Example: Go and burn down that house, was my instruction to them. I didn't tell them to commit arson. I repeat, I did not instruct them to commit arson. Okay, what is the difference between arson and burning down the dwelling of another? There is none. One is the act itself. And the other is the legal definition of the act. Arson is the legal name for the act of burning the house or dwelling of another. You cannot turn around to say in your defense: I told them upfront not to commit arson.
In the instant case, there was a standing order to freeze the $400 Million military aid that Congress approved for Ukraine until President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine is willing to initiate an investigation into the business activities of Biden's son in Ukraine, with a view to digging up dirt on Mr. Biden and his son. Mr. Biden being his political rival. That has not been disputed.
Adding to that, a situation where your private Attorney became more powerful than your Secretary of State, your Ambassador to Ukraine, and your Ambassador to the European Union in dealing with Ukrainian officials was unequivocally designed to escalate the purpose and intent of the original demand (digging up dirt on the Bidens).
But for the whistleblower, there would not have been a cessation of activities in the 'money for hand(dirt) back for ground(aid)' show of shame. That you stated up front that there is no quid pro quo didn't exonerate or excuse your action from the purview of quid pro quo. Was there a condition? Yes. Was that condition in the best interest of the United States? No. On whose interest then? For your own best interest - to discredit your main political rival and secure an electoral advantage over him subsequently.
The explanations of the Acting White House Chief of Staff, though persuasive, does not fit in here. If the conditions attached to the Military support package were tied to eliminating corruption in Ukraine, then, in that case, one could willingly excuse the conditions on the basis of serving the national interest. In the instant case, we know that's far from the truth. Demand on a foreign government to dig up dirt on your potential political rival is not in the national interest. I beg to conclude.
The explanations of the Acting White House Chief of Staff, though persuasive, does not fit in here. If the conditions attached to the Military support package were tied to eliminating corruption in Ukraine, then, in that case, one could willingly excuse the conditions on the basis of serving the national interest. In the instant case, we know that's far from the truth. Demand on a foreign government to dig up dirt on your potential political rival is not in the national interest. I beg to conclude.
With handwritten notes in hand, President Trump shares his view that Amb. Sondland's testimony has exonerated him.
No comments:
Post a Comment
The Lord is my Shepherd; I shall not want.