Friday Nanzi Pelosi tried to raise the stakes in the Democrat shame sham attempt to trick the public into believing that they have some kind of goods on the president. She stumbled late onto the impeachment stage, the spotlights dazzling and dazing her, and she mumbled semi-coherently, “President Trump’s bribery” is an impeachable offense. Her voice sounded as though she had a hard time convincing herself.
I guess “quid pro quo” was too difficult for her to say, kind of like “Peter Piper picked a peck”, or maybe the public just wasn’t buying that line. So new window dressing was necessary. But the public needs to remember this is the very same events that Nanzi and Adam Schiff have been trying to spin to us over and over, like we’re gullible children, who if we won’t get into the car for lollypops, then we might get into the car to save a puppy.
Yeah that is who these people are, and there are so many things wrong with their kangaroo courtroom charges. But first let’s state the barebones facts of the situation without window dressing:
- Obama made Biden his point man in the Ukraine. Biden made the renowned “whistleblower” one of his key apparatchiks in the Ukraine (yes, the very same person-do you think maybe he has a vested interest as to what gets investigated in the Ukraine?).
- Shortly thereafter, Hunter Biden became a very highly paid vice president of a Ukrainian energy company, a business he was not skilled in.
- A Ukrainian prosecutor decided to investigate the company which Hunter worked for.
- Shortly after, Joe Biden threatened to withhold 1 billion dollars in aid from the Ukraine unless they fired the above prosecutor and he told them they had only 6 hours to comply.
- The Ukraine fired the prosecutor (against their own will?), within the 6 hours and they got their money. Then Bumbling Joe bragged publicly about what he had done.
- Obama understudy, Hillary Clinton, does not get elected; Trump does.
- The Democrats immediately begin a jimmied up investigation of Trump, which the Mueller Report proves later to be unfounded.
- In a phone call to the Ukrainian president, Trump makes obscure references to the curtailed investigation of Hunter Biden’s company and tells the Ukrainian president that must have been awful to have been forced by Joe Biden to terminate a criminal investigation.
- Apparently, although not mentioned in the phone call, the Trump administration held up military aid to the Ukraine. This is not a continuation of the same old Obama aid to the Ukraine that Biden had withheld, but new military aid initiated by the Trump administration.
- The military aid is later released, although the Biden investigation was not reopened. So no quid pro quo ever happened.
Those are the basic facts, and you can judge the whole situation from them without the window dressing of the “Days of Our Lives” impeachment melodrama.
In the vein of trying to stick with the facts, let us go to the definition of bribery from the Webster’s Dictionary:
“Bribery: The act of giving someone something, especially money, to do something ILLEGAL or wrong, or to induce someone to do something against one’s own wishes.”
First, I’m throwing out everything after the word “illegal”.
Well, “wrong” goes out because it’s subjective. If we all still operated under a Judeo-Christian belief system, then we could come to some common consensus as to what is right and wrong, but today we increasingly have true believers of progressivism who follow the teachings of their forebearer communists and nazis for whom Lenin spoke so eloquently, “The ends justify the means.” In other words, so long as you get what you want, nothing is wrong.
Therefore, we can’t depend on a common idea of “wrong”, and therefore cannot use it. One might also say that the word “wrong” is not codified except in the definition of illegal, so it is redundant to use it as a criterion, wrong and illegal having the same meaning in this case. Similarly, with “against one’s own wishes”. If it is against one’s own wishes then why did one do it? At some point the bribe overcame one’s own wishes and became one’s own wishes.
So, I have honed down bribery to: Giving someone something, especially money, to do something illegal. If it is not illegal, then it is not bribery, but rather payment for services, goods, etc. Do you bribe your grocer to give you vegetables? No, it’s not illegal to get groceries, i.e. you don’t bribe for them, you pay for them.
So when Nanzi Pelosi stumbles on her accusations of Trump bribing the Ukraine, saying it is against the law and constitution for the president to bribe a foreign country, is she correct, or is she again blowing smoke and obfuscating the facts listed above by changing the window dressing of her little massage parlor?
There is nothing in the constitution or the framing laws that makes it illegal for the president to bribe a foreign country to do something favorable for us.
When we pay foreign aid, do we “bribe” states to be our friends? Maybe in the Pelosi sense, but not in the Founding Fathers sense.
Do we attach strings to our aid? Yes, almost always. So, would it be illegal for the president to attach strings, specifically to ask that an investigation of a prematurely closed corruption case be reopened? I don’t see how: It is not a crime to investigate potential criminal conduct, and frankly I’m beginning to wonder this whole thing is not about impeaching Trump, but rather is meant to scare him away from such investigations. In other words, their whole objective is to intimidate the president from digging a whole lot of dirt up about all of them. It’s just a thought that comes to my mind.
The Founding Fathers never proscribed the president from bribing
anyone, a nation, or collection of people. This is clear because they, those who wrote the rules in the early days of our country, were paying tribute, extortion money, to the Barbary Pirates to not attack our merchant ships.
In fact, the rule that Pelosi so confusedly refers to regarding the President and bribery, does not state that the president cannot bribe for the good of the USA, but that he should not BE BRIBED by others to do something BAD against the USA.
So did Biden commit bribery or extortion in the Ukraine? No, not unless you can prove that his intention was to protect his son from being investigated. Similarly, neither did Trump because: 1. The aid was given anyway without the Ukraine ever reopening the investigation of Biden. So it clearly never was tied to a Biden investigation. Adam Schiff and Nanzi Pelosi know this. And 2. Biden had left a big enough footprint in the Ukraine that he probably should be investigated.
Some hypothetical examples of potential bribery that would be impeachable, or criminal if they were true are:
In 1963, President Kennedy gave the Chamizal Strip, land in El Paso, Texas to Mexico. Now, entirely hypothetically, if the Mafia had paid Kennedy to give the land to Mexico so that they could establish routes for smuggling drugs into the US through the subsurface structures there, then that would have been an impeachable case of the president being bribed.
The Obama administration sold 20% of the uranium in the USA to Russia (Russian collusion). If, entirely hypothetically, Obama and Clinton had received cash in a Swiss bank account for making this uranium deal, then that would have been an impeachable occasion of the president and a high official being bribed.
Recently, Senator Feinstein’s driver was found to be a Chinese spy. If, entirely hypothetically, the Senator had been paid to hire the driver and then leave certain files, or maybe keys to top secret file cabinets, etc. on the car seat when she hopped out to go to the lady’s room, then that would be an instance of an official being bribed.
While all of these instances are hypothetical, i.e. there is no evidence I know of showing them to be true, it makes me begin to understand why so many people in Washington are so adverse to Trump, the first man in Washington who is already too rich to be bribed and who has nothing to lose by investigating all of these things.
And it is why I want him to stay there awhile.