The Democrats' charges against President Trump, supposedly based on the content of his conversation with the Ukrainian President, fell apart with Mr. Trump’s releasing the Ukraine call’s transcript, and other documents the Democrats were mischaracterizing.
We now know that there was no quid pro quo and that the partisan whistleblower was using secondhand information. A second whistleblower has come forward claiming firsthand knowledge. We don’t yet know the basis of this person’s claims.
The Democrats are now left with speculation of intent such as written by Martin Schram (“An inner flamethrower,” Oct. 5). They are also left with Congressman Schiff, a known liar and fact witness, sitting in judgement of President Trump.
Schram’s opinion piece is a classic example of speculation and character assassination. In the third paragraph we read, “Even if there was no openly stated quid pro quo of what Trump will give these countries if they help him win re-election. Quid pro quos are rarely explicit and obvious, mostly implied and understood by all.” By paragraph nine the writer says “Trump seemed proud to be showcasing his quid pro quo diplomacy.” Mr. Schram goes from admitting “no openly stated quid pro quo” to definitively stating that there was “quid pro quo diplomacy”.
If one wants an excellent example of an actual quid pro quo, one only need view the recorded boast of Joe Biden on how he, as Vice President, protected his son from Ukrainian investigation. Biden is recorded boasting that he threatened to withhold aid if Ukraine did not fire the prosecutor investigating his son’s employer. The prosecutor was fired and Hunter continued to receive $50,000-83,000 a month from a Ukrainian energy company. It should be noted that Hunter had no energy industry experience.
Democrats deny that there was a quid pro quo. Assuming that to be case, if one uses the quote from Schram, “Quid pro quos are rarely explicit and obvious, mostly implied and understood by all,” then one must conclude that Biden, then Vice President, was seeking a quid pro quo to protect his son.
You have free articles remaining.
Biden’s actions remind me of what Chicago Mayor Daley Sr. said when it was discovered that he had been sending city insurance business to his son, “What’s a father to do when his son needs help?”
In his twelfth paragraph, Schram assumes that Sondland is protecting “his patootie.” Again, the writer is somehow divining what a person is thinking and what their intent is.
In regard to the Taylor/Sondland interchange, Schram leaves off the remainder of Sondland's response to Taylor: “I suggest that we stop the back and forth by text If you still have concerns I recommend you give Lisa Kenna or S a call to discuss them directly. Thanks." Essentially, Sondland is telling Taylor to talk with Department of State leaders for clarification of the issue.
In fairness to Schram, since his opinion piece appeared, the President of Ukraine, other Ukrainian officials, and U.S. State Department officials have all repeated that there was no quid pro quo demanded, or implied, by President Trump.
I don’t think this ongoing stream of support for President Trump will dissuade the Democrats from impeaching the President. The President realizes this. As a result, he is asking that the Republican members of the House be given equal opportunity to call witnesses, interview all witnesses publicly, etc. without artificial constraints. As it stands now, the partisan Democrats are minimizing what the Republicans can do regarding giving input to the inquiry.
Practicing some Schram divination, what of the future? Any impeachment vote will be a partisan Democrat vote. If successful, there will then be a partisan vote in the Republican-controlled Senate rejecting the impeachment vote. Thus, the stage is set for a perpetual cycle of political chaos, where a President of one party will be impeached if the House is controlled by the opposing political party regardless of the validity of the charges. As result, little to nothing of consequence will be done for the people.