Quid pro quo. So?

Some Serious Business
(Including Recent Historical Analogies)
Watergate was a clumsy attempt to get oppo dirt on a feared potential political opponent. Same here.

The Watergate investigation then revealed the dirty tricks squad, like the one Giuliani was working on building.  But that wasn't the thing that connected it directly to Nixon, and thus to certain impeachment--it took the tapes with the 'smoking gun' (Nixon's frank statements on the cover-up) to tie it up.  The beauty of the Ukraine case is that the participation of the President in the violation is certain, corroborated by all.

The particular significance of Amb. Taylor's testimony last week in the impeachment inquiry was the existence of a covert--unauthorized--foreign policy conducted by the White House using Rudy Giuliani as the showrunner. 

We are reminded of a White House-initiated escapade of criminal nature undertaken not so long ago, still within our foggy memory. The Iran-Contra affair of the mid-80's, in which a secret channel of dubious arms deals with Iran (in the midst of a brutal war with Iraq) went awry with the diversion of money to give military aid to the right-wing Nicaraguan Contra army in its civil war (by right-wing National Security Council rogues--Ollie North and Poindexter),  shows several parallels in the degree to which political aims created illegitimate foreign policy initiatives leading to massive brain farts. 

Nobody got jailed in the Reagan Administration for approving the diversion itself, though several high officials were indicted or convicted for variations of perjury, reaching as high as Defense Secy Weinberger (who, pre-trial, was pardoned by Bush I, as were several others previously convicted).  Reagan himself had plausible deniability because of his bad memory.  It seems he had approved the secret trading with Iran, but only implicitly OK'd the Nicaragua gambit. The diversion was illegal, but only because Congress had specifically prohibited giving aid to the Contras in Nicaragua.

The thing is, Trump could have had a valid reason for the parallel policy structure, keeping State and Defense out of the discussions with Ukraine, and "delegating" to Rudy Giuliani and the "three amigos".   Trump could have made this official,  with some sort of classified executive order or finding, if he were a good executive. When something like this happens, good policy administrators like Amb. Taylor ask questions, try to get clarity.  He got clarity, and what he understood was that the policy was to withhold the aid for a reason that was not due to national security, but instead something that offended his ethics.  It seems like John Bolton, bless his heart!, will show to have had a similar reaction.

As far as I know, the only law at the time requiring the aid be given to Ukraine was the appropriation.  It is something the executive is expected to spend, but it does not have to do so, entirely or even in part, though that change requires explanation from the executive to the legislative.  The "unitary executive" theory that Cheney's stooges espoused and still uphold gives Trump a reason to say that "foreign policy is whatever I say it is".   Congress has precious little to say about it, except by (constitutionally shaky) law and by the lack of positive allocation of money.  As we saw with the Stupid Wall, that has its limitations.

In theory, in the course of diplomatic negotiations the President can potentially withhold aid to foreign countries conditioned on some action that nation should make.  That can be totally legal but is normally done in the furtherance of US policy.  This--withholding the aid--was not only contrary to the bipartisan, legislatively-approved one of providing essential aid to Ukraine in the ongoing conflict with Russia, but it was seemingly incoherent (as Lindsay Graham tellingly suggested--the sarcastic criticism was actually intended to be helpful to Trump, but damaging to his real target, VP Pence). .

Its application of a valid concept, reducing governmental corruption in Ukraine, was duly cited, but the pressure was being applied against the interests of the new, anti-corruption Ukrainian President Zelensky.  Trump and Giuliani pursued an investigation of an energy company with VP Biden's son on its board, and the company targeted in a contrafactual 2016 election conspiracy theory.  It seems to be the only anti-corruption cause, worldwide, that has ever attracted Trump's attention.  So, what else was the purpose?  We are waiting to know if it were something else, something exculpatory.

There--the opportunity to get, free of charge to himself, some dirt on a potential opponent--is the corrupt intent of Donald J. Trump (, Inc., a legalized Criminal Enterprise) which makes it all illegal.  You hate judging someone based on your presumption of their motivations, and maybe we don't really know Trump's:  Once again, he does Putin's bidding. 

Some call it extortion, but I think that's incorrect; with extortion, it is the one with the dirt who approaches the mark, while here the approach went in the opposite direction (toward the hypothetical possessor  of the dirt).  I think it is more accurately described as an attempted bribe:  we give you money, you abuse your power.  Probably not the first time Zelensky was offered a bribe; he didn't take it, nor take offense particularly. Typical of the special Drumpf Touch, though--it all turns to shit.

I am less than satisfied with where this whole process is going:  impeachment, followed by acquittal As with Pres. Clinton's impeachment trial, there will be news focus on the meaningless question of whether a majority will vote for conviction, as the ultimate outcome will not be in doubt.

What I had advocated before was a motion of censure--for inappropriately disregarding approved US foreign policy for unsound objectives, and for obstruction of the oversight function--along with the initiation of the impeachment inquiry primarily "to determine if there was a quid pro quo".  To go on the record, in the House, and without cancellation by the Senate, that the activity was wrong and not within the power of even the enormously expanded range of executive power. Now that possibility, which would have achieved similar purpose and many more votes, has been obviated, by the House's peremptory bill setting up the inquiry's groundrules, and by the public admission of the horsetrading that went on between our national interest vs. Trump's.   No conflict, just interests!

We are in a (relative) hurry, and I would put the Over/Under on Mitch's Presidents' Day gift (of untrammeled executive power), winning 47-53, and just about at that date.   (Also the Iowa primary is close to then, no?)


Abu Bakr "Hoosier" al-Baghdadi Dead, Daddy!
His bid for a martyrdom of historical significance was declaring the Islamic Caliphate.  There was no way the outcome after that was ever going to be other than the one that occurred--total annihilation by the enemies that surrounded his "state"--but it was far from quick, uneventful, or sparing in human losses.  Which will continue.  He certainly got what he had coming to him.  Deathwish/fulfillment of destiny.

Another perfect operation executed by our national security team. Credit to all who made it happen or helped.

Haiku on our Withdrawal from Climate Preservation Accord Today

We deserve a badge.
Standing up for ignorance.
We are not alone