Much is made of President Trump violating the
so-called “Emoluments Clause” of the U.S. Constitution (Article 1, Section 9). Basically, the president cannot receive any…gift, payment or other thing of value from a foreign state or its rulers,
officers or representatives.
The issue centers around this term, “quid pro quo”
that Congress keeps bandying about. Basically,
the Democrats are saying that by asking Ukraine President Zelensky to
investigate Burisma Holdings and Vice President Biden’s involvement in it,
Trump was seeking to benefit personally in the 2020 election.
It is generally acknowledged that nations like the
U.S. use quid pro quos all the time to get other
countries to do what we want. Lots of
nations need money and arms from the U.S.
And we seem to have plenty of both to give.
Strategically, Ukraine is important in the relationship
between the U.S. and Russia (which is apparently still our sworn enemy – who knew!). We need them to side with us and not Vladdy
Putin, and so we’ve bent over backwards to help Ukraine financially when we
could. President Obama sent Joe Biden
over to facilitate giving Ukraine $1 billion in aid. President Trump has continue these financial and
military contributions from the U.S.
Speaking of a “quid pro quo,” it’s interesting to
note that Biden gave one to Ukraine then-President Poroshenko back in 2014: Fire
the Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin or you don’t get the $1 billion. Shokin was either looking too deeply or not enough deeply enough into corruption
within the Ukraine government. Looks to me like the U.S. was meddling in Ukraine politics.
For his part, President Trump is saying that his
“quid pro quo” merely amounted to asking (not demanding!) that Ukraine’s
president look into “corruption” in general…and that happens to include Joe
Biden because he was involved in Ukraine at the time that Ukraine was meddling
in the 2016 election. (The mainstream
media keeps the focus on “Russian interference” but apparently Ukraine was
doing it as well.)
Men of good will can disagree on issues. Personally, I think the Democrats have a weak
argument, and they’ll have a hard time convincing the American public that President
Trump violated his oath of office and committed an impeachable offense as the
House votes to impeach him. Don’t bother
to mention the various polls showing that half of all Americans want Trump
removed from office. I think that if
nothing else, the 2016 election taught us that polls cannot be trusted.
Who Am I?
- Bob Barbanes:
- A nobody; a nitwit; a pilot; a motorcyclist; a raconteur; a lover...of life - who loves to laugh, who tries to not take myself (or anything) too seriously...just a normal guy who knows his place in the universe by being in touch with my spiritual side. What more is there?
6 comments:
Not to mention, Bob, that even though the House might vote to impeach, it’s the Senate that tries and convicts, and ultimately removes from office. I believe there’s still a GOP Senate majority. Do you think there will be enough of them to cross party lines? Not likely. It will be Bill Clinton all over again and much time and energy will have been wasted. Only difference here is Trump has to run for a second term while Clinton was in his second. Today he’s a popular ex-president. The fact that he’s one of two in history (so far) who were impeached doesn’t appear to have tarnished him much. We’ll see how it affects Trump.
I tend to think the Dems have overplayed their hand. They’ve been dying to impeach this prez since the day he was inaugurated. Nancy Pelosi knew there wasn’t enough in the Mueller report to hang her hat on, but she believes the Ukraine deal will stick. She has to know, however, there will he no Senate conviction and thus no removal from office. But what she and her brethren are banking on is creating enough distrust in the minds of enough voters to prevent a Trump second term. In my opinion, they would have been better off trying to persuade a more reasonable, centrist and younger Democrats to seek the nomination. But that’s just me.
Oooh Bob, you are absolutely right! Did you see Nancy Pelosi's face as she announced the formal impeachment inquiry (which they keep mispronouncing) had begun? Come on...she may be batshit crazy, but she's a smart woman and cunning politician. She *knows* that this is a bad idea, and that even *IF* Trump could somehow be impeached and removed from office, he is not prohibited from running for president again! Which I'm sure he would do, just to show up the Dems! He is vindictive like that.
It is true that the Democrats have been desperately trying to discredit Trump in an all-out effort to convince his base of what a scumbag he is and that they shouldn't vote for him a second time. But maaaaan, I think they're having the opposite effect. People are realizing that (as you point out), the Dems have been gunning for him since before he was sworn-in, and this latest attempt is merely a...hate to use this Trumpian term, but...witch-hunt. They will find out that you cannot impeach a president unless he *receives" some personal benefit from a foreign government/leader. Just asking for it was not impeachable - if they can even prove that the infamous "quid pro quo" was actually about digging dirt up on Joe Biden specifically to damage his 2020 campaign.
And you are also correct that the Dems *should* have done a better job of cultivating a genuine opponent to Trump. I mean, they've had THREE YEARS! What were they doing? That lineup of clowns was the best they could offer? Cory Booker? Robert "Beto" ("Se Habla Ingles!") O'Rourke? Good grief! When the entire Ukraine story comes out (and it will), Biden will be discredited and maybe...maaaaaayyyybe even have to drop out of the race. But even if he doesn't, he wouldn't win (*if* he becomes the GOP nominee). Eight years of Obama was enough...enough to tell us that his way wasn't working...wasn't any better than anyone else's. Personally, I do not think Obama was good for America - and I'll leave it at that.
The ONLY Democrat who could conceivably beat Trump would be Hillary - and I'm just not sure she's made up here mind whether she wants to go through all that again, especially with the very real possibility of her losing to Trump AGAIN! Battling Trump took a real toll on her personally last time. If Trump is impeached and (somehow) removed from office AND kept from running, then Hillary will jump into the race and win it. But time for such shenanigans is running out. So 2024 would be Hillary's best bet - and by then I believe that health-wise, she will not be in a position to run.
Trump is a train wreck, for sure. The GOP will have to decide if they want to run someone to oppose him. But who? He's been taunting Mitt Romney, who probably could grow a set and go after Trump. I mean, look who Romney's dad was! And Mitt is no squeaky clean church-boy in any event. There's no shortage of balls in that family. Me, I'd like to see former Arizona Senator Jeff Flake run, or perhaps even Trey Gowdy. Either of them *could* beat Trump...I think...although they both may have decided to just let Trump have his second term before triggering that fight. I don't know.
Should be interesting!
I could go for either of those Republicans as a candidate, as well as John asich, but I
don’t believe the Republicans will dare come together to oppose Trump. Kind of a “He’s an SOB, but he’s our SOB“ kind of thing. And let’s face it, he’s helped a lot of them, whether they wanted his help or not.
*John Kasich
As someone who didn't vote for Trump and probably won't next year, I've been hoping for a someone within the Republican ranks to throw in their hat and run against him but after listening to NPR here recently, I don't think that will be possible. Many states have already cancelled their republican primaries/caucuses effectively making that impossible. So any challenge will have to be a third party ticket which is also likely impossible at this point and time.
Okay, y'all.... I want to hear your thoughts on Bloomberg now that he's thinking of throwing his hat in the ring. (or just do a whole post on it, Bob) I'm curious!
Post a Comment