January 18, 2020
Despite claiming that impeaching President Trump was a matter of national security, it took a month for Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi to finally deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate. Pelosi’s delay was nothing more than a failed attempt to strong-arm Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell into allowing House Democrats to continue their investigation of Trump in the Senate proceedings.
However, Pelosi had no leverage, as the Senate is only obligated to hold a trial on the information gleaned from the House investigation, which has concluded. Her tactic failed. McConnell conceded nothing. Moreover, Pelosi proved both that impeachment was not about protecting the country, and that Democrats know they failed to make an adequate case for taking the rare and drastic step of removing a duly elected president.
Not that Democrats believe that they need evidence to impeach President Trump. Six out of seven of the impeachment managers named by Pelosi cast a vote for impeachment, a year before the infamous phone call between Trump and the President of Ukraine ever occurred, which is the pretext for Trump’s impeachment.
Lev Parnas
Pelosi asserts that her month-long delay has allowed new evidence to be revealed. Incredibly, the new evidence, which has Democrats frothing at the mouth comes from a man facing charges of criminal conspiracy, falsifying records, lying, and funneling foreign money into U.S. political campaigns- Ukrainian born U.S. citizen -Lev Parnas
Credibility doesn’t matter to the media if you’re making a case against President Trump. It’s Michael Avenatti round two. Avenatti is the rabidly anti-Trump former lawyer of porn star Stormy Daniels. Avenatti currently sits in prison charged with multiple felonies. Before his numerous indictments, he was hailed as the “Trump slayer” and given a platform on most major news outlets to spout his anti-Trump rhetoric.
Lev Parnas was an associate of President Trump’s lawyer, Rudy Guiliani. Parnas claims that he aided Guiliani’s efforts to convince the Ukrainian government to investigate Trump’s rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter, in exchange for the release of U.S. military aid. Parnas has also asserted that neither Trump nor Vice President Pence attended President Zelensky’s inauguration as a consequence of Zelensky’s reluctance to investigate the Bidens’. According to Parnas, on Guiliani’s directive, he had numerous contacts with Ukrainian officials. Despite admitting he never spoke directly to the president, Parnas has asserted Trump knew that he and Guiliani were working together to pressure Ukrainian officials.
A prominent Ukrainian official has publicly cast doubt on Parnas’ allegations. Ukrainian Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko recently told CNN’s Christiane Amanpour, “I never spoke with this individual…and again, Frankly, I don’t trust any word he is now saying.”
Prystaiko also refuted the allegation about Zelensky’s inauguration explaining that it was planned with very little notice, and Pence’s absence was not interpreted as a retaliatory action on the part of the U.S. In fact, they were pleased that the U.S. sent Energy Secretary Rick Perry. Prystaiko added that there was no quid pro quo, “or anything of the sort ever mentioned in any of these conversations”, in which he had with those speaking on behalf of President Trump.
Another claim made by Lev Parnas further calls into question his veracity. Last November, through his attorney, Parnas asserted that in 2018 ranking member of the Intelligence Committee Devin Nunes met with him in Vienna, along with top Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin, seeking dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden. Nunes has called these allegations “demonstrably false”.
Nunes has stated that “at the time frame” asserted by Parnas he has pictures of himself in Libya and Malta. He added, “I wasn’t in Vienna, and I didn’t meet with this guy Shokin.” Nunes is so incensed by these allegations that he is suing CNN, which first reported this claim.
Parnas has admitted that he has ulterior motives in speaking out now. Appearing with his attorney on the Rachel Maddow show Wednesday night Parnas stated that his legal team worked feverishly gathering information to deliver to the intelligence committee before the deadline so it could be put into the articles of impeachment to use against President Trump.
Parnas- a man charged with multiple felonies, who once supported the president is now providing information to facilitate his removal. Does any honest person believe that Parnas is not motivated by a desperate attempt to get an immunity deal?
GAO Conclusion
Those defending President Trump often cite the fact that Trump’s impeachment is the first in U.S. history in which there has been no crime committed. Low and behold on the eve of Trump’s impeachment trial the Government Accountability Office (GAO) has concluded that Trump’s Office of Management and Budget (OMB) violated the law when military aid to Ukraine was temporarily delayed.
Pushing back against the GAO, OMB spokesperson Rachel Semmel said, “OMB uses its apportion authority to ensure taxpayer dollars are properly spent consistent with the President’s priorities and with the law.”
Acting OMB Director Russ Vought tweeted that “this GAO opinion comes from the same people who said we couldn’t keep national parks open during the shutdown. Recently GAO flipped its position twice in the last few months. We wouldn’t be surprised if they reverse again. Regardless, the admin. complied with the law.”
Moreover, many constitutional scholars, including self-proclaimed liberal (and latest addition to Trump’s legal team) Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz have opined that as President of the United States it was within Trump’s authority to withhold military aid from Ukraine “in order to make sure that a country isn’t corrupt and you’re asking them to investigate.”
Democrat Hypocrisy
Democrats are attempting to remove a duly elected president claiming that he abused his power by withholding aid to Ukraine in exchange for investigations of his political opponent. Incredibly, they ignore the fact that Biden’s family profited greatly in both China and Ukraine, while Biden was the Vice President and point man for the Obama administration to these two countries. Does anyone believe that Ukraine and China searched the world and chose Hunter Biden, who lacked financial or energy experience because they believed he was the most qualified? More likely they paid him millions because they knew he had influence with the U.S. government. Contrary to the left’s narrative this potential corruption by the Bidens has never been investigated.
Further, accusing Trump of asking a foreign power to “find dirt” on his political rival is a terrible mischaracterization of the facts. Trump asked Ukraine to investigate the potential corruption of the former Vice President, not to fish for oppositional research on his political rival. Trump did not ask a foreign leader to investigate Bernie Sanders or Elizabeth Warren, or other political rivals with no outstanding allegations of corruption. Democrats fail to make this distinction because if they did they would have no case for impeachment.
Democrats are also charging Trump with obstruction of justice because he asserted his constitutional right and disallowed members of his administration to testify unless compelled by a court order. Democrats never sought a remedy from the court. Many, even those who do not support the president, agree that there is no case to be made that President Trump obstructed justice in the House impeachment proceeding.
The Impeachment Trial
The Senate trial starts next Tuesday. Oral arguments may be heard as early as Wednesday. There has been talk among lawmakers of “witness reciprocity”. The idea being that for every witness the Republicans call the Democrats would in- turn be allowed to call a witness. This would be a mistake. It would lengthen the trial, and provide the left with more fodder to spin in their quest to destroy Trump’s presidency. Ideally, there will be no witnesses, allowing for a swift conclusion.
Dismissing the articles outright would be politically perilous and create a public outcry that Republicans were covering for the president. After Democrat House managers make their case, Republicans should immediately hold a vote to acquit on both articles. Over and done and onto winning the 2020 election, holding the Senate and taking back the House.
