In the alleged quid pro quo between the president and the government of Ukraine, there are a lot of ifs. If Mr. MacGuire complied with the law instead of breaking it, clarity would be provided and there would be no need to turn over the transcript of the call, which Treasure Secretary Steve Mnuchin stated that it would set a bad precedent if done so. Congress doesn't need the transcript, they need the complaint. If they have the complaint then they would be in position to subpoena the transcript. If...
The complaint, as reported has to do with President Trump demanding that the Ukraine investigate presidential candidate fmr. VP Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Where the quid pro quo comes in is if Mr. Trump demanded that investigation in exchange for U.S. to Ukraine, the sum of $250 million.
Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT) said that he had met with Ukraine president Volodymyr Zelensky and said that Mr. Zelensky was puzzled as to whether the pending aid was contingent upon opening up an investigation into Mr. Biden and his son. Overtures by the president's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, compounded the confusion for the Ukrainian government because it was not clear whether Mr. Giuliani was acting on behalf of the administration. To digress for a moment, Mr. Giuliani should no longer be considered 'America's Mayor' or a hero. His statements and acts since that time has completely disqualified him forever from any such designation. The confusion on the part of the Ukrainians is understandable, however, for those of us paying attention in the United States it's clear. Mr. Giuliani is not part of the Administration so his actions are taken on behalf of the Mr. Trump himself, not the United States. With that in mind, he was acting on behalf of the Trump campaign, which is soliciting help from a foreign government in a U.S. election. Apparently, Mr. Giuliani's meetings were set up by the State Department which also calls into question their accountability in all of this, specifically Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
Senator Pat Toomey (R-PA) stated that if that is the case, it is inappropriate and wrong. One can easily postulate that if the president did this and was acting in his own personal interest, which is in line with Mr. Trump's modus operandi writ large.
The fact that Mr. MacGuire is not turning over the complaint, the administration will not turn over the transcript of the call, that several officials have resigned or have been forced out since this call and that last week the administration finally released the aid to Ukraine all speaks to a corrupt intent. If...
Not to mention that not only did the Ukraine receive the $250 million but also received another $140 million that they didn't expect. Why? As Secretary Mnuchin of course said, there is no connection between the timing of the aforementioned events and the extra money to Mr. Trump's call.
As Robert Costa reminded us, the administration is intent on not cooperating with any Congressional oversight. Because of this the Democratically-controlled House needs to step up and not just threaten contempt of Congress orders but issue them. Unequivocally, Congress needs to step up.
In this instance, just like the other subject broached today, guns, Republicans refuse to do anything without the president's say so. Republican fecklessness knows no limits. Senate Republicans are on record as saying that they have no position or will not endorse any legislation that the president doesn't back. Doesn't Congress make the laws? As Mr. Toomey did on today's program, they are blaming Beto O'Rourke on stalling any gun legislation because Mr. O'Rourke said that if he were president he would institute a mandatory buy-back program for assault rifles. This is the lamest of excuses as Mr. O'Rourke is a candidate and does NOT hold any public office. Republicans aren't moving on gun legislation because a private citizen made a proposal that in reality carries on wait? Please.
Lastly, on the issue of Iran, Donna Edwards explained it plainly that Mr. Trump withdrew the United States from the Iranian nuclear agreement with no plan B. Let's face if the administration has a plan B for any foreign policy initiative, the Iranians would feel so emboldened in reeking havoc in the Middle East. Or if there were a plan B for the trade wars with China, U.S. farmers wouldn't be potentially losing the market for soybeans permanently.
Aside from punishing immigrants in variously different ways, this administration has no policies at all. It's only about keeping a man in power who has no regard for the United States' interest, only his own.
Panel: Donna Edwards, Fmr. Congresswoman (D-MD); Kristen Welker, NBC News; Robert Costa, The Washington Post; Carlos Curbelo, fmr. Congressman (R-FL)
No comments:
Post a Comment