Cheap Seats 2019Quid Pro – Huh? - 10/09 
By Rich Trzupek
As a rule of thumb when making unfounded accusations, people tend to do so based on their own predispositions. That is, accusers craft their allegations based on the misdeed they themselves would commit. Rarely has that principle been so beautifully demonstrated than with the Democrats current case of impeachment fever.
The impeachable offense, at least as far as I understand it, is that the Chief Executive of the United States used his position to obtain information from another nation under threat of withholding aid unless said nation cooperated.
There isn’t any actual record of President Trump making aid to the Ukraine conditional, but Trump’s critics maintain the threat was “implied.” Once you go there, you’re essentially saying that the President of the United States can never ask any foreign government for any information or help with an investigation, or at least none that receive a penny of foreign aid, because I’m pretty sure that when you’re taking a hand-out the “threat” that the freebies will be cut off at some point is part of the deal.
But, that’s just me. Impeachment hearings are coming. Maxine Waters is going to personally slap the cuffs on the The Donald. AOC is building a concentration camp to hold Republicans once the revolution is over. God only knows whatever other punishments await the perpetrator of the crime of asking a foreign government for help with an investigation.
If that is a high crime or misdemeanor, what are we to make of serving Vice President of the United States bragging about how we got the same Ukrainian government to perform his bidding by threatening to withhold aid? I mean how can asking a foreign government to help out in an investigation be impeachable, but actually threatening that same government unless help is provided is not?
And so we have this twisted hairball of a case for impeachment that all but the most delusional of Democrats (looking at you AOC) have to know is going to end badly. Should Biden be investigated for bragging – on tape – how he coerced the Ukrainian government into action? If you say “no” then how in the name of God do you say it’s OK to impeach a sitting president who’s on record of asking for the quid without threatening the quo?
If on the other hand you say that Biden should be investigated, then how do you say it’s OK to impeach a sitting president for asking the leader of the nation that is at the crux of the investigation to lend a hand?
Trump doesn’t need Rudy Giuliani to defend him at an impeachment trial, a reasonably studious sixth grader could handle this case. I imagine the president is hoping against hope that the Dems do vote for impeachment, because once you get into the actual trial, with rules of evidence, and witnesses, and the right to face one’s accusers, etc. they are going to look like idiots.
As a matter of record, I vocally opposed impeachment proceedings against President Clinton. While he clearly was guilty of perjury (losing his standing to argue a case before the Supreme Court as a result) committing perjury about who you’ve been sleeping with doesn’t rise to the standard of a high crime or a misdemeanor in my world.
Impeachment is supposed to be a last resort, the Constitutional equivalent of a fire alarm, to be used only in case of emergency. It is not to be used as a political tool, especially during a time of prosperity, record low unemployment and relative peace. Unfortunately, it was used in that manner by Republicans twice in our history. The Democrats would be fools to try to even the score.
Email: richtrzupek@gmail.com
.
./
|
