival and not other key players, undermines this point.
In terms of how direct and explicit the request was: cons argument seems to be that it can’t be a campaign finance violation if they don’t explicitly mention the campaign - this does not seem compelling to me tbh. Pros response that it merely needs to be in connection with the election is sufficient imo, especially given that it appears apparent and evidently linked.
As a result of this: I think pro established that there was a request - con conceded it was secret - and it was illegal. Though this latter part was the weakest.
As pro established his requirements - arguments go to pro.
Very good job from both sides.
Forward:
I’ve tried to avoid this news story (watched one clip from the Daily Show), so the analysis was almost all new to me. I am still quite confused as to what Hunter Biden has to do with Ukraine, or why Trump is calling in favors from foreign nationals (worse, goddamned heads of state) against a private US citizen.
Anyway, too much of this debate is two sides agreeing with each other, so I am going to break things down into the BoP suggested by con, and my key takeaways on that...
1. Trump made an offer
Pro goes to great lengths on this. Con argues that the offer was not explicit enough, and that Zelensky did not know the full terms of what Trump was offering... Still sounds to me like the intent from Trump was to make an offer.
2. This offer was illegal
Got to say it... If I steal something of value (or have someone else do it), but don’t go through with using it, I’ve still placed myself in possession of the illicit goods.
A key part of this area was Trump’s own words acknowledging that he knew he’s supposed to stay out of it. This isn’t Mr. Burns poisoning one of Homer’s doughnuts level guilt, but there’s a strong parallel there.
This area was strengthened by pro’s question of the other related men in the criminal case, which implies that the offer was not purely in pursuit of justice. That we can’t read Trump’s mind to confirm he’s guilty, doesn’t change how suspect his actions are on this matter.
3. This offer was secret
Between Trump choosing to have it classified as a secret, lying about it publicly, and the very need for the existence of the WB, there was not much room for contest on this area. A badly kept secret is still a secret. Claiming you’re just trying to prevent anyone finding out, is by definition trying to keep something a secret.
I believe the remaining content of said server is outside the scope of this debate.
---
Arguments:
See above review of key points. I will add that I see no reason to doubt the transcript which Trump wanted to keep secret; I agSee above review of key points. I will add that I see no reason to doubt the transcript which Trump wanted to keep secret; I agree that there may be missing word here or there, or one word where another should be due to translation errors (more likely from Zelensky, as Trump is an English speaker), but the gist of it can be trusted. On Trump’s literacy (if he knows the meaning of justice), it was very entertaining, but a little off topic (I will say that it’s debate worthy onto itself).
Conduct:
Pro conceded this to con, and con asked to not be awarded it. I am going to side against con on this, his above and beyond level of sportsmanship merits an exception to conduct being a penalty.
It was indeed a great debate. I look forward to potentially disagreeing with you again.
OoDart-
Thanks again for the debate. Based on the votes dq'd & not dq'd, I'm lucky more people did not vote. The rule around here seems to be the tougher the contest the fewer the votes. Full forfeits attract the most voters because they're quick & easy. I note that the first 3 debates entered into the Hall of Fame last week only attracted a total of 7 votes. I look forward to future debates w/ you.
Ram, Ragnar, SirAnonymous, crossed- thanks for taking the time to vote
Three were cast... But yeah, it sucks. The shortage of voters is part of why I am taking a long break from debating.
One week of voting... only one vote. ¯\_(ツ)_/¯
Ramshutu, thanks for removing my vote. Next time, I'll look before I leap. I think I also voted on a different debate before I read the rules, but I can't remember which one. I do remember that it was a debate in which all the rounds were forfeited, though.
Welcome to the site, thanks for taking a look at the code of conduct relating to voting! Unfortunate I do have to remove this vote, though the requirements are hopefully fairly easy to meet. Feel free to ask any questions about the voting rules, I’ll be happy to answer!
RFD:
Concerning whether or not Trump broke the law, I think both sides presented fairly equal arguments, and I do not consider myself enough of a legal expert to make a judgment on this. However, I can make a judgment on definitions. The definition that Pro provided and Con accepted was as follows:
COLLUSION [noun] is secret agreement for an illegal purpose; conspiracy.
Con argued that Zelensky did not know that the monetary assistance had been canceled, and Pro never attempted to refute it. Since Zelensky did not know the assistance had been canceled, it was clearly impossible for him to make an "agreement for an illegal purpose." Regardless of Trump's intentions, Zelensky was incapable of being leveraged or agreeing to an illegal deal because he did not know there was a deal. All he knew was that Trump asked him to investigate Biden. Therefore, Zelensky did not make an agreement for illegal purpose; to the best of his knowledge, he was merely granting a request. Since Zelensky did not make such an agreement with Trump, it inevitably follows that Trump did not make one with Zelensky. Therefore, the phone call was not clear-cut conclusion.
Later in the debate, Con provided a contradictory definition of collusion:
"Essentially, you have to prove three things:
1) Trump made an offer
2) This offer was illegal
3) This offer was secret
I only need to show that any one of these three things is false."
I think that both sides offered nearly equal arguments regarding this definition. Combining the two definitions, I think the debate was almost completely equal, but I give a slight edge to Con in regards to the first definition.
This is not did say that what Trump did was legal (or illegal). I cannot reach a conclusion on that matter. If that had been the topic, I would have voted for a tie. But since the debate was about whether or not the phone call was collusion and not whether or not Trump's actions were illegal, I must give the arguments points to Con.
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: SirAnonymous// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 3 points to con for arguments.
>Reason for Decision: see above
Reason for Mod Action> This vote is not eligible to vote. In order to vote, an account must: (1) Read the site’s COC AND have completed 2 non-troll/non-FF debate OR have 100 forum posts.
*******************************************************************
I will handle it. Thanks
As much as I like the most recent vote for me, the user is not eligible to vote...
I just read the rules of the site and found that users are supposed to complete 2 debates before voting. I assumed that the website would automatically reject my vote if I was ineligible for voting, so I thought that the fact that the site accepted my vote was proof that I was eligible. I apologize for voting without first finding out whether or not I was eligible and request that my vote be removed. I would also like to humbly suggest that the restriction should be programmed into the site to prevent future new users from making the same mistake.
Oh I missed that on the conduct point, I apologize.
However, the vote was insufficient for a multitude of reasons. Removing the section would not correct the other remaining issues I listed other than the issues with external content and conduct.
I have been afk for around 5 day's sorry.
So if i remove this it would be good
"Given my knowledge on the topic. Zelensky said in an interview that he did not even know the money was held up. So pro argument is false. and con was right to call out the no source for this.
"Over the course of the day, Zelenskiy told shifts of journalists he had not been blackmailed by Trump in their phone call on 25 July and did not know US military aid had been delayed at the time."
See con was right. Pro did not source it because it was untrue
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/10/ukraine-president-volodymyr-zelenskiy-press-conference-donald-trump "
I did specifi the conduct point
look at the copy of my vote you posted
"Reason:
Better spelling and grammar tie. Con forgave pro mistakes
Better conduct to Con. Because pro requested it.
More convincing argument to con
All con had to do and i quote"
So if i remove the link And saying it supports con. Then it would be good.
Hi Crossed:
For any of the criteria that you place in your vote, you must provide a justification - if you don’t specify why conduct was awarded, I can’t tell whether the vote awarded the conduct point for valid reasons or not. While I think the clarification for why you awarded conduct is good - you must include this in the vote for it to be valid.
Secondly, and most importantly, voting is not about explaining who you think is correct - but who made the better arguments, only including information contained within the debate. Each debater is arguing against his opponent - not his opponent and whatever information all voters can produce or review after the fact.
The biggest thing I will say about your vote, is that it showcases the type of work you should be putting into your own debates... Which is the problem with it as a vote, as it was your fresh arguments more so than finding the strengths within cons.
Voting in favor of your own sources which neither debater provided, is never acceptable. Plus you're supposed to list at least one source that was used in the debate and explain how it affected things.
On conduct, our awards were very simpler but they differ in the presence of analysis. Yours excluded any consideration from con's own argument on the subject... Me I acknowledged it, but dismissed it (I could write a paragraph about how he turned down a free S&G award and in general improved the debate; but touching on both sides of their gentleman agreement implies I've read both sides).
the better source's to con reason was Oramagi said Zelenski said he knew the money was being held up con said he did not source it. I remember in the 10 hour interview he did that he said the exact opposite so i brought it up.
oramgagi said to give con conduct point
IPhone bad
Time on site bad
:(
I hope con realizes that is how they legally bribe people. you randomly give someone a mansion. Just don't say you gave it to them to pass a law. If you do not say it is a bribe to pass a law. then it is not a bribe to pass a law and claim it is just a Christmas gift like thing. Then it is legal. But con is right it is not technically illegal. This is just how Hillary was able to be gifted millions of dollars from other country's. Just say it is a gift not for political purpose's and will not be put into politics. Just for her own use's. This is not what trump did. But that's what cons logic can apply to.But con refuted the point that it was illegal.Con only had to refute one point.
Reason:
Better spelling and grammar tie. Con forgave pro mistakes
Better conduct to Con. Because pro requested it.
More convincing argument to con
All con had to do and i quote
"
1) Trump made an offer
2) This offer was illegal
3) This offer was secret
I only need to show that any one of these three things is false."
It took me ten minutes to read it. . But con showed that pro points were wrong.
here an example
"Pro's claims in R2 boil down to the idea that Trump has only his self-interest in mind and does not even comprehend justice, but does not back up his claim.
Pro claims the quid of the quid pro quo is there. Pro claims Zelensky knew the money had not yet arrived.
Con points out pro's failure to back up his claim the Trump does not comprehend justice."
Pro did not source that Zelensky knew the money was being held up. Con points out he has no source for this. Given my knowledge on the topic. Zelensky said in an interview that he did not even know the money was held up. So pro argument is false. and con was right to call out the no source for this.
"Over the course of the day, Zelenskiy told shifts of journalists he had not been blackmailed by Trump in their phone call on 25 July and did not know US military aid had been delayed at the time."
See con was right. Pro did not source it because it was untrue
https://www.theguardian.com/world/2019/oct/10/ukraine-president-volodymyr-zelenskiy-press-conference-donald-trump
Con gets better sources
" This is untrue. This is comparable to saying, “If you give Bill Gates money, you are supporting Microsoft.” If Bill Gates simply puts that money in his bank and never uses it for Microsoft, the money is never used to support Microsoft. In the same way, giving something to Trump is not inherently for the election."
*******************************************************************
>Reported Vote: Crossed// Mod action: [Removed]
>Points Awarded: 6 points to con for sources, conduct and arguments.
>Reason for Decision: see above
Reason for Mod Action>
- Voter does not explain the conduct point award.
- The voter appears to being in external content (the guardian article - I could not find this in the debate), which is prohibited.
- Sources are insufficiently explained, the voter does not give examples of sources and explain how these aided or harmed each sides argument.
- While the vote may exclude arguments by explaining why only one set of points are important (the portion about whether it was a crime, and secret), the voter doesn’t survey the main arguments or rebuttals around this point from both sides.
- In much of the vote, the voter appears to be relitigating the debate from his own perspective, rather than offering a justification if why one sides arguments were better.
*******************************************************************
I am aware. I have about 10 seconds online at a time; and it’s a bit tricky on iPhone :)
Just checking. You didn't reply to Ragnar. Thought you must've missed it.
I’m on it. Patience.
Is there no God?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dGDH3meSPyk
Basically crossed vote.
Yeah I clicked teh flag.
Crossed,
When the Code of Conduct says "Directly evaluate at least one source in particular cited in the debate and explain how it either bolstered or weakened the argument it was used to support" it does not mean go out and find your own source outside the debate. You could love Trump, but that would not charge that your vote is supposed to be for this debate's content, rather than your political bias.
Great debate! Can't wait to see how this one turns out.
Actually, that last should read Vote Pro- pro for args, con for conduct
PRO's R3 citations:
https://www.fec.gov/regulations/110-20/2019-annual-110#110-20-a
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Burisma_Holdings
https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=11&ved=2ahUKEwibqoLQ-5nlAhWXpp4KHeMNDaUQFjAKegQIAhAB&url=https%3A%2F%2Fwww.washingtonpost.com%2Fnational-security%2F2019%2F09%2F25%2Ftranscripts-presidential-calls-are-nearly-verbatim-not-exact-heres-how-it-works%2F&usg=AOvVaw35XpJWGOWzkh1jcLL1pC24
https://en.wiktionary.org/wiki/justice
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Central_Park_jogger_case
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/2016-election/donald-trump-says-central-park-five-are-guilty-despite-dna-n661941
https://thehill.com/opinion/campaign/463710-donald-trumps-fifth-avenue-moment
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2019_Turkish_offensive_into_north-eastern_Syria
https://www.washingtonpost.com/world/middle_east/turkish-led-forces-film-themselves-executing-a-kurdish-captive-in-syria/2019/10/13/22e11198-ed9c-11e9-89eb-ec56cd414732_story.html
https://nypost.com/2019/10/13/hundreds-of-isis-followers-escape-in-syria-amid-fighting-between-turkey-kurds/
https://www.archives.gov/federal-register/codification/executive-order/12356.html#part3
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Quid_pro_quo
https://www.apnews.com/142440d5e567495b8c6d767811df71df
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/at-least-four-national-security-officials-raised-alarms-about-ukraine-policy-before-and-after-trump-call-with-ukrainian-president/2019/10/10/ffe0c88a-eb6d-11e9-9c6d-436a0df4f31d_story.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/protecting-whistleblowers-identity-is-our-primary-interest-schiff-says/2019/10/13/a29f718e-edcb-11e9-8693-f487e46784aa_story.html
https://mediabiasfactcheck.com/washington-examiner/
https://www.fec.gov/updates/foreign-nationals/
Con's R2 Citations
https://docs.google.com/document/d/1zSYzZaA6TxOfEx1ZACKSHIqfSpbVT6ly-GtET3jyN1U/edit (If that counts as a citation? - it's just Pro's R2)
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6429034-White-House-memo-on-Trump-call-with-Ukraine.html
http://theconversation.com/what-is-classified-information-and-who-gets-to-decide-77832
https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/news/joe-biden-worked-with-whistleblower-when-he-was-vice-president-officials-reveal
PRO's R2 link citations
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html
http://www.wmal.com/2017/11/03/listen-president-donald-trump-to-larry-oconnor-im-very-unhappy-the-justice-department-isnt-going-after-hillary-clinton/
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_whistleblower_complaint_unclassified.pdf
https://politicalwire.com/2019/10/10/four-national-security-aides-raised-alarms-about-call/
Con's R1 Sources:
https://uscode.house.gov/
https://www.apnews.com/8f96294c8bc44ad485d74a7a0b0a0e00
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/world/europe/ukraine-biden-burisma.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/27/us/politics/nsc-ukraine-call.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/us/politics/trump-un-biden-ukraine.html
https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6429034-White-House-memo-on-Trump-call-with-Ukraine.html
PRO's R1 link citations:
https://uscode.house.gov/view.xhml?req=%28title:52%20section:30121%20edition:prelim%29
https://www.fec.gov/regulations/110-20/2019-annual-110#110-20-a-5-iii
https://www.fec.gov/resources/cms-content/documents/mtgdoc_19-41-A.pdf
https://www.cnn.com/2019/09/25/politics/donald-trump-ukraine-transcript-call/index.html
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/10/04/world/europe/ukraine-biden-burisma.html
https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-ordered-hold-on-military-aid-days-before-calling-ukrainian-president-officials-say/2019/09/23/df93a6ca-de38-11e9-8dc8-498eabc129a0_story.html
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/e/e4/Trump%E2%80%93Ukraine_whistleblower_complaint_unclassified.pdf
https://www.wsj.com/articles/trump-administration-used-potential-meeting-to-pressure-ukraine-on-biden-texts-indicate-11570205661
https://www.lawfareblog.com/self-impeaching-trump-zelensky-conversation
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/23/us/politics/trump-ukraine-collusion.html
R1 and R2 have already occurred. There was an error regarding the accidental interference of another debate. We will copy and paste previous arguments and pick up where we left off.