Monday, November 04, 2019

Trump Legally "Required" To Inquire About Ukraine Corruption

Print Friendly Version of this pagePrint Get a PDF version of this webpagePDF

Yesterday ABC's George Stephanopoulos tried desperately to trap House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La) into responding to a false choice regarding the President and his famous conversation with the leader of Ukraine.

What George either didn't know, or refused to accept, is that US Presidents are required by law to look into foreign corruption before releasing taxpayer money to any nation.

Scalise turned on the light. George didn't particularly like the light.

Be informed.

House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (R-La) was repeatedly---at least 5 times--- asked by ABC's George Stephanopoulos yesterday if he thought it was wrong for Trump to demand the president of Ukraine investigate corruption, which could involve Joe Biden and his son Hunter?

Scalise repeatedly told George that he was asking the wrong question. His question was hypothetical--- Trump was merely following the law.

The law.

Both Democrats and Republicans voted to pass the most recent National Defense Authorization Act which funds the military, but also requires the President to be sure that in any country that receives US money---steps are being taken to root out corruption. That includes the Ukraine, which has been rife with corruption in recent years. In fact, Washington State Democrat Adam Smith actually sponsored the most recent Defense Authorization Act.

Scalise told Stephanopoulos:

"Well, first of all on that call [President Trump] was not talking about the 2020 election or political opponents, he was talking about corruption relating to the 2016 elections. By the way, when Russia tried to interfere, George, when Russia tried to interfere with our election, it was Barack Obama who was president, not Donald Trump. President Trump has a legal requirement to ensure that the country given foreign aid, in this case Ukraine, is taking steps to root out corruption. And he and President Zelensky talked about that. Zelensky, in fact, was asked, did he think it was inappropriate, was there pressure put on him, and President Zelensky said he wasn't pressured. And he got the money ultimately. He got the money."

Scalise repeatedly told ABC the conversation was not about Trump's 2020 political rivals, but about the past actions of former Vice President Joe Biden and other corruption in Ukraine.

A closer look brings clarity.

Biden, you may recall, was caught on video bragging about getting the the person investigating the Ukraine gas company fired, by threatening to withhold US money---the very thing Trump is being accused of.

It's stunning how the far-Left overlooks actual quid pro quo---while spending hundreds of millions of taxpayer dollars to overturn the will of the people in the 2016 presidential election by accusing Trump, not Biden, of doing what Biden actually did.

NBC was pressing Republican Rep. Tom Cole (R-Okla) yesterday on the same attack line.

Cole told Chuck Todd---NBC's "Meet The Press", when he was pressed about the matter---"I look at it this way: The aid is there and the investigation didn't happen. So, if there was a quid-pro-quo, it certainly wasn't a very effective one."

Trump adviser Kelly Ann Conway made similar comments on FOX News when she was pressed by Chris Wallace---who is no friend of Trump or conservatism. Conway said if Trump conditioned military aid, appropriated by Congress, on Ukraine probing the Bidens, it would not be "an impeachable offense."

According to the law---The National Defense Authorization Act---she's right. It's his job to do so---not an impeachable act.

Wallace continued to press her, "Is it a high crime and misdemeanor?" Conway then accused Wallace of giving her "a hypothetical that the Democrats want to be true."

As Republicans begin to turn up the light, the Left is beginning to shift their storyline by accusing the Republicans of "shifting their defense of Trump."

The Washington Post weighs in.

On Friday, The Washington Post said, "Republicans are beginning to shift their defense of Trump from " no quid pro quo occurred" to "so what if it did?"

"This," the Post says, "is counter to Trump and the White House 's insistence that he was not attempting to trade military aid for an investigation into the Bidens."

The Post quotes Democrat Eliot Engel, who is House Foreign Affairs Committee Chairman, "no other president in history" has done what Trump has done.

Scalise told Stephanopoulos:

"It wasn't about the 2020 election, it was about what had happened prior in 2016, corruption in Ukraine. And again, the law requires the President to certify that a country before they get foreign aid is actually taking steps to root out corruption. [Speaker Pelosi] voted for that. [Chairman Adam Schiff] voted for that. I would imagine Eliot Engel voted for that. But at the end of the day, the President was talking to Zelensky about rooting out corruption. And Zelensky himself said there was nothing wrong with the call. He wasn't pressured. And he got the money. He actually got the taxpayer money."

The spirit of lawlessness.

John Wesley said, "What we tolerate in one generation, we embrace in the next."

He's right.

The prophet Isaiah wrote, "Your princes are rebels and companions of thieves. Everyone loves a bribe and runs after gifts."

He's right.

In the 1934 movie "Death Takes a Holiday", death assumes human form for three days and the world becomes a chaotic disaster.

The same thing happens when the law goes on vacation. Rules are unenforced or simply politicized. Citizens lose faith in the legal system. Anarchy follows.

The United States is teetering on the edge of a lawless abyss because politics now govern whether existing laws are enforced.

More than 500 "sanctuary" cities, counties and now, even states like California have become "lawless" in that they have decided for political reasons that federal immigration law does not apply within their jurisdiction.

In a way, they have seceded from the union and given other cities, counties and even states a model of how to ignore any federal law they don't like.

Our laws state that foreign nationals cannot enter and permanently reside in the US without going through a checkpoint, and most always obtain a visa or document---but now that is actively ignored.

There are laws that prevent the IRS from targeting private groups with whom they disagree, but Lois Lerner targeted the Tea Party with no real personal consequences a few years ago.

New York Times columnist Nicholas Kristof publicly encouraged someone at the IRS to leak Donald Trump's tax returns. Later someone did leak his 2005 returns to MSNBC.

The elite---the political ruling class didn't like the outcome of the 2016 election, so they and their accomplices in the deep state have tried to overturn the presidential election with the "Russian collusion" hoax.

Now it's Ukraine.

There is one common denominator in all this law-breaking: It is the progressive belief that laws must "progress" to reflect the supposedly superior political agenda of the far-Left progressive.

This is why they claim the Constitution is a "living document"---so they can't bend it to affirm whatever they want it to say it says.

But when the law is not what we say it is, but it's whatever everyone says it is, every person becomes a law unto themselves. Established laws are ignored without consequence and a spirit of lawlessness prevails over society.

When law is merely what we say it is ---there is no law, and when there is no law we become nothing more than Russia, Somalia or Venezuela.

Be Informed. Be Vigilant. Be Discerning. Be Prayerful. Be Watchful.