Intent, I Guess, is in the Eye of the Beholder
The View from the Middle
You may have noticed that every time the Democrats bring up the fact that President Trump asked President Zelensky of Ukraine to do him a favor and look into the Bidens, they also attach a motive to it. They say that he asked for this favor solely to disparage one of his political rivals in the upcoming 2020 elections. They never make the first claim without adding the suggested intent of the investigation that he was requesting. You see, they must convince you that the President did this purely for personal political gain. Have you asked yourself why that is?
First, they MUST make the request sound illegitimate, irresponsible and possibly illegal. So, they must suggest that they can read Donald Trump’s mind and are absolutely certain of what his motive was when he made this request of Zelensky. It seems that whenever the media or Democrats, but I repeat myself, read Trump’s mind, they find the worst of intentions. Yet, when they (Comey and the media) read Hillary Clinton’s mind, when she destroyed 30,000 emails under subpoena, they gave her the benefit of the doubt and claimed that she had “no intent” to violate the law. It’s amazing to me that when the media and Democrats resort to “mind reading” they consistently exonerate Democrats and condemn Republicans. Interesting, isn’t it.
So, Democrats MUST attach this slimier motive to Trump’s request just to make it SEEM inappropriate, but what if that was not the reason for Trump’s request. Certainly, the President of the United States has the right, even the duty, to investigate potential corruption in a country to which we are about to give millions, even billions, of dollars in aid. It’s not President Trump’s fault that Joe Biden and his son Hunter got involved with one of the most corrupt companies in one of the most corrupt countries in the world. So, if Trump’s motivation was to root out corruption in Ukraine, and Joe Biden was tangled up in that corruption, this request was not only not improper, it was noble!
Remember, even President Obama was concerned about Hunter Biden’s appointment to the board of Burisma, one of the most corrupt companies in Ukraine. Hunter had no experience in the energy industry and had no expertise in the Ukrainian language or culture. This “no show” job paying up to a million dollars a year smacked of impropriety at a minimum since Hunter’s father, Joe, was the point man for Ukraine for the Obama administration. Even now, David Axelrod, Obama’s campaign manager, recommends that Joe Biden should just, “admit that this was wrong” and try to move on. When you add the fact that Joe boasted that he coerced Ukraine to fire the prosecutor, who was investigating his son’s company, and he did so by threatening to withhold over a billion dollars of American aid, this investigation sounds not only more reasonable but essential.
But since we’re talking about intent or motives, let’s take a look on the other side of the political divide. What if the Democrats have been harassing this President and dividing this country for three years, just for personal, political gain. What evidence, you may ask, is there that this persecution has been deliberate and malicious? Remember how the Democrats reacted to the Trump election. They said they were going to “resist” and “obstruct” everything this President pursued. Within 20 minutes of his inauguration, they were calling for his impeachment. For what? From the beginning they were intent on impeaching him (ask Al Green and Maxine Waters) and their only goal was to find something, anything to accuse him of. Did they do this for personal political gain? Of course they did. So which act to you find more offensive? Asking Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden to find out if there was any corruption at Burisma, or polarizing our entire country for your own political gain?
While I have you, let’s talk a little about the articles of impeachment just announce by Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler. The first was “abuse of power”. I must admit that I agree that there has been an abuse of power in this impeachment process. I agree with Constitutional scholar, Johnathan Turley, that the Democrat majority in the House have abused their power by redefining “high crimes and misdemeanors” in a way that would have had every past President impeached. The Founders would truly be rolling over in their grave.
Second, Democrats have charged “obstruction of Congress”. Note that “quid pro quo” and “bribery”, the original accusations that started this entire inquiry, are not even mentioned as an article of impeachment. So, in effect, Nancy Pelosi and Jerry Nadler are saying that even though President Trump did not commit the crimes he was accused of, he did vigorously resist being hung (politically) for it.
Both of these charges are so nebulous and weak that it should make us all irate that the Democrat majority wasted our time and tried to turn Americans against each other for literally – nothing. These articles were so weak that Nancy Pelosi had to announce her support for USMCA (our trade deal with Mexico and Canada) within two hours of their announcement. This is legislation that she has been holding for almost a year, but she just happened to finally support it within two hours of their impeachment announcement. This distraction from their pathetic impeachment efforts would be laughable if it weren’t so obvious.
I'm sorry, but this is bunk. And we know it's bunk because the President and his defenders have not put one witness under oath to debunk it. In fact, the President has refused to allow those who do have the knowledge to testify. They tweet, their lawyers issue press releases, etc., but when the rubber hits the road of raising your right hand and swearing to God, they cannot be found.
ReplyDeleteAs to Turley, one wonders which Turley we are speaking of? 1998 Turley or 2019 Turley? Because they've got diametrically opposed opinions. Not so different than McConnell, Graham, etc. (Heck with Graham you don't even have to go back to 1998 - go back to 2015-2016 for a very different Lindsay Graham). Playing the game of "look what the other team said then" is fun, but it's a distraction. One can find "impeach Hillary" statements from Repubs even BEFORE the election they thought she was going to win.
The facts are that an American President, both directly and via his personal lawyer tried to get a foreign leader to announce (not necessarily conduct) an investigation into his chief rival, and he used American military aid and the office of the President to do so. Then, when Congress tried to investigate it, despite proclaiming his innocence, he refused to allow those who could presumably verify his innocence, testify.
That is undisputed by any facts on the record. Note I said "on the record," because multiple people are talking to the press, but again, they aren't going under oath. As we know from Sarah Sanders, Lewandowski, Flynn, etc., Trump surrogates have no problem with lying to the public. We also know the President has no problem lying to the public, as he showed in the Stormy Daniels denial, denial of contact with Russia, etc. So without putting these people under oath, we have no reason to believe them.
And no, there's no evidence Joe Biden did anything wrong in regard to Ukraine. His son was trying to profit off his connections, sure. And Republicans don't care about that, as Kushner, Ivanka and Jr. prove daily. But it's a talking point and let's acknowledge it as such. Much like the President's "concern" about corruption. The guy who just paid $2 million in fines for running a fraudulent charity and $25 million for running a fraudulent "university" is concerned about corruption?
There is no evidence Biden did anything other than announce United States policy, which was consistent with the policy of our Allies. Well, who used to be allies before we started talking about our "great" friends, dictators in North Korea, Russia, and Turkey. If you have evidence, state it.
The impeachment articles are narrow, though they could be much wider, particularly on obstruction. It is undisputed, for example, that Trump asked McGahn to create a false record of his interaction with Trump. That's not in there.
The question is not, therefore, whether you think an American President should be lying to the public about his payoff of a porn star (which would have been enough for Repubs previously), or whether you think an American President should lie about his relationship with a foreign government, or whether you think he should fire those investigating him. Partisan mileage may vary on each of those (truly nonpartisan doesn't).
You don't have to guess at Trump's intent. You don't have to care about his intent. You can follow the actions and determine it for yourself.
The question for all Americans, regardless of party, is whether the actions of the President detailed in the impeachment inquiry rises to high crimes and misdemeanors, which is a judgment call based on ones' principles. And if you're a committed Republican or Democrat, and your understandable party loyalty is making you waiver, all you need to do is substitute the other team's guy in for yours and see if you still would.
As I listen to the hearings, and I admit I'm a nerd and do listen to them as much as I can, I am shocked by a couple of things that Republicans are saying in defense of Trump. They are so distinct from literally decades of Republican orthodoxy.
ReplyDelete1. Calling FBI Agents "scum." Normally Republicans are the foremost defenders of law enforcement.
2. Asking foreign governments to investigate Americans or just announce it. Republicans would never have done this before. They would object to any interference with the rights of American citizens by foreigners.
3. Surveillance by law enforcement. Republicans authorized FISA for years, and always fought back against attempts to limit it, and all surveillance powers. Trump himself has voted to re-authorize these things. They excoriate Apple and Google in a hearing yesterday for providing secure communication methods, then excoriate the FBI for using the same methods they authorize.
4. Broad claims of executive privilege. Republicans fought this in Fast and Furious, holding Holder in contempt, and required Hillary to sit for 11 hours of testimony before them. And they were right to do so! Now it's as if they never did it.
5. Deficits. A whole movement, the Tea Party, came from deficits. A Freedom Caucus was created from it. Now we never get a peep about it.
6. Personal decorum and morality. This one is obvious.
7. Attitude toward dictators. How has the party done such a 180 on this? Ukraine has been our ally for decades and Russia our enemy, but we allow the Russian Foreign Minister yesterday to contradict our intelligence agencies' findings? I recall in the Obama administration when Republicans would say every Russian provocation was evidence of how little they respected him? Now the Russian Foreign Minister does that with little to no pushback from Republicans? In fact, some even agree and parrot him?
What does the party stand for anymore? It is not the party I grew up a part of.
"Certainly, the President of the United States has the right, even the duty, to investigate potential corruption in a country to which we are about to give millions, even billions, of dollars in aid."
ReplyDeleteI've thought about this argument some as I've heard it more. It doesn't really make sense. Since the portions of the US government which are tasked with certifying there was no corruption were executive branch (meaning Trump controlled) agencies, and they had certified the relevant anti-corruption findings, hadn't this been done?
And if Trump were truly committed to it, why would he want a public announcement of an investigation, rather than a typical investigation where you don't tip off the suspected criminal what you're doing while you look? I can't imagine a less effective way to find criminal behavior out than to tip off the suspected criminal that you're looking at him.
And if Trump is so committed to rooting out corruption, why not ask our own investigate agencies to act and see if OUR law was violated? Because if whatever is found is not a crime here, what difference does it make?
And if rooting out financial corruption is so important that we need to look into the finances of the sons of prominent people, wouldn't it make sense for the actual prominent politicians to be examined as well? That would mean Mr. Trump would want to lead the way by releasing his own tax returns, which are allegedly "beautiful", rather than spending millions to keep them secret.
And if you're rooting out corruption, why would you ask a foreign leader to coordinate with a private lawyer and his unknown cohorts, who are being paid by unknown people? He doesn't have subpoena power, he doesn't have the ability or official authority from the US government. How does that make sense?
Like most Trump defenses, the logic just falls apart like a house of cards when you really take a look at it.
For another one, take a look at the "FBI was out to get me in the 2016 campaign" claims. They don't make much sense either.