Furthermore, why is it OK for “Candidate A” to pay Ukrainian and/or Russian sources for fictitious, false, and malicious information against her opponent, the candidate who eventually would form “Administration B,” yet is is an impeachable offense for “Administration B” to inquire for true information from a foreign government?
The furor had its origins in Presidential candidate Joe Biden’s boast that he had threatened to withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees to Ukraine unless they fired the prosecutor who happened to be conducting an investigation of corruption in that government, and so was sniffing around some deals that had netted some major cash benefits to Mr. Biden’s son’s company. This did not please Mr. Biden, who happened to be Vice-President at the time, so he threatened to withhold said loan guarantee. Sure enough, his threat had the desired effect.
Let’s be clear: it was not “alleged” or “claimed” or “reported” that Mr. Biden did this – no, he revealed it, he bragged about, he was proud of it. This apparently stimulated President Trump’s interest in the matter.
On the other hand, Mr. Trump asked the Ukrainian president to do him “a favor” and look into “CrowdStrike,” a Ukrainian company that had been hired by the Clinton campaign, and “confirmed” that “Russia” hacked the Democratic National Committee computer servers. The DNC refused to surrender the servers to the FBI (and recall, this was when Barack Obama was president and James Comey ran the FBI), meaning that no independent group or law enforcement agency was given an opportunity to verify the CrowdStrike claim. The Crowdstrike claim almost certainly was false, because it is probable that the files were not hacked, but leaked. The claim they were hacked led to the claim that the “Russians” did it at the behest of Donald Trump. Of course, if it could be established that the files were leaked, the basis for the claim that Trump and Russia conspired to throw the election would go out the window. Anyway, Mr. Trump did not threaten to withhold a billion dollars or anything else, but merely asked for a favor. We suspect there has not been a US President in the last seventy years who has not asked for a favor from a foreign government, or has not received a request for a favor from at least one foreign president.
Well, a few minutes later President Trump said this to President Zelensky: “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. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution, so if you can look into it. . .it sounds horrible to me.” Mr. Zelensky said in his response that he wanted “to make sure to restore the honesty so [he will] work on the investigation of the case.” Notice “the case” is not some request to “find dirt on Joe Biden” but to reconsider the investigation that Mr. Biden forced to shut down. The difference between the two should be obvious to everyone.
This leads us to a third question: Why is quashing an investigation in exchange for a loan guarantee NOT a “quid pro quo” but asking a favor and offering nothing in return IS a “quid pro quo”? In light of the testimony of Kurt Volker, former US envoy to Ukraine, who said: “Vice President Biden was never a topic of discussion” in the “extensive” text messages of Mr. Volker with “several different [officials].” Mr. Volker also said that he “understood that the new Ukrainian leadership wanted to convince those, like Mayor Giuliani, who believed such a negative narrative about Ukraine, that times have changed and that, under President Zelensky, Ukraine is worthy of support.” According to The Federalist, “Volker explained that Trump had a dim view of the Ukrainian government given its involvement in 2016 efforts to damage Trump’s presidential campaign, and that the president’s view of rampant and widespread corruption in the country was a significant barrier to cooperation between the two nations going forward.”
As Republican Congressman Dan Crenshaw put it, “Republicans are the only ones calling for public release of [Mr. Volker’s] deposition transcript. That should tell you something” which Mr. Crenshaw explains is: “Democrats prefer narratives, not facts.” Mr. Crenshaw’s opinion is buttressed by the fact that the Democrats continue to use – not the official transcript of President Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky – but the “so-called” whistleblower’s letter, which made numerous claims that are disproven by the transcript. “Narratives not facts.”
Now we’ll bet someone is going to say that President Trump asked a foreign government for “dirt” on Mr. Biden, who happens to be his political opponent. We contend that the facts show that he most certainly did not ask for “dirt,” but asked that an investigation that was shut down at the Vice-President’s request be reopened; and furthermore, if Mr. Biden wanted something not to be investigated, shouldn’t we know what it was? Everything that Mr. Trump ever did, or thought about doing, or is accused of doing – even if he didn’t do it – is investigated nine ways from Sunday. Is it not at least as valid to investigate the Biden/Ukraine shutdown?
And, we will say that it would be wrong and illegal if Mr. Trump had asked someone to fabricate falsehoods about Mr. Biden or his family, just as it was wrong for Mrs. Clinton to suborn fabricated falsehoods about Mr. Trump. We note that he didn’t, and she did.
Oh yes, Speaker of the House Pelosi announced the “impeachment inquiry” would begin BEFORE the transcript was released; and Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff read his own dishonest and false account of the President’s phone call, rather than the actual words of the phone call. “Narratives, not facts.”
And another thing: the whistleblower, who, lacking first-hand knowledge of what was said or done would be more accurately described as a “gossip” or a “traducer” (one who spreads malicious and false information) did not disclose (among other things) his prior contacts with the staff of Cong. Schiff’s committee nor did the Congressman disclose them – in fact, he lied and pretended that there were no contacts, a fact which led to the Congressman receiving “Four Pinocchios” from the Washington Post. Now, if Mr. Trump’s conversation was devastating, why report it inaccurately? If the contacts were routine and standard, why lie about them?
Having said all this, we couldn’t agree more that it is unseemly for a President to make an inquiry that might result in embarrassing information on a political rival. It also was unseemly when Hillary Clinton did it, and it also was unseemly for Vice-President Biden to seek to halt an investigation. If he had not done so, of course, there would have been no reason for Mr. Trump to fish in those waters. All three of those illustrations may show improper behavior, and all three have political motivations. It probably would be illegal if there is an effort to extort (as Mr. Biden did), or to procure and disseminate false information (as Mrs. Clinton did). Assuming no extortion, and there is no evidence there was, President Trump did not do anything illegal, and certainly nothing impeachable.
It is hilarious to hear the Democrat leaders in Congress bleat about “how difficult it is” for them to consider impeachment or how they wish they didn’t have to do it, because actually they have been seeking various means of impeaching the President since before he took the oath of office.
Whatever it was that the President did in that phone call to President Zelensky, it wasn’t a crime, and it isn’t an impeachable offense. And when this effort to destroy the President fails as have all the previous ones, don’t despair, the Democrats will produce something else to try to accomplish the same thing. The same people who did their best to undermine the 2016 election by paying for lies about Mr. Trump from Russia and the Ukraine; and assured us they had clear evidence of Mr. Trump’s “collusion” or “obstruction” and who had neither, now accuse him of using foreign sources to undermine the 2020 election. This is a classic case of projection, and of double standards.
(Note – We will take a break from our series of columns on The Bill of Rights in order to offer some thoughts on the current “impeachment inquiry fever” raging through “the swamp” in Washington DC and elsewhere)