It would be funny if the Constitutional-crisis-of-the-day about Trump's phone call ended up harming Biden. The media is playing it up assuming it must be bad for Trump. It may not be. If it does turn out to be bad for Biden, I'll have to wonder if the Trump administration baited the media with the whistleblower.
Although perhaps a Democratic rival with ties in the government got it going. That's if this plays out to harm Biden, of course.
Or it might be something bad, I must admit. I'm not willing to say it is inconceivable that Trump might do something wrong (especially given his conviction--with some justification--that the Democrats have done worse the last three-plus years and gotten away with it). But that's not the way to bet as far as I can see--especially after reading the "transcript" of the phone call (not based on a recording but from people listening and taking notes). Tips to Instapundit. More here.
Oh, and what's with that part in the transcript about a Democratic Party server in Ukraine?
Still, from someone whose opinion I respect, the Biden Ukraine episode isn't as bad as Republicans are making it out to be in defense of Trump. So shouldn't Biden welcome a Ukraine investigation that demonstrates that the charge is baseless?
But if Biden's action isn't as bad as I thought, isn't Trump's action at worst on par with Biden's, making the Speaker Pelosi faux impeachment announcement rather ludicrous? And what of the Senate Democrats pressuring Ukraine not to do anything to help Trump?
Is all of this--including Trump's request for renewed investigation--just business as usual for the government and unseemly? I mean, how does it compare to Obama's secret dispatch of wads of cash to Iran or refusal to prosecute Hezbollah drug operations in order to get the awful Iran nuclear deal?
What level of "reciprocity" is criminal, hmmm?
It is apparently not improper for the president of the United States, caught in a hot-mic exchange with the Russian president, to offer a quid pro quo deal in which the United States suggests it will pull back from missile-defense agendas in exchange for good Russian behavior designed to help the president and hurt his opponent in the forthcoming reelection.
I'm open to the idea that Trump acted wrongly. But the Ukraine call doesn't seem bad or that unusual. And it certainly doesn't seem like an impeachable offense.
What am I missing? After all this time of serial breathless reports on smoking guns of treason to be revealed any minute now, this is what will get Pelosi to drop the hammer?
And no (via Instapundit), the media is not building trust with their biased reporting. If the facts are so bad for Trump, why aren't the facts alone good enough to report?
Yet I will admit that if I hadn't been fed a steady fire hose blast of "OhmyGodlookwhatTrumpdid!" hysteria for the last three years I might not yawn at this flavor of the day "crisis." Seriously, people, I'm one of the people you could have convinced to oppose Trump based on my long opposition to his political ambitions and distaste for him personally. Democrats think they are saving the country with their hysteria. But they look like partisans willing to destroy the village in order to save it for their own political ambitions.
But the insanity of the Democratic opposition (with an assist from some Republicans), the volume of the opposition, the unrelenting pace of the turn-the-dial-to-11 opposition, and the unfair demonization of his supporters by the opposition has made me willing to figuratively crawl across glass to vote for Trump--for the first time, you morons! Because Democrats of The Resistance have made it clear that the visibly flawed Trump is superior to anybody the Democrats could put up against him in 2020.
Bravo. Really. Brilliant work you guys.
UPDATE: Let me add some thoughts on Biden's threat to withhold a major loan to Ukraine if Ukraine didn't fire a corrupt prosecutor. It is fair enough to say everyone here wanted that man fired. We have an interest in increasing rule of law in Ukraine.
The problem is that Biden's son escaped an investigation for his actions in Ukraine because that prosecutor was fired.
Given the issue of Biden's son, Biden was the wrong man to send to Ukraine with the message to fire the prosecutor if the only issue was promoting rule of law. Didn't the choice of Biden to go to Ukraine with the job of getting the prosecutor fired also send the message to Ukraine that the new prosecutor shouldn't continue the case against Biden's son?
Wasn't there an implicit deal just from the fact of sending Biden, with the clear backing of Obama? The investigation into Biden's son was dropped, after all, right? Or at the very least there were no consequences for the amazingly lucrative career of the Biden son in the wake of Biden's role in Ukraine.
I mean, with all the talk of quid pro quos, isn't that a more plausible case for wrongdoing than Ukrainegate 2019?
UPDATE: Of course, if there was no investigation of the company that hired Hunter Biden, I'd have to reconsider that aspect. Each side is saying opposite things and I guess I'm not sure what the reality is.
UPDATE: A Hunter Biden timeline. It looks corrupt. But I'm unclear if there was a Hunter Biden investigation in Ukraine.
The fired Ukrainian prosecutor--who Biden said Ukraine had to fire or lose a large loan--says there was an investigation. But he was fired for corruption. Still, we don't have to trust his word for it. What does Ukraine say now about that question?
UPDATE: Democrats really do seem to be destroying the village in order to "save" it. Sadly, their confidence that no insiders will leak information when they hold the White House is probably well founded.
