Peter Lemiska
Can Barack Obama be prosecuted for bribery?
By Peter Lemiska
Over the past several weeks, Democrats have been trying to justify their impeachment hearings based on some allegations of a quid pro quo between President Trump and the president of Ukraine. But most Americans, reasonable Americans, understand that the hearings are nothing more than a farce, the culmination of the Democrats' three-year-long neurotic obsession with the removal of President Trump.
And now, desperate for more support, Democrats are taking a new approach. They've decided to use the word "bribery" in place of the term "quid pro quo." It's as if one of them stumbled across the word while re-reading the one clause in the Constitution that gives them hope: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." So, with a little creative interpretation, they're now making the ridiculous assertion that the concept of quid pro quo is tantamount to bribery. After all, that word is cited in the Constitution, it's a lot easier to understand than that arcane Latin phrase, and the focus groups seem to like it. Maybe, if they can convince others that Trump is guilty of bribery, they can finally gain some traction.
The problem is, even if they can show that President Trump tried to negotiate some sort of an exchange with Ukraine, that, in itself, would constitute bribery only in the minds of those impeachment zealots. Presidents have been engaging in quid pro quo agreements with other world leaders throughout our history. It's how alliances are forged, new territory is acquired, and treaties are signed.
"But," Democrats argue, "This is different...this is about personal gain. The president was bribing another government to 'dig up dirt' on his political opponent."
To make that assertion, they have to know his motive, his intent. They have to know what he was thinking when he reached out to the Ukrainians. And that is almost impossible to establish. It's generally much easier to prove what someone has done than to understand why he did it.
So Democrats are relying on a combination of guesswork, assumption, hostile witnesses, and perhaps some psychic abilities to establish President Trump's intent. They haven't even proven a quid pro quo, but they presume to know what the president was thinking during those conversations with the Ukrainian president. These clairvoyant congressmen don't need evidence. Either their psychic powers or their blind hatred has led them to conclude that Trump's motives were selfish and nefarious. With no substantiating evidence, they have chosen to believe that he was trying to influence the 2020 election, not simply re-launch the investigation that was short-stopped by the Obama/Biden Administration.
The termination of that investigation is usually associated with Joe Biden, because we watched Biden trumpet his role in the deal, and because his son, Hunter, benefited from it. But Joe Biden was only an emissary. It was Barack Obama who sanctioned that exchange.
Yet Democrats had a completely different take on that particular quid pro quo. They somehow concluded that the bribe in that case was simply a foreign policy decision. They couldn't find any suspect motives or intent in a $1 billion payoff to the Ukrainian government – a payoff that shielded Biden's son from potential legal jeopardy.
But with Trump's impeachment hearings, it seems that intent and motive are not important. Democrats are now arguing that if they can show a quid pro quo, that will be enough to establish the crime of bribery. If that's the case, there's no more perfect example than the $1 billion bribe paid by the Obama/Biden Administration for the apparent purpose of getting Hunter Biden off the hook.
© Peter Lemiska
November 17, 2019
Over the past several weeks, Democrats have been trying to justify their impeachment hearings based on some allegations of a quid pro quo between President Trump and the president of Ukraine. But most Americans, reasonable Americans, understand that the hearings are nothing more than a farce, the culmination of the Democrats' three-year-long neurotic obsession with the removal of President Trump.
And now, desperate for more support, Democrats are taking a new approach. They've decided to use the word "bribery" in place of the term "quid pro quo." It's as if one of them stumbled across the word while re-reading the one clause in the Constitution that gives them hope: "The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors." So, with a little creative interpretation, they're now making the ridiculous assertion that the concept of quid pro quo is tantamount to bribery. After all, that word is cited in the Constitution, it's a lot easier to understand than that arcane Latin phrase, and the focus groups seem to like it. Maybe, if they can convince others that Trump is guilty of bribery, they can finally gain some traction.
The problem is, even if they can show that President Trump tried to negotiate some sort of an exchange with Ukraine, that, in itself, would constitute bribery only in the minds of those impeachment zealots. Presidents have been engaging in quid pro quo agreements with other world leaders throughout our history. It's how alliances are forged, new territory is acquired, and treaties are signed.
"But," Democrats argue, "This is different...this is about personal gain. The president was bribing another government to 'dig up dirt' on his political opponent."
To make that assertion, they have to know his motive, his intent. They have to know what he was thinking when he reached out to the Ukrainians. And that is almost impossible to establish. It's generally much easier to prove what someone has done than to understand why he did it.
So Democrats are relying on a combination of guesswork, assumption, hostile witnesses, and perhaps some psychic abilities to establish President Trump's intent. They haven't even proven a quid pro quo, but they presume to know what the president was thinking during those conversations with the Ukrainian president. These clairvoyant congressmen don't need evidence. Either their psychic powers or their blind hatred has led them to conclude that Trump's motives were selfish and nefarious. With no substantiating evidence, they have chosen to believe that he was trying to influence the 2020 election, not simply re-launch the investigation that was short-stopped by the Obama/Biden Administration.
The termination of that investigation is usually associated with Joe Biden, because we watched Biden trumpet his role in the deal, and because his son, Hunter, benefited from it. But Joe Biden was only an emissary. It was Barack Obama who sanctioned that exchange.
Yet Democrats had a completely different take on that particular quid pro quo. They somehow concluded that the bribe in that case was simply a foreign policy decision. They couldn't find any suspect motives or intent in a $1 billion payoff to the Ukrainian government – a payoff that shielded Biden's son from potential legal jeopardy.
But with Trump's impeachment hearings, it seems that intent and motive are not important. Democrats are now arguing that if they can show a quid pro quo, that will be enough to establish the crime of bribery. If that's the case, there's no more perfect example than the $1 billion bribe paid by the Obama/Biden Administration for the apparent purpose of getting Hunter Biden off the hook.
© Peter Lemiska
The views expressed by RenewAmerica columnists are their own and do not necessarily reflect the position of RenewAmerica or its affiliates.
(See RenewAmerica's publishing standards.)
