Michael Dorstewitz, 9 Reasons Why Impeachment Is a Fraud
Michael Dorstewitz
Last week’s announcement by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi authorizing an
impeachment inquiry — the latest in a series of Democratic attempts to
reverse the results of the 2016 presidential election — is replete with
dishonesty and outright fraud.The attacks on President Trump began even
before his
Inauguration, when electors were asked to reject the will of the people of their states and to instead cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton.
Vanity Fair reported as far back as December 2016: “Democrats are paving the way to impeach Donald Trump.”
NewsBusters released a video montage depicting media figures discussing the possibility impeaching Trump as early as November 2016.
But when the accusations of collusion and obstruction imploded, Trump’s mortal enemies needed something else. Finally, they settled on Ukraine-gate.
Here are 9 reasons the entire effort is a fraud perpetrated upon the American people:
No. 1: The president’s remarks did not violate any law. Democrats point to the transcript of Trump’s July 25 conversation with Ukraine’s newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as evidence of a crime. Specifically, they hone in on Trump’s words, “I would like you to do us a favor,” the favor being to assist the United States into investigating the activities of a Ukrainian company that had hired Hunter Biden — the son of former Vice President Joe Biden. They claim that this may be evidence of bribery or extortion, and point to Trump’s statement that “the United States has been very, very good to Ukraine” as incentive.
But even given the most cynical interpretation possible, those statements do not come close to bribery or extortion.
At a press briefing held at the United Nations last week, Zelensky said that “we spoke about many things and so I think — you read it — that nobody pushed me.”
That’s why you now hear the president’s detractors saying the White House transcript was not a complete and verbatim account; that parts of the conversation may have been missing. But lack of evidence isn’t evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor.
No. 2: A presidential request for assistance is not an abuse of power. The New York Times reported that “White House officials believed they had witnessed President Trump abuse his power for political gain.” Apart from reports that the “whistle-blower” report is based on second-hand and possibly even third-hand information, requesting assistance from Ukraine in this instance is not an abuse of power.
Trump was, in fact, asking for Zelensky’s assistance on behalf of Attorney General William Barr — the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Barr is engaged in ferreting out foreign influence on the 2016 election. That influence may include an Obama administration request that Ukraine investigate then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort — for apparent political gain. The double-standard at work here is breathtaking.
No. 3: The request for assistance was made pursuant to treaty. A 1999 treaty between the United States and Ukraine “On Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters” calls for cooperation from each country in prosecuting crimes. As a matter of fact, the Obama administration made use of that very treaty, and asked Ukraine to investigate then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.
Far from breaking the law, Trump was actually following the law when he requested support from Ukraine.
No. 4: Democrats have no quid pro quo. Quid pro quo, along with “offer and acceptance,” is the foundation of any contract. It’s a Latin phrase literally meaning “this for that” — if you give me this I’ll give you that.
Democrats say that the president was holding military funding for Ukraine over Zelensky’s head in exchange for information. This is unsupported by the transcript. In fact: Military funding isn’t mentioned once during the conversation.
Indeed, Ukraine military funding was under review long before the phone call. When asked about it afterwards, Zelensky said he was unaware that funding might be curtailed. Afterwards, he saw no connection between Trump’s request and the cut in aid.
So according to both parties involved in the conversation, the funding was independent of and unrelated to the issues that were discussed.
No. 5: Pelosi rushed to judgment. The California Democrat announced that she was authorizing an impeachment inquiry prior to reviewing any evidence whatsoever, including interviewing witnesses or examining documents in support of an impeachment, including the transcript of the phone conversation.
On Tuesday, Sept. 24, Pelosi announced the impeachment inquiry in
response to mounting pressure from fellow House Democrats, although she
was fully aware that the president was considering the release of the
transcript.
The following day, Wednesday the 25th, the president declassified the transcript of his phone call and authorized its release. Although not verbatim, it was based on the “records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty Officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place.”
No. 6: The whistle-blower complaint wasn’t one. Former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., observed recently that the document released is not a true whistle-blower complaint. He said that the document delivered to the chairmen of both the House and Senate Intelligence committees was apparently drafted by a member of the CIA, but was clearly a collaborative effort involving several other members of the intelligence community. Despite that, the complaint failed to present evidence of “fraud, waste, or abuse” — the purpose of such complaints.
Perhaps most importantly: The whistleblower document provides no evidence that either Trump or Zelensky disclosed information “relating to … intelligence activity involving classified information.”
That is, the requisite standard to qualify as an intelligence-community whistleblower complaint was never met.
Barr said, in sum, that intelligence-community management was clearly behind the whistleblower complaint, and not a true whistle-blower. Longtime former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz made the same point on Newsmax TV.
No. 7: Trump hid nothing. Far from hiding evidence from public view, the president made it available to Congress and the American people. Nevertheless, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., claimed that by transferring the transcript of his phone call to a secure server, he was trying to hide it. Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Schiff claimed that the “electronic file that is meant for covert action, not meant for this, if there’s an effort to hide those and cover those up, yes we’re determined to find out.”
Former administrations routinely kept files on the secure server, including the Obama administration, according to former national security adviser Susan Rice. But to Schiff and fellow Democrats, being fully transparent isn’t being transparent enough — unless it includes a mea culpa.
No. 8: Pelosi says she did not want to impeach Trump, but the facts say otherwise. After announcing the formal impeachment probe she appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and said, “We have to be very prayerful. I pray for the president all the time,” adding, “I pray for the safety of his family.”
But when Trump was preparing to represent the United States at the 75th anniversary of the Normandy invasion in June, any thoughts of prayers for the Trump family were far from her mind.
Pelosi met with senior House Democrats, including House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler. She told the New York Democrat and others who were pressing her for impeachment that “I don’t want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison.”
No. 9: Why not let the people decide? This may be the most compelling reason of all: With just 13 months to go until the next election, why the rush to impeachment? Why not give the American people a chance to make up their own minds on the matter? The presidential campaign is heating up with Trump stepping up his rally appearances and Democratic presidential hopefuls are already preparing for their fourth round of debates. Why not present the evidence to the people as the president has been doing and let them be the judge — in the election booth.
Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to BizPac Review and Liberty Unyielding. He is also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and an enthusiastic Second Amendment supporter, who can often be found honing his skills at the range. To read more of his reports — Click Hee Now.
Inauguration, when electors were asked to reject the will of the people of their states and to instead cast their ballots for Hillary Clinton.
Vanity Fair reported as far back as December 2016: “Democrats are paving the way to impeach Donald Trump.”
NewsBusters released a video montage depicting media figures discussing the possibility impeaching Trump as early as November 2016.
But when the accusations of collusion and obstruction imploded, Trump’s mortal enemies needed something else. Finally, they settled on Ukraine-gate.
Here are 9 reasons the entire effort is a fraud perpetrated upon the American people:
No. 1: The president’s remarks did not violate any law. Democrats point to the transcript of Trump’s July 25 conversation with Ukraine’s newly elected president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as evidence of a crime. Specifically, they hone in on Trump’s words, “I would like you to do us a favor,” the favor being to assist the United States into investigating the activities of a Ukrainian company that had hired Hunter Biden — the son of former Vice President Joe Biden. They claim that this may be evidence of bribery or extortion, and point to Trump’s statement that “the United States has been very, very good to Ukraine” as incentive.
But even given the most cynical interpretation possible, those statements do not come close to bribery or extortion.
At a press briefing held at the United Nations last week, Zelensky said that “we spoke about many things and so I think — you read it — that nobody pushed me.”
That’s why you now hear the president’s detractors saying the White House transcript was not a complete and verbatim account; that parts of the conversation may have been missing. But lack of evidence isn’t evidence of a high crime or misdemeanor.
No. 2: A presidential request for assistance is not an abuse of power. The New York Times reported that “White House officials believed they had witnessed President Trump abuse his power for political gain.” Apart from reports that the “whistle-blower” report is based on second-hand and possibly even third-hand information, requesting assistance from Ukraine in this instance is not an abuse of power.
Trump was, in fact, asking for Zelensky’s assistance on behalf of Attorney General William Barr — the chief law enforcement officer of the United States. Barr is engaged in ferreting out foreign influence on the 2016 election. That influence may include an Obama administration request that Ukraine investigate then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort — for apparent political gain. The double-standard at work here is breathtaking.
No. 3: The request for assistance was made pursuant to treaty. A 1999 treaty between the United States and Ukraine “On Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters” calls for cooperation from each country in prosecuting crimes. As a matter of fact, the Obama administration made use of that very treaty, and asked Ukraine to investigate then-Trump campaign manager Paul Manafort.
Far from breaking the law, Trump was actually following the law when he requested support from Ukraine.
No. 4: Democrats have no quid pro quo. Quid pro quo, along with “offer and acceptance,” is the foundation of any contract. It’s a Latin phrase literally meaning “this for that” — if you give me this I’ll give you that.
Democrats say that the president was holding military funding for Ukraine over Zelensky’s head in exchange for information. This is unsupported by the transcript. In fact: Military funding isn’t mentioned once during the conversation.
Indeed, Ukraine military funding was under review long before the phone call. When asked about it afterwards, Zelensky said he was unaware that funding might be curtailed. Afterwards, he saw no connection between Trump’s request and the cut in aid.
So according to both parties involved in the conversation, the funding was independent of and unrelated to the issues that were discussed.
No. 5: Pelosi rushed to judgment. The California Democrat announced that she was authorizing an impeachment inquiry prior to reviewing any evidence whatsoever, including interviewing witnesses or examining documents in support of an impeachment, including the transcript of the phone conversation.
The following day, Wednesday the 25th, the president declassified the transcript of his phone call and authorized its release. Although not verbatim, it was based on the “records the notes and recollections of Situation Room Duty Officers and NSC policy staff assigned to listen and memorialize the conversation in written form as the conversation takes place.”
No. 6: The whistle-blower complaint wasn’t one. Former Rep. Bob Barr, R-Ga., observed recently that the document released is not a true whistle-blower complaint. He said that the document delivered to the chairmen of both the House and Senate Intelligence committees was apparently drafted by a member of the CIA, but was clearly a collaborative effort involving several other members of the intelligence community. Despite that, the complaint failed to present evidence of “fraud, waste, or abuse” — the purpose of such complaints.
Perhaps most importantly: The whistleblower document provides no evidence that either Trump or Zelensky disclosed information “relating to … intelligence activity involving classified information.”
That is, the requisite standard to qualify as an intelligence-community whistleblower complaint was never met.
Barr said, in sum, that intelligence-community management was clearly behind the whistleblower complaint, and not a true whistle-blower. Longtime former CIA analyst Fred Fleitz made the same point on Newsmax TV.
No. 7: Trump hid nothing. Far from hiding evidence from public view, the president made it available to Congress and the American people. Nevertheless, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., claimed that by transferring the transcript of his phone call to a secure server, he was trying to hide it. Appearing on NBC’s “Meet the Press,” Schiff claimed that the “electronic file that is meant for covert action, not meant for this, if there’s an effort to hide those and cover those up, yes we’re determined to find out.”
Former administrations routinely kept files on the secure server, including the Obama administration, according to former national security adviser Susan Rice. But to Schiff and fellow Democrats, being fully transparent isn’t being transparent enough — unless it includes a mea culpa.
No. 8: Pelosi says she did not want to impeach Trump, but the facts say otherwise. After announcing the formal impeachment probe she appeared on MSNBC’s “Morning Joe” and said, “We have to be very prayerful. I pray for the president all the time,” adding, “I pray for the safety of his family.”
But when Trump was preparing to represent the United States at the 75th anniversary of the Normandy invasion in June, any thoughts of prayers for the Trump family were far from her mind.
Pelosi met with senior House Democrats, including House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler. She told the New York Democrat and others who were pressing her for impeachment that “I don’t want to see him impeached, I want to see him in prison.”
No. 9: Why not let the people decide? This may be the most compelling reason of all: With just 13 months to go until the next election, why the rush to impeachment? Why not give the American people a chance to make up their own minds on the matter? The presidential campaign is heating up with Trump stepping up his rally appearances and Democratic presidential hopefuls are already preparing for their fourth round of debates. Why not present the evidence to the people as the president has been doing and let them be the judge — in the election booth.
Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to BizPac Review and Liberty Unyielding. He is also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and an enthusiastic Second Amendment supporter, who can often be found honing his skills at the range. To read more of his reports — Click Hee Now.
Posts by Michael Dorstewitz
Please follow and like us:
20
No comments:
Post a Comment