You may suspect that we are referring to the Impeachment Inquiry, which may be over or maybe just between rounds; its future is somewhat indefinite. Here’s a brief summation of what has transpired up to this point.
One side, led by Chairman Adam Schiff, has used his opening statement, the carefully drafted statements of his witnesses, the highlights thereof that may be construed as damaging to President Trump skillfully and selectively leaked prior to the event, and the first 45 minutes of so of questioning by the Majority (that is, Schiffian) counsel, to delicately craft what is supposed to be a fatal and unassailable case against the President – you know, when all of the pundits on the mainstream media, etc. thoughtfully stroke their chins and shake their heads and mutter laments of how horrible and unprecedented is the behavior of the President. And then, the other side (led by Ranking Member Devin Nunes) gets its chance to question the Schiffian witnesses, for the Republicans are not allowed to call witnesses of their own; and yet in five-minute bites, with simple, direct questions, they demolish the construction that the Shiffians have spent hours, perhaps years, creating.
Think not? Well, let’s look at some simple, direct answers from the Schiffian witnesses and the point should be apparent.
* Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman said, in response to a question by Republican Rep. John Ratcliffe of Texas: that he “did not know of a crime or anything of that nature” committed by President Trump. He nonetheless was very upset that the President was usurping the policy of the United States, inconveniently forgetting that it is the President who establishes the foreign policy of the United States. We are not suggesting that Lt. Col. Vindman should be cashiered for insubordination and for publicly disagreeing with the policy set by the President, but 5-star General Douglas MacArthur was, when he publicly disagreed with President Truman; and General John Singlaub was, when he publicly disagreed with the policy of President Jimmy Carter; and Gen. Stanley McChrystal was, when he made some derogatory remarks about President Obama. No, the incidents are not of equal significance, we suppose, but the basic point is quite similar. Let’s also remember that, contrary to his claim to be the “principal advisor to the National Security Advisor and to the President on Ukraine,” Lt. Col. Vindman has never met with nor spoken to President Trump.
* Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, in response to this question from Republican Rep. Mike Turner of Ohio: “Let’s be clear: no one on this planet – not Donald Trump, Rudy Guilani, Mick Mulvaney, Mike Pompeo – no one told you aid [to Ukraine] was tied to political investigations, is that correct?” Ambassador Sondland: “That’s correct.” And when the subject of quid pro quo came up, Ambassador Sondland testified that President Trump did not want a quid pro quo: “I want nothing. I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.”
* Former National Security Council staffer Tim Morrison, when asked by Rep. Devin Nunes, Republican of California, “Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?” answered, “No.”
* Former State Department Envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker was asked the identical question by Rep. Nunes, “Did anyone ever ask you to bribe or extort anyone at any time during your time in the White House?” and he also answered, “No.” Mr. Volker elaborated, “I was never involved in anything that I would consider to be bribery at all...or extortion.”
* Former Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch, in response to this question from Republican Rep. Chris Stewart of Utah: “Do you have any information regarding the President of the United States accepting any bribes?” Her answer, “No.” Cong. Stewart then asked, “Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the President of the United States has been involved with at all?” Again, she answered, “No.”
* Deputy Assistant Secretary of State George Kent: “To summarize, we thought the CEO of Burisma had stolen money. We thought a prosecutor had to take a bribe to shut the case. I think, since US taxpayer dollars were wasted, I would love to see the Ukrainian prosecutor general’s office find who the corrupt prosecutor was that took the bribe, and how much of it was paid.” Gee, the Schiffian witness wanted to reopen the same investigation that President Trump wanted to see reopened, and for the same reason.
* Bill Taylor, charges d’affaires to Ukraine, never had any direct contact with President Trump, yet was somehow considered a major witness. He, as did several of the others, offered some hearsay, but none offered any direct, first-hand evidence of any crime, nor of anything that could be used to impeach anyone.
Lt. Col. Vindman and some other witnesses indicated that among their chief concerns was that if an investigation would be re-opened that might impinge on former Vice-President Joe Biden, it could jeopardize the bi-partisan support in Congress for Ukraine. Perhaps, but that is a sanitized way of saying that the Democrats wouldn’t support Ukraine if Ukraine investigated Burisma or the Bidens. And President Trump is the one accused of placing his personal political interests above the national interest?
“The President didn’t listen to me,” or “The President under cut US policy,” or “The President used irregular channels instead of traditional diplomats” may or may not be valid reasons for disliking the President, or for voting against him, but they are not valid reasons to impeach him. And “I think I heard someone say that someone said the President might have said something” is the rankest form of hearsay and should be disregarded in every courtroom, and committee hearing room, in America.
The Democrats have been in the process of “impeaching” President Trump since late 2016. Their biggest obstacle so far is that they have not found a crime, but we know they will keep looking.