Posted on 12/13/2019 3:37:09 AM PST by Kaslin
"Quid pro quo" was the accusatory Latin phrase most often used to describe President Donald Trump's July 25 phone call asking for a "favor" from the president of Ukraine.
New Year's prediction: The Roman poet Horace's Latin depiction: "Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus" -- "The mountains went into labor, and brought forth a mouse" -- will be used to describe the articles of impeachment drawn up by Nancy Pelosi's House.
Article II is titled "Obstruction of Congress." What does it allege?
That Trump "directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its 'sole power of Impeachment.'"
Undeniably, there is truth here.
Trump did direct the Executive branch not to provide witnesses and documents subpoenaed by the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, both of which are partisan, pro-impeachment and chaired by unapologetic Trump-haters Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiff.
But what the substance of Article II is really about is the eternal conflict between the first and second branches of the government over their respective rights and powers.
Such clashes are usually decided by the third branch, the Supreme Court. But Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff are unwilling to wait for the court to decide. They are declaring the issue decided and settled in the House's favor, and treating Trump's recourse to the courts as a new impeachable offense: "Obstruction of Congress."
Can Pelosi seriously expect a Republican Senate to convict and remove a Republican president for defending what that president is claiming in open court are the constitutional rights of the Executive Branch that he, as its present occupant and leader, is obligated to defend?
Trump would be derelict in his duty if he allowed a rogue House to run roughshod over the White House.
Consider Article I, "Abuse of Power."
The heart of this charge is that Trump briefly held up delivery of $391 million in "vital military and security assistance to oppose Russian aggression." So doing, Trump "compromised the national security of the United States."
Is the House serious? It was the Trump administration that began the transfer of the lethal aid -- sniper rifles, Javelin missiles -- that President Barack Obama had denied to Ukraine for three years.
If Trump's brief hold on a second tranche of lethal aid to Ukraine imperiled our "national security," was not Obama's yearslong denial of lethal aid to Ukraine a far greater peril to our national security?
Still, it is absurd to declare U.S. national security as threatened by a Russian presence in Crimea or in the Russian-speaking Donbass.
Russia has been in Crimea since Catherine the Great's reign in the 18th century. When FDR visited Yalta in Crimea in 1945, and when Richard Nixon visited Crimea during his 1974 summit, Ukraine was a Soviet republic ruled from Moscow.
When did a Russian presence or Russian flag flying over Crimea or Luhansk and Donetsk become a threat to U.S. national security?
Soon after the victory of Lenin's revolution, and from then, for seven decades, to the end of the Cold War, Ukraine was one of 15 Soviet republics.
When did Ukraine's territorial borders become a U.S. vital interest?
George H. W. Bush in 1991 implored the Ukrainians not to indulge a "suicidal nationalism" by declaring independence. Stay with Russia, said Bush. Was Bush 41 committing an impeachable act and imperiling U.S. national security?
Under the Constitution, a president shall be impeached and removed on conviction by the Senate of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
During the years of the Mueller investigation, Trump was accused of "treason," of being a Kremlin ally and asset.
With Trump, said Pelosi, "All roads lead to Putin!"
Yet nowhere in the articles of impeachment is "treason" mentioned. Nor is "bribery" or "extortion," the other crimes alleged. Where are the "high crimes" in this impeachment resolution? There are none.
Were the Democrats demagoguing? Did they have nothing to back up the charges of criminal conduct? Were the charges just designed to smear Trump, whom Democrats fear they cannot defeat in 2020?
Trump's offense is that he asked Ukraine's president to investigate the Bidens and Burisma Holdings, which paid son Hunter Biden $50,000 a month while Vice President Joe was the White House point man for rooting out corruption in Ukraine.
But if Trump had no justification for his suspicions about Joe and Hunter, why is the press corps traveling with candidate Biden demanding more answers than Joe seems prepared to give?
And is it truly impeachable to ask Ukraine's president to look into the smelly Biden-Burisma deal before being awarded an Oval Office meeting?
In Article I, Trump is accused of taking actions in Ukraine "that would help his election."
But when did it become a crime to consider the probable electoral consequences of decisions taken in foreign policy?
Admirers of JFK tell us he was ready to pull out of Vietnam, but only after the 1964 election, so as not to increase his vulnerability to the hawkish Republicans of the Goldwater era.
If true, was JFK guilty of impeachable inaction?
What? Nobody else knew that it was actually the Ukrainians who crushed ISIS for us and it’s the most important country on the planet?
AND the conversation shows, without a doubt, that we have the goods on Joe already....since the President speaks about Joe's bragging.
L8r
Where are the “high crimes”?
In a nutshell, he beat she who was to be coronated in 2016. That is the high crime.
Heck; I've yet to see a MISDEMEANOR!!
A FRIVOLOUS impeachment vote is a SEDITIOUS CONSPIRACY
You're forgetting about the mattress tag incident. He ripped the tag off a mattress in 1987. I know this because I've seen the memes that document it. We all know that a man who rips tags from mattresses is not fit to be president.
/sarc
Heck! Where are the misdemeanors?!
"Do US a favor" also means something very different than "Do ME a favor."
Wanna bet they use a South Park episode as “evidence”? It’s not that much more of a stretch.
Yes...I caught that....and the Repubs did, too.
“”””””You’re forgetting about the mattress tag incident. He ripped the tag off a mattress in 1987. “””””
He has done far worse than that and deserves to be impeached.
They have sworn testimony from a former Blockbuster employee who says Trump rented Smoky and the Bandit and returned it late. He also was not kind and did not rewind.
OFF WITH HIS HEAD!!!!!!!!!!
The only “favor” was asking for info on CrowdStrike.
The aid was not “held up”. It was due to be released by Sept 30th and was released on Sept 11.
According to the OMB, there was a series of pauses in the approval process; all perfectly normal and expected.
For each one of their “accusations”, there is a perfectly logical, legal and ethical explanation.
This is insanity to watch.
if the President made the call from Air Force One in flight then it might be a high crime but if it was from the White House, only a few hundred feet above sea level, not a high crime.
“Obstruction of Congress.”
What?
What fun. Latin. But not an accurate translation — tenses are wrong and an important adjective (ridiculus) is untranslated.
Both verbs are in the future tense, not past tense (perfect). More accurate would be: “Mountains will go into labor, and a laughable mouse will be born.”
Or, Pat may have hit upon an “historical future”.
You got that right.
Why isn’t what the Dems are doing “OBSTRUCTION of the PRESIDENCY”?
Improved the economy, put a lid on Chinese spying, funded Ukraine, defeated ISIS, talked NK off the edge, appointed honest competent judges...
Just trying to curry favor with the voters to get re-elected. Peach!
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.