President Trump calls it a witch hunt, but it really is a coup against American democracy. The Democrats who want Trump impeached don’t realize this. They just want Trump impeached because they don’t like him. The impeach Trump people don’t understand that if the coup against the elected president succeeds, every future president will know that if he attempts to “drain the swamp” or bring any changes not acceptable to the ruling elite, he, too, will be destroyed. Voters who want real change will also get the message and give up trying to elect a president or members of the House and Senate who will be responsive to voters. It will mean the end of democracy and accountable government. Unhindered rule by the Deep State and associated elites will take democracy’s place.
It is unfortunate that progressives do not understand this. Progressives want real change and Trump impeached, but these desires are at variance with one another.
Few, if any, of the impeach Trump crowd are paying any attention to the fabricated case against Trump that has taken the place of the Russiagate fabrication that failed. They could not care less what the case is or whether it is a fabrication. Dislike of Trump suffices.
Nevertheless, let’s look at the fabricated case.
First of all, the alleged whistleblower is not a legitimate whistleblower. He is Eric Ciaramella, a CIA officer with a second-hand complaint who met with House Intelligence (sic) chairman Adam Schiff a month ahead to orchestrate the event. Ciaramella served on Obama’s staff when VP Joe Biden was point man for Ukraine. Ciaramella also worked with CIA Director John Brennan, the architect of “Russiagate,” and with a Democratic National Committee operative who encouraged Ukraine officials to come up with dirt on President Trump.
All of this and more has caused the “whistleblower” to withdraw from testifying.
Desperate for a substitute, Democrats have come up with tainted career bureaucrats who favor military aid to Ukraine and a hard line toward Russia. Bill Taylor a US diplomat in Ukraine claims that Trump’s ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, said that US military aid to Ukraine was conditional on Ukraine reopening the government’s investigation into the Ukrainian company, Burisma, an investigation that VP Joe Biden had closed down. Burisma is the company that paid as much as $1.75 million to Biden and his son.
Taylor claims that another bureaucrat, Tim Morrison, told him that Sondland communicated the “quid pro quo” to an aide to Zelensky.
Sondland rejects the claims by Taylor and Morrison.
A Ukrainian born rabid anti-Russian US Army officer serving on the National Security Council, Alexander Vindman, also offers two cents of unverified quid pro quo claims. Vindman’s motive seems to be that President Trump is inclined to follow a different policy toward Ukraine than Vindman prefers.
This is the extent of the case against Trump. Amazingly weak considering that Ukrainian president Zelensky has stated publicly that there was no quid pro quo and that the released transcript of the Trump-Zelensky conversation shows no quid pro quo.
Now for the issue of the alleged quid pro quo. It seems that everyone on both sides of the argument takes for granted without a second of thought that if there was a quid pro quo, there was an offense, possibly one sufficiently offensive to warrant impeachment. This is utter ignorant nonsense.
Quid pro quos are endemic in US foreign policy and always have been. The US government offered Ecuador president Lenin Moreno a $4.2 billion IMF loan in exchange for revoking Julian Assange’s asylum. Moreno took the deal. https://www.globalresearch.ca/assange-bought-4-2-billion-former-ecuadorian-president-confirms-imf-loan-exchange-assange/5674374
Washington offered the Venezuelan military money to overthrow President Maduro. The military refused the offer.
Dozens of examples come readily to mind. Research would produce enough to fill a book.
What do you think the sanctions are that the US president places on countries? They are punishments that Washington imposes for not accepting Washington’s deal.
As for a quid pro quo deal between the US executive branch and president of Ukraine, we have VP Joe Biden’s boast that he got the Ukrainian prosecutor fired who was investigating corruption in the firm that had purchased US protection by putting Biden’s son, Hunter, on Burisma’s board. Joe Biden brags in front of the Council on Foreign Relations that he gave the Ukrainian president 6 hours to fire the prosecutor or forfeit $1 billion in US aid. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=KCF9My1vBP4
As Biden was US Vice President at the time and is currently the leading Democratic candidate for the US presidential nomination, he is clearly guilty of what Trump is accused. Why is only Trump subject to investigation? If an offense that is merely suspected or alleged suffices for impeaching a president, why isn’t a known and admitted and bragged about offense reason to disqualify Biden from being president?
One would think that a question this obvious would be the topic of debate. But not a word from the presstitutes, Democrats, or Republicans.
Finally, there is the question of the whistleblower law. If this interpretation sent to me by a reliable source is correct, there is no basis in law for the alleged whistleblower complaint.
Originally published by Paul Craig Roberts.
Paul Craig Roberts has had careers in scholarship and academia, journalism, public service, and business. He is chairman of The Institute for Political Economy.