Saturday, November 16, 2019

Impeachment Follies

Please don't mistake me for a supporter of Donald Trump, but...

The “whistleblower” came forward because he was concerned that President Trump was “going against established US foreign policy.”   Since the constitution clearly and unequivocally establishes that is the President who sets US foreign policy, how is it even possible that the President could “go against established US foreign policy.”

The current “talking point” for impeachment is no longer “quid pro quo,” but is now the same actions relabeled as “bribery." This is because “quid pro quo” is not named in the constitution as grounds for impeachment, while “bribery” is.

Bribery is rather clearly defined in the dictionary, and there a few problems with the application of the term to this set of actions and statements. Trump did not give Ukraine this money, Congress did. Trump did not personally benefit from the putative “quid pro quo,” his presidential campaign supposedly did.

Even if legal maneuvering could manage to define Trump as the donor of the money to Ukraine because he held it back and then released it, which would be legal magic to an extraordinary degree, this instance would have severe consequences. If paying money to enhance one’s political campaign amounts to bribery, then every member of Congress is in very big trouble.

From Homeschoolmomof11, a commenter on Powerline, regarding Ambassador Yovanovitch, “I keep trying to hold to the ideal that women can be just as strong as men and just as deserving of leadership positions, but the Democrats keep pushing women like this into the spotlight and ruining it for me.” Yes, this woman and the ditz who tried to bring down Justice Kavanaugh.

2 comments:

bruce said...

I think separating the beneficiary of Mr. Trump personally and his presidential campaign is a pretty slim line.

Having said that, the issue of Mr. Trump not personally asking for Russian help, but his campaign staff or unknown persons or PACs doing so, can be a legal defense. A smarmy one, to be sure, befitting a smarmy person, but we're talking legalese here.

I don't know about "pushing" women into the spotlight... the ambassador just happens to be a woman. Can't help that. The ditz on the Kavanaugh hearings - well, that's on the Democrats. I think worse of them than the woman involved. Kavanaugh is no shining example of good behavior, and I'd rather someone else was selected, but it probably would't have been any better.

Having said that - is there a statute of limitations on stupid behavior as a youth? Who among us hasn't done something stupid in their past and is/may no longer be relevant to contemporary events? Does no one get a pass anymore? Zero tolerance and all that? It's all hyper partisan and that to the detriment of everyone.

Unknown said...

Wow! this is Amazing! Do you know your hidden name meaning ? Click here to find your hidden name meaning

Post a Comment