The Impeachment (Without an Actual Crime) of Donald Trump
Think back. You are in the 11thor 12thgrade, and the class is either a Government, History, or Civics class. You learn that to impeach a U.S. President only means to bring charges against. To remove the President, those charges are then sent to the U.S. Senate, where a super-majority is required to remove the Chief Executive. Some of us know that; you see, we actually learned when we were in school. Yet, there are millions of Americans who have no clue as to the procedural events precedent to a President’s actual removal. So, that’s where I begin this article.
The number of bogus and failed attempts to remove President Trump has been nothing short of mind-boggling. Everything from trying to invalidate the Electoral College, using the 25thAmendment and the Emoluments clause of the U.S. Constitution, to Trump just being unfit has been stunning. But wait, there’s more! The country then went through 2 ½ years of an investigation based on a dossier bought and paid for by the DNC and the Clinton campaign trying to prove Trump engaged in collusion and obstruction of justice. And all of this, again, based on a report by a British spy who used Russian operatives. We now know the dossier was bogus, and the warrants issued by the FISA court were probably gotten illegally. Trump exited this fiasco, perhaps badly bruised, but legally unscathed. Yet, Democrats and the liberal media are not content; call it a modern day coup d’état, but Democrats are hell-bent on removing Trump from office. At the conclusion of the Russian-Mueller investigation, most thought we could all engage in a sigh-of-relief. That was not to be the case.
So now, Democrats are alleging that there were nefarious dealing between Trump, the Ukraine, and President Zelensky. The charges run the gamut from Trump engaging in a quid pro quo, withholding aid to Ukraine and pressuring Zelensky, all in an effort to get dirt on the Biden Campaign.
Allegations are swirling about. Those who hate Trump are parsing the Complainant report, and the Whistleblower’s rough transcript, hanging and trying to interpret a word or a phrase and conclude, “There it is, he’s guilty!” Contrast that with Trump supporters who are doing much the same and replying, “It proves nothing.” And that’s where most people are at. I’ve read both reports a number of times, so let’s take a look as what we know to be factual, and to the extent that I engage in any conjecture, said speculation will be supported by facts.
The first element that strikes me between Trump and Zelensky is that it’s clear—dead bang clear—that once again, Democrats got way ahead of any evidence. The Dems were making allegations before the transcript was released. In fact, the Dems made certain allegations (there was a quid pro quo), which the transcript proved to be incorrect, and what happened? When that failed, Dems moved the goal post. So yes, the Dems got way ahead of any evidence.
Keep in mind that when this story broke, the Washington Post stated, “Two former U.S. officials said Trump’s interaction with a foreign leader included a promise that was regarded as so troubling, that it prompted an official in the Intel community to file a formal whistleblower report.”
I ask this, where in the whistleblower transcript does Trump make such a promise? Not only did Trump not make a promise, he makes no threats either. In reading the transcript, it was Zelensky who raised the issue of investigating corruption, not Trump. Zelensky states, “We wanted to drain the swamp here in our country…you (referring to Trump) are a great teacher…” Let’s go further.
An NBC reporter claimed that the transcript that Trump asked for a favor from Zelensky to investigate Biden. Again, in reading the transcript, Trump asked for no such favor regarding Biden. The ‘favor, ‘if there was one, had nothing to do with Biden.
We know the Whistleblower was not a direct witness to any of the events described; it was mostly second and third hand information. Could you imagine a judge or jury convicting someone on the testimony of a person who is spewing second and third hand information? The judge would dismiss the case, and the jury would be dismissed.
Here’s a little known fact relative to the legality of a U.S. President dealing with a foreign leader on the subject of corruption: There was a treaty signed back in the late 1990’s between Clinton and the Ukraine where the two countries would cooperate to root out corruption.
Yet, after all of this, now we come to the issue that Trump purposely withheld military aid to Ukraine as leverage to get the dirt of Biden.
Here are the facts and the truth: Trump was withholding the aid because he was concerned that some European allies were not doing enough. The Whistleblower’s transcript proves this, because that is exactly what Trump said to Zelensky. In fact, when Trump stated his concerns, Zelensky replied, “Yes, you are absolutely right…not only 100 percent but 1000 percent.” Zelensky then tells Trump that Merkel and Macron are not working as much as they should. If Trump were using the funds as leverage, then I ask my liberal friends, “Where in the transcript is there evidence that Trump even had such a motivation?” I don’t see it.
As to the allegation that Trump was pressuring Zelensky to investigate Biden, it turns out that Trump casually mentioned Biden by name at the end of the phone call.
Here is a synopsis of what Trump said: “The other thing, there’s a lot to talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution…Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution…it sound horrible to me.” Perhaps Trump should not have said this, but we know how Trump thinks and his style of speaking. The reality is that what Trump said is a long, long way from an overheated charge that Trump used U.S. aid to repeatedly pressure Zelensky into investigating Hunter Biden. In fact, on national TV, Zelensky stated, “the call was normal, and nobody pushed me.” What more do we want? What more do we need?
And yet, when all of this is failing, and the Dems continue to hyperventilate, here comes a new charge; Trump wanted to ‘lock-down’ the transcript as evidence of wrongdoing or a cover up. That is just preposterous. No President has seen more of his conversations with foreign leaders leaked than Trump. Consider the leaks on conversations with the Australian Prime Minster, the President of the Philippines, Theresa May, and even Putin. One doesn’t have to be a genius to figure out why Trump would want measures to restrict access.
And there you have it. Will Trump be impeached? I don’t know, but it would not surprise me.
Just try to tell me on what actual crime the President is being impeached on. Oh, you don’t like him and he hurts your sensibilities? No, no, that’s not good enough. Tell me the crime!
However, even if Trump is impeached, thanks to my Civics Class, he will not be removed from office, and due to the backlash, will waltz into his second term.
