Instigator / Pro
13
1922
rating
117
debates
97.44%
won
Topic
#1533

The July 25 Trump-Zelensky Phone Call is Clear Cut Collusion

Status
Finished

The debate is finished. The distribution of the voting points and the winner are presented below.

Winner & statistics
Better arguments
6
0
Better sources
4
4
Better legibility
2
2
Better conduct
1
2

After 2 votes and with 5 points ahead, the winner is...

oromagi
Parameters
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
Contender / Con
8
1518
rating
7
debates
57.14%
won
Description

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

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.

Criterion
Pro
Tie
Con
Points
Better arguments
3 point(s)
Better sources
2 point(s)
Better legibility
1 point(s)
Better conduct
1 point(s)
Reason:

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.