Unethical Quote Of The Day: Report By The Democratic Legal Staff Of The House Judiciary Committee On The Impeachment Of President Trump

“A president who perverts his role as chief diplomat to serve private rather than public ends has unquestionably engaged in ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’— especially if he invited, rather than opposed, foreign interference in our politics”

—-Conclusion of “Constitutional Grounds For Impeachment,” authored by the Majority staff of the House Judiciary Committee, released on December 21, 2019

This is supposed to be a legal document, not an advocacy brief. That sentence—there are many more in the 52 page report—is not honest, nor fair, nor even relevant to the current impeachment. It is general description of a situation that the President’s conduct does not conform to in its crucial elements.

Serve private rather than public ends? As many, including me, keep asking, is there not a legitimate public interest in the U.S. determining whether a Vice President of the United States allowed real or perceived favored treatment toward a foreign country to benefit his son financially? If so, does it matter whether or not an inquiry into this possible corrupt behavior—considered a bribe in many jurisdictions—might also result in a political advantage to the President asking for an investigation into the matter?

It is a historical and political fact that allies and foreign nations receiving funds and other benefits from the U.S. are often, even routinely, asked for favors that are advantageous to the United States as well as giving the sitting President something positive that will aid him or his party in an upcoming election. One of the central deceits of the Ukraine-based impeachment is that Democrats are deliberately ignoring this fact, creating a double standard applying only to this President, but that can now be wielded against future Presidents.

This is why, in assessing the ethical nature of an act, I generally discount supposed motive for it. The act itself should be the subject of analysis, and whether it was decided upon competently and rationally. Most actions involving human decision-making have multiple and even conflicting ethical and non-ethical considerations involved.

The last section of the quote is also misleading. There is no evidence that the Ukrainian government believed that it was being invited to “interfere” in our politics, nor is there any existing definition of what “interference” means in this context. If there is a legitimate purpose in investigating Biden fil and pere for corrupt conduct perhaps perverting U.S. dollars and policy, does the fact that Daddy Biden might eventually oppose the President in an election make that purpose illegitimate, and the Ukraine’s cooperation election interference?

The quote, like the impeachment exercise it purports to justify, is dishonest, and irredeemably so.

30 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Day: Report By The Democratic Legal Staff Of The House Judiciary Committee On The Impeachment Of President Trump

  1. Every time the anti-Trump Washington DC Democrats open their mouths trying to justify their soft coup impeachment of the President of the United States they’re effectively peeling away, layer by layer, at over 200 years of public trust in the United States Constitution. I now firmly believe that the extreme left wants to completely destroy specific parts of the Constitution because those parts impede their ability to do what they want and they will intentionally bastardize the entire Constitution to get their way.

    The modern extreme political left is to the Constitution what a crazed bull is to a china shop.

  2. I have asked this question before, but I’ll ask it again:

    How is requesting the investigation of a very suspicious financial arrangement that may damage the political prospects of a current presidential candidate “invit[ing]… foreign interference in our politics”?

    If Hunter Biden had experience in the oil, energy, or related industries, the question of the propriety of his Ukraine employment would be much harder to justify. Not impossible, but there would be an instant and justified concern that it was an illegitimate, politics-driven inquiry.

    This case, however, lacks the imprimatur of legitimacy that previous employment experience in the relevant industry or industries provides. Instead, Hunter’s only qualification appears to be who he is — i.e., the son of a powerful U.S. politician.

    That reeks of corruption, even if it’s not actually corrupt. It would, however, be justifiable for any U.S. government official to inquire if there was a reason to investigate such an unlikely employment, including the President.

    The Democrats have not just categorically rejected Biden the younger’s employment as unusual, but have refused to even talk about it as though we were talking about the son of the revealed Messiah himself, prima facia beyond reproach, not a young man with a troubled past who had been discharged from the Navy after testing positive for cocaine the day after he reported for duty. His very commissioning as a Navy officer is rife with questionable waivers despite past drug convictions. It looks for all the world like Biden the younger only got into the Navy at all because of who he was.

    It is this point that is most suspicious, and most revealing. The fact of their incuriousity, their complete lack of suspicion about an overtly suspicious arrangement in the Ukraine, and their total unification in the rejection of that suspicion reveals their motive. They don’t care one whit about the propriety of what happened, they just wanted the thin veneer of plausibility to dress up their fait accompli.

    Most Americans can see through this, because it is so nebulous as to be almost invisible to the naked eye. One must be a dedicated, terminally TDS-afflicted person to even detect the shadow of that veneer, let alone accept that it validates an extreme remedy like impeachment, and in an election year, no less.

    The fact that the whole country hasn’t laughed this entire episode into comedic legend is perhaps the most tragic thing about it. This is a Saturday Night Live skit, not an impeachment. It is revolting, wrong, unjust, and unworthy. Everyone who voted for it should not just be defeated at the polls, but ridiculed.

    The unseriousness of this entire debacle is Banana Republic-worthy.

    • Glenn,

      I think this is backwards:

      “If Hunter Biden had experience in the oil, energy, or related industries, the question of the propriety of his Ukraine employment would be much harder to justify. Not impossible, but there would be an instant and justified concern that it was an illegitimate, politics-driven inquiry.”

      The issue is that Hunter Biden didn’t have any energy background, making his employment highly suspect, lending claims that Joe was selling access to the US government by forcing Ukraine to fire a prosecutor looking into his son’s activities. If Hunter had experience in energy fields, then the $50k to $80k a month job looks more legitimate. That seems to be the basis for the Ukrainian investigation in Burisma.

      jvb

      • It’s not backwards, it’s just a typo or brain fart — I’m honestly not sure which. “…the question of the propriety…” should read, “…the questioning of the propriety…”.

        Sorry about the lousy grammar, I have no excuse.

    • I agree with the rest of your post, though. Joe Biden IS the Swamp. He has been owned by MBNA and the Big Consumer Finance for decades. If anyone smacks of conflicts of interests and appearances of impropriety, then it is Joe Biden.

      jvb

    • Hunter Biden’s activities may not be illegal but certainly seem questionable.
      Now on the other hand, Joe pushing for the termination of a prosecutor investing the company paying 83k a MONTH and withholding funds if they don’t certainly is legally questionable.

    • Let’s not forget $900,000 paid by Burisma to Seneca Holdings, the lobbying organization, with VP Biden and SS Kerry as directors. I think I read VP Biden was mentioned directly in that payment for lobbying services. Since when does the VP get to lobby foreign governments on behalf of private entities for pay?

      • Another good question. The Democrats don’t seem curious, though.

        The Senate Republicans are too feckless to conduct an investigation, they have blustering to do. Plus, they mostly hate Trump anyway even if they aren’t willing to vote for his removal.

        You’d think an enterprising news organization might investigate this angle, but alas — they too hate Trump and anything bad for Democrats is good for Trump. Ergo, crickets…

    • Plenty of Democrats and media figures have said Hunter Biden’s employment was indefensible. They then use this as an explanation for why the DISCREDITED CONSPIRACY THEORIES about his employment have such traction.

      Basically, they cannot defend his employment, so they just shout DISCREDITED.

  3. The question is simply, is Joe Biden above the law. An investigation into a political campaign to provide insurance against that campaigns success is far more an affront to democracy than asking for a favor to provide information relating to the 2016 election.

    It is likely that Obama sought to keep Biden out of the race in 2016 as it might cause HRC to bring up Hunter’s Ukranian activities during the primary which could harm his administration’s legacy. And Biden may retaliate by busting HRC’s pay to play schemes.

    With the announcement of FISA court judge Collier’s abrupt resignation, when it was announced that all persons associated with the Page surveillance, it is quite likely the deep state may be far deeper than I thought.

    • Disregard last paragraph. I trusted a source but I cannot verify Collyer’s resignation. It was presented as a news story but was instead someones tweet.

      My apologies

    • Collyer retired, she didn’t resign. Trust me, she’s just engaging in a little ass-covering with the admonition to the FBI on her way out.

      FISA needs to be eliminated. It’s simply too secret not to be abused. I know we need it for national security reasons, but once again, this boils down to a choice between liberty and security. Give me liberty.

      Human lust for power and indifference to abuses make it impossible for us to have all the nice things we deserve.

    • Meh. The Left and their apologists take every available opportunity to object to things that work against the urban majority having total power in America. The Senate is one of those things.

      They know that is by design, they just don’t like any design that denies them their rightful power, and they use majoritarianism as their justification. “Tyranny of the majority,” to them, is a feature, not a bug.

  4. The President should go on television immediately and announce that Donald, Jr. has been hired by a foreign company…say, Burisma in the Ukraine…”to consult on oil and energy”…

  5. This is a little bit off topic, but relevant enough that it deserves highlighting. In the NYT today, there was this exchange in the opinion section under an article entitled “Is Nancy Pelosi caught in a trap or setting one” between Gail Collins and Bret Stephens:

    Bret: Pelosi is very sharp, but she has a quandary. If she tries to bottle up impeachment in the House on grounds that the Senate won’t call witnesses like John Bolton and Mick Mulvaney, she’ll look hypocritical, for two reasons: First, the House went ahead with impeachment without waiting to hear from Bolton and Mulvaney. And second, she’ll be obstructing the very Constitutional principles that Trump’s impeachment are supposed to vindicate. One Harvard Law professor, Noah Feldman, claims impeachment doesn’t actually happen until the House forwards the articles to the Senate. Whether that’s true or not, most Americans expect that impeachment in the House, if it is to mean anything, must mean some kind of trial in the Senate.

    Gail: Only about six people in the country understand this issue. As far as public opinion goes, Trump’s wishes have come true: it’s all about whether you love him or hate him.

    Six people, eh? And Stephens lets it go, unchallenged and unremarked. He who is silent is understood to consent.

    This is what the elites think about the people who pay them for their opinions. I think there might be some ethics issues here.

  6. If there is a legitimate purpose in investigating Biden fil and pere for corrupt conduct perhaps perverting U.S. dollars and policy, does the fact that Daddy Biden might eventually oppose the President in an election make that purpose illegitimate, and the Ukraine’s cooperation election interference?

    Yes, because it hurts the Democrats.

    The Democratic leadership is about principals, nor principles.

  7. It strikes me how much forethought went into the original selection process for selecting Senators prior to the popular vote being the method.

    The House has succumbed to the mob rule Madison warned us about.

    Clearly the founders had considered our current circumstance as an all too real possibility.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.