In the Words of the Accused

After almost 3 years, a quadruple bypass and an aortic valve replacement, and the personal fight against my tendency to want to put my observations about any event or issue in a contextual framework that renders them immune from criticism, I am returning to Salus Populi with the intention to make less ambitious remarks.

Regarding the impeachment “trial” going on in the Senate at the moment, a few thoughts:

1. The single most important piece of evidence is the 5 page Memorandum of Telephone Conversation (MOTC) of July 25, 2019 between the Presidents of the US and Ukraine 

photo credit: Washington Post

It was created by Situation Room Duty Officers and National Security Council policy staff assigned to “memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place.” It is available online without complicated research.  I encourage anyone who would like to have an informed opinion regarding the two Articles of Impeachment passed by the House to read it.

2. The President is not correct that it was a “perfect conversation” in that he makes several references to his personal attorney Rudy Guiliani in a manner suggesting Guiliani was involved in the conduct of foreign policy.  In a perfect call, there would be no reference to Mr. Guiliani, a private citizen, functioning as a representative of the US government. Those references, however, are not a crime or an offense (impeachable or otherwise) — they are just a bad idea, as would be the President’s assigning a private citizen any diplomatic function.

3. It is President Zelensky who first raises the issue of corruption in his country, and his desire to create a “new type of government.”

4. When President Trump mentions the notion to “do us a favor” it is clear he is directed at the 2016 election.  He asks that Ukraine “find out what happened” (past tense). He references Crowdstrike, the DNC server, the Mueller investigation (all connected to the 2016 election) and states “… I would like you to get to the bottom of it …if that’s possible.”  He states he will have the Attorney General call Mr. Zelensky.

5. Two thirds of the way through the call, the President raises the Biden matter: “There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great.” (emphasis added)

6. Shortly thereafter, the President stated “… I am going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it.  I am sure you will figure it out.” (emphasis added)

7. It is clear the President is asking Ukraine to cooperate with and provide information to the US Attorney General.  There is nothing illegal or even remotely improper in that, particularly in light of the fact the Attorney General already had an investigation, led by Special Prosecutor John Durham, looking into aspects of the 2016 election.

8. I have probably heard the statement that “the President tried to force Ukraine to dig up dirt on his political rival” over a hundred times on CNN, MSNBC, and NPR in the last five months.  There is nothing in the MOTC to support that conclusion. The President’s comments regarding the Bidens were directed at one specific past event. There was no general investigation of Joe Biden requested or implied.  Furthermore, the request was only to provide information to the Attorney General.

9. The past event is Joe Biden’s boasting that he delivered a message to the Ukrainian President that the Ukrainian Prosecutor Viktor Shokun must be fired before aid will be provided to Ukraine. 

photo credit: cfr.org

Video of Biden’s comments, made to the Council on Foreign Relations, is also widely available online. I have heard an interview with Mr. Shokun, wherein he stated that he was investigating Hunter Biden when fired and that he believed he was fired because of that investigation.  Maybe Mr. Shokun is wrong about all of that, but, true or not, the matter, on its face, is problematic and would have justified an investigation.

10. Members of the media have frequently asserted that the idea of possible Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and the view that Joe Biden’s pressure to fire the Ukrainian prosecutor included a motive designed to help his son have been “debunked.”  I have read or heard the word “debunked” more times in the past five months than in the preceding 50 years. Absent a litigated proceeding resulting in a judicial determination, or the announced conclusion of a formal investigation by a law enforcement entity, there is no magical moment when an idea is officially debunked.  The media have taken it upon themselves to make the pronouncement.

11. The cooperation with the Attorney General requested by the President could have resulted in Ukrainian officials announcing: “ After thorough review, it is clear that Joe Biden did nothing wrong.  His behavior was perfect.” The MOTC reflects that the President sought only an investigation of a specific past act, not a result from that investigation, or a generalized “dig up dirt.” Perhaps the President would have welcomed information that Joe Biden did something wrong, but he did not request it.

12. President Trump is remarkably lacking in knowledge and understanding of how the US government functions.  He daily demonstrates his pronounced personality weakness of needing constant public approval. He is profane and shallow.  Those attributes were all on display during the 2016 campaign and he was elected to the presidency by the rules that govern our elections.  The public had the opportunity to make its choice. It chose what it chose. Trump’s possession of those those highly undesirable attributes is not an impeachable offense.  It seems odd for me to paraphrase Tucker Carlson, but he was quite right when he said that Donald Trump is ignorant and vulgar–get over it.

13. I strongly disliked and opposed the unprincipled partisanship of the Clinton impeachment.  This one is every bit as bad. Out comes the worst in almost every one associated with the process.  One party’s pious pontificator gets on the floor of Congress, or on cable news, and invokes noble ideas and sentiments about our democracy in pursuit of partisan ignoble goals, and then the other party’s spokesperson somehow manages to be even worse and so it goes and goes ….  Senator Mitch McConnell pledges total coordination with the Trump defense team and then takes the oath to be impartial. Elizabeth Warren announces on the campaign trail that Trump should be impeached and then takes the same oath. Lindsay Graham and Chuck Schumer seem to make it a point to have precisely the opposite position on every relevant issue regarding the Senate trial from what each held 20 years ago.  House member Rashida Tlaib announces at her swearing in, without having reviewed an ounce of evidence, “Impeach the motherf**ker!” Then there’s always a stern-faced Adam Schiff, or a determined Nancy Pelosi, looking into the camera and, with manufactured solemnity, stating for the umpteenth time: “No one, no one is above the law.” Huh? They are Democrats who believe that the law should not be applied to any of the 11 million immigrants who are in this country illegally. 

photo credit: Haartz.com

Pelosi represents a Congressional district entirely within the city of San Francisco, which has declared itself a sanctuary city–its purpose being to prevent application of federal law regarding immigration within the city. It would be refreshing to see at least one principled legislator doing his or her best to arrive at a considered judgment consistent with the Constitution. In this process, we have not yet seen that person.