The Age of Reason

I was going to write about the details of Gordon Sondand's testifying at the House Impeachment hearings.  But as I sat down to type, I realized my heart wasn't in it, and some related thoughts were on my mind.

Mainly, they're all centered on how galling it his to hear Republican after Republican after Republican continue to repeat the same various points throughout their time to question that defy reason.  And while it's clear why they do so -- when you have nothing substantive to add, all that's left to you is to distract -- that doesn't make it any less palatable.

So, a few things for the record that I think are incontrovertible realities.  Yes, I'm biased.  But that doesn't mean I'm wrong  --

It doesn't matter how much Trump doesn't like foreign aid.  When the money and assistance is authorized by the U.S. Senate, which by the Constitution holds (with the House) the "Power of the Purse," the president is obligated to deliver that aid.

Conversely, it also doesn't matter what a swell guy Trump is for finally delivering that aid -- and seriously, guys, make up your mind whether he hates foreign aid or is okay with it -- he did so only after the whistleblower broke the story that Trump was withholding the aid and after Congress announced they were going to investigate.

Moreover, it doesn't matter what a swell guy Trump is for finally delivering that aid -- because being nice to someone you tried to have bludgeoned to death doesn't excuse your earlier actions.

And it doesn't matter if you like or hate foreign aid, because either way it is illegal to extort or bribe or enlist a foreign government for personal gain to help you in a U.S. election.

In addition, you don't get points for delivering military aid to a country when it was Congress's decision to do so, not  yours.

It also doesn't matter if you have convinced yourself that another candidate enlisted the assistance of a foreign government in the last election.  That's because (whether they did or didn't) as we learned in the second grade, two wrongs don't make a right.

And (okay, I admit it, this is one of my favorites) you don't get to "look better" for agreeing to deliver lethal weapons when your predecessor didn't -- because the conditions are TOTALLY DIFFERENT:  an anti-corruption president now leads Ukraine. When Barack Obama was in office, however, the leader of Ukraine was the corrupt Viktor Yanukovych who among other things had asked Russia to send troops into his country, was overthrown by an outraged populace, fled to Russia and was convicted in absentia of treason!!!  Just one of many pesky reasons why President Obama was somewhat reticent to send Ukraine specifically what are considered lethal weapons, like Javelin anti-tank missiles, at the time, since they would be in Yanukovych's control.  Albeit admittedly it's a notable reason not to do so.  (And a reason I'd love to hear Democrats on the Impeachment Committee point out, for goodness sake.)  Moreover, to be very clear, under President Obama, weapons were also given to Ukraine, not merely "blankets," just not what are lethal weapons.

No, Trump did not use the words "quid pro quo."  And insists he didn't have a "quid pro quo."  But then, someone who bribes or extorts someone is generally not likely to use the words "bribe" and "extort" when they do so.  More likely, they'll throw their arm around you, smile warmly and say, "Hey, y'know what would be nice...?"

Even if Trump didn't do a "quid pro quo," it is still illegal to ask a foreign country for help in a U.S. election.

Trump has never shown interest in corruption in any country, and has in fact developed close relationships with corrupt despots from Putin to Erdogan to Kim Jong-Un and more.  And he never once mentioned "corruption" in either of his two phone calls with the anti-corruption president of Ukraine.  So, contentions of Trump's interest in corruption (except perhaps to get or give tips) has no foundation.

Actually, there not even any evidence that Trump, in fact, wanted an investigation into Burisma and the Bidens (perhaps because it would acquit them), but rather just that he only wanted the announcement of an investigation. Because that would get the headlines and provide the aura of something being wrong.  But only wanting the announcement of an investigation and not an investigation itself confirms that Trump has zero interest in corruption.

​If Trump and Republicans really, truly, honestly believe that a private citizen, Hunter Biden, did something criminally wrong when he had the "appearance" of a conflict of interest, then they should absolutely try to get the U.S. Justice Department to open up an investigation of him.  But they haven't done that.  And neither has the U.S. Justice Department.  So, I suspect none of them are really, truly, honestly all that concerned about it.

If Trump and any Republican still thinks Ukraine was behind the hacking and computer break-ins on behalf of Hillary Clinton, despite ALL evidence from EVERY United States intelligence service -- and despite it being disinformation specifically and publicly pushed by Vladimir Putin -- then that means they believe the Democrats got Ukraine to steal the Democrats' own emails and release the most-damning of them to the public in some crazed-plot that would somehow appeal to the American voters rather than throw the election to Trump.

The famous server is sitting in DNC headquarters where it's always been sitting.  It's never been moved because in computer hacking, you don't need the server -- you create a "mirror image" of the data and collect a copy of that.

The Whistleblower Protection Law aside (which is a lot to put aside), it doesn't matter one whit who the whistleblower is.  If a person runs to a group of policemen to say that he was told that someone heard gunshots around the corner, and the officers go to investigate, discover the victim, who points out where the shooter went, they track him down, arrest him and he's convicted -- the Good Samaritan won't be called as a third-party hearsay witness, he isn't the one accusing the defendant of anything, and will have no part in the trial that convicts the shooter.  Who he is doesn't matter -- unless someone wants to say thank you and give a reward.

The Impeachment Hearing is about more than one phone call  It's about a detailed effort to get Ukraine to announce an investigation into the Burisma company, which is about trying to investigate the Bidens.  This is not a guess or a presumption.  We know this because Trump told us on the White House Lawn!

If Trump is not the person behind Rudy Giuliani's efforts to get Ukraine to investigate Burisma and the Bidens on behalf of his client,.then no other explanation makes reasonable sense why he did so.  There are other explanations.  It's just that they all are insane.

Finally, if it happens Trump is, in fact, actually correct in what he says about the July 25 Phone Call and about the secretive plans to investigate his political opponents, then that means every person testifying under oath to the contrary must be wrong, or worse, committing perjury and lying.  Everyone.  Or the opposite is the case:  that everyone testifying under oath is telling the truth and Trump is wrong or lying.

It's a near-certainty that Republicans on the Impeachment Committee are going to try to keep making all or at least some of their totally empty points that have no basis in reality.  Over and over.  And some of the members will YELL them, while others will drip them in an attempt at scathing sarcasm.

And they all have no meaning.  And have nothing to do with the testimony and evidence about the actions of Trump and his minions.  They're just blather.

So, as for the details of the testimony that did get addressed under oath yesterday -- and will be addressed upcoming under oath -- the public will hear all that, too.  And it, too, will build up.  And being based in reality and on sworn statements, it will carry the weight of honesty and fact. 

Everyone won't be convinced.  But then, you don't have to convince everyone.  And after all, as the founder of the Republican Party itself once said --

You can fool some of the people some of the time.  You can fool some of the people all of the time.  But you can't fool all the people all the time.

Unless, it turns out, some of the people are Republicans.