 |
| Former US Ambassador to the Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch (Politifact) |
It was a disgusting tactic to smear this patriot as
an excuse to fire her from her post as Ambassador to the Ukraine. I don’t think
there is a soul on either side of the debate that would disagree with that. (She received a standing ovation as she left the House chamber after her testimony.) She did not have to
be smeared by the ‘President’s men’. Especially since he did not need a reason to fire her. All State Department officials serve at the pleasure of the President.
And yet the President (or
his men - or both) decided to make up a reason for the firing. Adding insult to injury
was a disgusting tweet by the President during Ambassador’s testimony smearing her further. That has been characterized by Democrats as witness intimidation. (I don’t think that was his intent. He was just trying to counter
her narrative in real time, not trying to silence her or change her testimony.)
The question at hand, however is whether the President
committed a ‘high crime or misdemeanor’ that warrants being removed from office.
The ‘crime’ in question is a phone call to Volodymyr Zelensky, the newly elected president of the
Ukraine asking him to investigate Joe Biden’s son Hunter. Hunter Biden was placed on the board of Burisma, a corrupt Ukrainian company when his father was the sitting Vice President.
It should be noted that the Ukraine had up to this point been highly corrupt. The US diplomatic core in the Ukraine was tasked to influence them to clean things up. At the same time the Ukraine was being threatened by Russian aggression and needed American assistance in the form of military aid to discourage Russia from attacking the Ukraine any further.
Based on a conversation Trump had with newly elected Ukrainian President Zelensky - the President is accused of withholding (his already approved) aid as leverage to get him to investigate the Bidens.
Was that a legitimate request? It has been made clear during the hearings that the American diplomats in the Ukraine believed that hiring the sitting Vice President’s son gave at least the appearance of a conflict of interest that could influence American foreign policy.
Be that as it may, there is little doubt in my mind that Trump’s request was entirely political. He wanted dirt on Biden - his likely opponent (at the time) in the 2020 election. Was he going to hold back aid if that request wasn't fulfilled? I doubt it. There was no quid pro quo. At least not according to the 2 people that actually had the conversation with each other, Trump and Zelensky.
At the end of the day, that aid was released without the Bidens being investigated. Was it because (as Democrats insist) the conversation was exposed? Who knows. But the fact is that it was Trump who authorized the necessary aid in the first place. Aid which was denied by his predecessor.
Back to Ambassador Yavanovich. It’s very likely that she was removed to pave the way
for an ambassador that would forward Trump’s political agenda. But she was fired before that phone call was ever made. So other than creating
more sympathy for the Democratic narrative and showing the President to be the scoundrel he is,
there was nothing in her testimony that corroborated the accusations about the intent of that phone call.
That Presidents are political is not news. Nor is it news that they seek dirt on their political opponents. (They call it opposition research.) That does not make it right. But it is no less true. The difference here is that Trump is despised by Democrats (and Republican ‘Never Trumpers’) and is far more open in seeking that dirt. Making him an easy target for accusations about corruption.
So far every diplomat that testified has made Trump look bad.
But again does all that testimony make what he did an impeachable offense? Or more importantly will
it change the mind of anyone in either house of congress?
I don’t think so. Thus far these entire proceedings have been a ‘show’ designed to paint the President in the worst possible terms. Which is not all that difficult to do anyway. But I believe that all it does is energize the base on both sides. Democrats are preaching to their choir while Republicans are preaching to theirs.
The American people are as divided on this issue as are their representatives in congress. As things stand now, the Democrat controlled House will surely
vote to impeach. And the Republican controlled Senate will surely vote not remove him
from office. No one has changed their minds. If anything these hearings are
hardening their positions.
So why are Democrats putting on this ‘show’?
This is all about
the 2020 elections. They want to make the President look as evil and as unfit for office as possible. The longer these hearings go on – the worse the President
looks. Especially when the media’s narrative is identical to the Democratic
narrative often using the same talking points. They are in complete sync with each other.
That being said, I want to give PBS coverage credit for being
far more objective.They have thus far fairly
presented both sides of the argument. Considering the fact that PBS generally leans heavily to the left, that is saying a lot.
Will all of this eventually have the Democrats intended effect on the 2020
election? That is hard to say. The base of both parties will surely be more energized. The question is what about the undecided voters? They will be the
ones that will ultimately decide who will win the oval office in 2020.
My view has therefore not changed. Despite polls that seem to show
that any of the top rated Democrats would win in a head to head match-up, my view is that these proceedings
will little impact on the undecided voter. I still believe it will be
the economy that will sway them.
It is a well known truism that people vote their pocketbooks.
If the economy is still soaring next November, the undecided vote will probably
tip in Trump’s favor. Whether that is a good result or not depends on which political
base you belong to.
How do I feel about it? Not ready to endorse anyone until we
have a clear winner among the Democrats. But I shudder to think what will happen to the economy if someone like Warren or Sanders is elected.
