TRUMP FIGHTS ON - MOVING FROM “NO COLLUSION” TO “NO QUID PRO QUO”.

One of Donald Trump’s undeniable talents is that he has the rare skill of being able to simplify his "policies" into a catchy slogan. He does not confuse the masses with facts, principle, morality or carefully researched arguments.  It boils down to just a crisp phrase which becomes the rallying cry. Examples include, “Build that wall”, “Lock her up”, “Crooked Hillary”….  

With regard to the Mueller Russian investigation which resulted in the uncovering of foreign interference in a Presidential election, widespread corruption, obstruction of justice, criminal convictions of Trump’s inner circle and which would have jailed him as well if he had not been President, the slick response jingle was “no collusion”. The fact that no such legal term as collusion exists and while there was plenty of what is colloquially regarded as “collusion” in Mueller’s detailed enquiry, it did not deter the POTUS one bit. He somehow emerged unscathed with his Attorney General’s collaboration, while spouting out “no collusion” ad nauseam.

The question therefore remains, why can’t “No quid pro quo” in the impeachment enquiry do for him what “no collusion” delivered in the Mueller Russian probe? The answer is it might but it is more likely that Trump will not emerge from this scandal unscathed - the only uncertainty being the extent of the damage to him. 

What, if anything, has changed in the Trump world, that initially allowed Trump to emerge with his base still intact from a swamp of deceit and lies, in what was labelled ”The Russian Enquiry”? Why does he now find himself in deep trouble over just one instance of the way he normally conducts business? One interaction with the Ukrainian President where he asked for a personal favor in return for releasing Congressionally sanctioned aid has supposedly changed the whole landscape resulting in what even his allies recognize as "dire trouble".  

Somehow the defense that the phone call “was perfect” and there was “no quid pro quo” is not resonating as well “collusion delusion”. This fact is underscored by that the normally cautious Nancy Pelosi believes the world changed the day the Whistleblower complaint saw the light of day thus moving her stance from never impeachment to all systems go.

When the history of this sordid period is written much will be made of the tactical genius of the Democratic leader of the House, Nancy Pelosi. In addition to her contribution will be the fact that the moral integrity of the American Constitution was salvaged by career non partisan public servants rather than those Republicans elected to do so.

THE MUELLER INVESTIGATION VERSUS THE IMPEACHMENT

The Mueller Investigation begun within only five months of Trump’s Presidency and the public had not as yet been engulfed by the ongoing toxic lying tweet storm and what it represented. Mueller’s shop was tight lipped and it was only what was happening in plain sight as well as press revelations for the public to feed on. The Trump WhiteHouse had not as yet experienced the avalanche of staff turnover and generally there was more of a mood to give the new POTUS the benefit of the doubt. Also while Mueller was being smeared off the face of the earth he remained mum. The enquiry dragged on for twenty - two months as Trump screeched “no collusion” and everyone became bored stiff. 

The most significant favorable factor for Trump in the whole saga was the entry of plausible, convincing, erudite and “respected” Attorney General William Barr. Barr, whose respectability was given the benefit of the doubt even by the opposition as he was judged to be an institutionalist. The bespectacled jurist whitewashed The President corroborating his mantra, specifically concluding that there was “no collusion”. Even though Mueller released a letter and public statement chastising the Attorney General for misconstruing his five hundred page detailed indictment, the dour Special Counsel was no public match for the suave Barr whose cover up prevailed. 

Barr stuck to his narrative even to re echoing Trump’s slogan “no collusion”,for a full month before releasing a redacted version of Mueller’s report. He thus firmly implanted his erroneous conclusion in the public arena. To this day he has fought in the courts to withhold from Congress the grand jury testimony and other supporting material of the report. Another major factor that helped to turn the whole ongoing saga into a gigantic yawn was the reluctance of Nancy Pelosi to proceed with impeachment and rather fight each Trump Administrative intransigence in never ending battles in the courts. 

This ongoing epic was taking place to the backdrop of Trump controlling both chambers of the legislature and the never ending improvement of the Obama initiated economic recovery, which the incumbent POTUS was naturally taking credit for. 

Then along came the 2018 elections where Trump’s invincibility received a shattering jolt losing over forty - one House Seats. However this afforded Speaker Pelosi a new argument not to proceed with impeachment. She had at least thirty new members who had won where Trump had majorities in 2016 and the POTUS’S base was still solidly against impeachment. She needed to protect her babes so she allowed the investigation into the POTUS to dawdle on in the courts while witnesses refused to give evidence out of fear of Trump, who with Barr was steadily holding off document production as well. “No collusion” had not only survived it was alive and well.

WHAT TURNED NO COLLUSION INTO NO QUID PRO QUO

Then it all changed, the newly elected Democratically controlled House of Representatives received a WhistleBlower complaint that alleged that Trump had attempted to shake down, for personal gain, an American ally, Ukraine, who deperately needed the military aid, promised by a bipartisan Congress, to counter Russia's aggression. The POTUS threatened to withhold the taxpayer money unless President Zelensky did him “a favor” by investigating his most likely 2020 political opponent Joe Biden, digging up dirt on Hillary Clinton and finding evidence that it was Ukraine not Russia who had intervened in the 2016 election. 

In the devastating aftermath of the release of the complaint Trump dumbfounded everyone by providing even more explosive documentary evidence confirming the essential burden of the WhistleBlower, (WB) account. In spite of what was evident in plain sight Trump argued that there was “no quid pro quo”.  You see the other defining skill Trump has is that like in Alice in Wonderland he argues, “That things mean what I say they mean”. 

The WB complaint and a few media revelations had been enough to immediately increase the poll figures on impeachment but more importantly the freshmen Democrats, who had the most to lose with an impeachment enquiry as they had won in 2018 in constituencies where Trump had triumphed, were the ones that gave Pelosi the push to initiate the enquiry. Many had been in the armed services and argued that betraying an ally made their oaths meaningless. They demanded an impeachment enquiry which the Speaker announced. Nancy was still gun-shy about going to the House floor for an overall vote so she decided to have the best of both worlds - an impeachment enquiry without exposing the freshmen congresspeople to a public vote.

Nancy also made the strategic move to stick to just one area for investigation - the July 25th Trump Ukraine phone call - however tempting it was to throw the book at Trump. She chose as her lead investigator the mild mannered Adam Schiff Head of the Intelligence Committee, whose approach was favored by the newbies. 

In the interim the Republican Senate who never really bought Barr’s support of “no collusion” and who were to issue their own bipartisan report that Russia interfered with the 2016 election in Trump’s favor, grew steadily more antagonistic towards the POTUS. They reminded Trump that there were veto proof majorities backing the implemention of Russian sanctions and were furious at the betrayal of Ukraine. 

Not directly related to the WB complaint, but nevertheless in what history will consider a turning point in McConnell's relations with the POTUS, was the Commander in Chief’s sell out of America’s allies, the Kurds, in favor of Russia, Syria, Turkey and even Iran. McConnell wrote an op ed in the Washington Post condemning the move. Rumblings in the Senate surfaced with Mitt Romney emerging as a potential leader against Trump’s leadership, while McConnell made it quite clear that he would run a full scale termination enquiry should the House come up with articles of impeachment.

THE IMPEACHMENT ENQUIRY PROCEEDS

Then there was a procession of witnesses to the Schiff led probe. While most of the evidence was behind closed doors, between released opening statements and the odd leak matters began to look worse and worse for Trump. A key factor in the rapidly deteriorating scenario was that the leader of the “no collusion” defense, William Barr was AWOL in the “no quid pro quo” scenario. The President’s personal lawyer Rudi Giuliani who was implicated himself up to his neck, took over the mantle of protecting the nation’s leader with disastrous results. Giuliani’s woes were multiplied when two of his assistants who were aiding him in the Ukrainian squeeze were arrested while it was leaked that he himself was under a counter intelligence investigation. To add insult to injury, the President’s Chief of Staff Nick Mulvaney who had been designated to quell the storm admitted that there was a quid pro quo in the Ukrainian scandal as that was the way the Trump Administration conducted foreign affairs. 

In one short month the the whole landscape had been altered. 

To help the Democratic cause the courts were finally showing some life and decision after decision was going against Trump in favor of the Legislature’s responsibility to provide oversight over the Presidency. Nancy however strategically had elected not to allow the court process to encumber the Schiff probe. If Trump defied document subpoenas or refused to allow witnesses to testify that would be evidence of obstruction of justice as it had been the case in the Nixon impeachment. She believed that there was more than enough evidence to impeach on the basis of abuse of power. This contention was to be proved over and over again as witnesses defied Trump in response to corroborate the WB complaint.

So without even a public enquiry with Trump’s disapproval rating remaining at fifty- four percent, in spite of a morale boosting successful raid on the leader of ISIS, Nancy was ready to make the next move, a House proposal to conduct impeachment proceedings.

REPUBLICANS BE CAREFUL FOR WHAT YOU WISH FOR 

It is fair to say that that citadel of Trump defense, the  Republicans in the House of Representatives, were shell shocked by the month’s blitzkrieg. As the old legal saying goes when you are beaten by the facts argue the law and vice versa. However when you are losing both the law and the facts pound the table and that was the House Republican legislators did. They hammered that the due process was not being followed. Sensing Nancy’s initial reticence at exposing her vulnerable caucus members to a floor vote they falsely claimed that the enquiry was unconstitutional because the Democrats had not ordered a House Vote to initiate the probe. They wailed further that the smear campaign was being conducted in secret as day long testimony was being held in camera. Republicans were not given an opportunity to question the witnesses they lied as there were over forty members that were in on the proceedings that were given equal rights at cross examination. 

There were no challenges to the facts that the WB had laid out. The only one to argue the issue was the defendant Trump, who against stark reality squealed “no quid pro quo”. 

There was vilification of the witnesses by the President, Fox News and some Republican Congressmen which just proved too much for the House Republican Leadership when those in uniform were being called traitors. Liz Cheney the number three ranking Republican in the House, flanked by numbers one and two condemned the action claiming that the witnesses were patriots and no way  should the Republicans go there. 

So amidst this all Nancy made her next move and gave the Republicans ostensibly what they wished for. There was a full House vote on an impeachment enquiry, there would be a release of closed door testimony transcriptions, there would be televised proceedings of public testimony and the President could be represented by Counsel. In so doing she took away the GOP argument on process, not of course that they admitted it. For those who took no note of history it was the public hearings that finally moved Nixon approval ratings from over seventy percent to twenty percent. Conversely it upped Bill Clinton’s from fifty plus to eighty percent. 

However the Republicans have to put up some sort of an arguement. Are going to have argue the facts? Alternatively are they going to have champion their bizarre interpretation of the law that Trump and Barr have steadfastly stuck to - namely that any enquiry into the President’s activities are illegitimate. They maintain that the Courts decided wrongly in the USA v Nixon and USA v Clinton in that they forced Executive heads to comply with Congress requests. 

At the end of the day the Trump defenders will bandy neither the facts or the law. They may well agree with the facts and contend that what Trump did was neither “a high crime or misdemeanor” warranting termination of a President. Whatever they rationalize Jay H. Ell is prepared to underwrite that the outcome will not push up the Trump approval ratings. If you don’t believe him believe the chief Fox News analyst, Judge Napolitano. The latter said that the proof against the President was incontrovertible and the Republicans should be careful for what they wish for. 

THANKS TO THE BRAVE PUBLIC SERVANTS 

One of the most depressing outcomes of the impeachment enquiry is the self serving cowardice of those elected legislators to uphold the rule of law and the constitution in the face of the overwhelming evidence of the evil and sociopathy of the Trump Presidency. This behavior is juxtaposed with the patriotism and the courage of the public servants who risk their careers and future in fulfilling their responsibility to the values they believed they were serving. 

It is also right to acknowledge those Democrats who had the most to lose with an impeachment enquiry as they had won in 2018 in constituencies where Trump had triumphed in 2016. They were the ones that gave Pelosi the push to initiate the enquiry.

THE BEST OUTCOME

The best outcome of this whole sordid mess would be that both Trump and his accomplice in chief Vice President Mike Spence were thrown out of office and the third in line Nancy Pelosi was declared President and at her inauguration there was the biggest crowd in history!

MEANWHILE BACK AT THE ZOO

William Barr is running around the world trying to prove that Obama spied on Trump and that a bogus Obama agent told the Trump campaign that the Russians were backing him.  He is sticking to the “no collusion” Trump because even he has no stomach for the “no quid pro quo” fantasy.