“Do me a favor: start buying agriculture.”
That’s what President Donald J. Trump says he said to the Chinese in agreeing to Phase One of a U.S.-China trade deal.
Now, if China starts buying more American agricultural products, Trump might be aided in defeating his Democratic opponents next November.
“The biggest winners in the China trade deal announced Friday appear to be a key part of President Trump’s voter base: U.S. farmers,” Jon Healey wrote in the Los Angeles Times. “There’s nothing wrong with that, because Trump’s political interests coincide with U.S. national interests.”
But when President Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky for a favor, back during the now-infamous July phone call, a whole lot of people concluded that Trump’s desire to “get to the bottom” of the Bidens’ pungent possible corruption in Ukraine was not a harmony of interests between Trump and Americans.
Last week, his biggest critics on the House Judiciary Committee passed two articles of impeachment against him, alleging (1) that he abused his power in delaying the aid Congress had appropriated for Ukraine in order to push the Ukrainians to open up an investigation of Hunter Biden and Burisma, the Ukrainian energy company that hired him, and (2) obstruction of Congress, for refusing to adequately respond to congressional subpoenas.
An investigation launched by Ukraine into former Vice-President Joe Biden’s son would certainly be news — bad for Biden, currently the leading Democratic rival to the president; good for Trump.
But is such an investigation warranted?
Surely Americans who voted for Trump to “drain the Swamp” would think corruption is always worth investigating.
The Swamp — along with many good Americans — disagrees.
This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.
—
See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)
2 replies on “Another Impeachable Offense?”
“But is such an investigation warranted?”
Whether or not such an investigation is warranted is irrelevant.
If such an investigation was warranted, there was a procedure in place to get one — a procedure spelled out in a treat duly ratified by the US Senate.
That treaty specifies who makes requests for Ukrainian assistance in investigations (not the president of the United States). It specifies to whom those requests are made (not the president of Ukraine). And it specifies how they are to be made (not by phone).
Since treaties are co-equal with the US Constitution as the “Supreme Law of the Land,” presidential violations of them are, by the historical definition, “high crimes.”
Trump publicly confessed to three violations of the “Supreme Law of the Land.” Then he provided an official document corroborating that public confession.
Initially classifying that document, which included no information falling within the rules for classification, is an additional crime. It’s not clear that he was the one who directly broke THAT law, but it’s reasonably obvious that whoever did break it broke it for the obvious reason: To cover up the initial three crimes.
Interesting thoughts, but angels dancing on the head of a pin. Generally a violation of procedure is not a crime. It is engaging in the activity which is sought to be found and rooted out which is the crime. (A speeding ticket is not invalid if the citation is not written on the normal form, or delivered to you by the complaining officer’s partner.)
I find it more interesting that the Bidens are not encouraging an investigation to clear their names.
Could it be that they, and many others in Washington, are fully aware that although the self-serving games they play are not violative of the law’s they make to apply to their conduct, that the system stinks and if the aroma is released by an investigation the result, even if the actions are found to be legal, it will result in the gagging and vomiting of their supporters and constituents.
Somethings are clearly amiss in Washington and the complaint about Mr. Trump’s bull in the China shop statesmanship and expression does not motivate me to impeach him, it makes me want an exposition of the entire situation and, if it is legal but clear influence peddling, to seek a reformation of the rules, regulations, law and the least tolerable ethics rules to correct that shortfall.