Wondering on Wednesday (v192)

Ready... set... wonder! 

I spent the day listening to the arguments for and against impeaching Donald Trump and honestly my head is spinning. There's SO much to wonder about...

For example, I wonder why I can find no evidence that Ukraine President Zelensky met with president Trump at the White House? That was the meeting Zelensky requested, and that was the meeting that was held up pending the announcement of the investigation into the Bidens, and that is the meeting that has never happened.

Oh sure - they met at the UN for a while, but does that, in anyone's mind, have the same benefit for the former TV-star turned President as a face-to-face meeting in the Oval Office of the White House with the original Apprentice president? 

Not only that, but since the United Republican Party (as the president called it) despises the United Nations and what it stands for, I find it hard to believe that they can even pretend with a straight face that meeting between the two presidents in that venue came close to satisfying Zelensky's request for a White House meeting, or for a trip by the president to Ukraine.  

For example, I wonder why all the lawyers, former prosecutors and former judges on the Republican side of the aisle are so focused on finding legal crimes as defined in the criminal code? Nothing in the impeachment section of the Constitution requires actual legal crimes - two crimes are mentioned - bribery and treason - but 'high crimes and misdemeanors' is not a term meant to describe violations of law, those words define political crimes against the people of the United States of America. 

The Republicans have accused the Democrats of newly discovering the Constitution, for the purposes of impeachment and that they never pay any attention to the founding documents otherwise. One could reasonably wonder why the Republicans, who thump their chests about being the party of constitutionally-limited government and their most-favored amendments, have never read the lengthy material on impeachment. Perhaps it's the same lack of interest that has prevented so many of them from reading the Mueller Report. 

For example, I'm having a hard time getting my arms around why supporting impeachment is merely an act of obedience to the party's leadership and is therefore an act of blatant partisanship, but standing in lockstep in opposition to impeachment is not also merely an act of obedience and party fealty?

The assumption that without exception, Democrats are simply playing a game of follow the leader, and that none of them are acting in accordance with their oath of office, their conscience, or even the will of their constituents, is absurd. 

For example, I wonder why it took so long for anyone to mention that all of the military aid still hasn't been released to Ukraine? The Republicans have repeated countless times today that the aid was released and therefore there's nothing wrong with anything the president did, but the Pentagon is still sitting on some $20 million of it, ostensibly for updated cost estimates or some tomfoolery.

Similarly, I heard little mention of any concern with corruption in the first two years of the Trump presidency, when aid was sent without delay to Ukraine - before the corruption-fighting Zelensky was elected. And I wonder, does that make sense? 

And does withholding the aid months after your own administration had approved releasing it, certifying that Ukraine was making progress on corruption, make any sense at all, I wonder? 

For example, I wonder how the Republicans can ignore all of the evidence that the president himself has provided that supports his abuse of office? The best part, which I didn't hear anyone mention (and that saddens me) was when he was asked if he had ever asked any foreign leader to investigate corruption involving anyone who was not a political rival. Trump couldn't answer the question, saying (in effect) that they'd have to look into that. I don't believe he's ever identified a single instance of that occurring. Is there more that needs to be understood about what's happening here?

For example, to each person who has said that the people - not elected officials - have the right to get rid of a president, I wonder how they do not realize that they were sent there by the people to fulfill their oversight responsibilities? We, the people, do not have the power to impeach the president - we elect the people who do have that power, and we expect them to use it when necessary.  

I also wonder how late into a presidency would it be acceptable to have an impeachment vote? If we're too close to the election now, 10 months away, what would the Republicans find acceptable? During the first year? During the second year? Earlier in the third year? Never at all, as long as the president is a member of their party? I'm a cynic, and assume the latter timeframe would be the most acceptable. 

And I would ask, how do these folks not recognize that the makeup of the Congress is very different now than it was when the president lost the popular vote and won the Electoral College vote (by a count that he still cannot get right?) In 2018, the Democrats won the majority, gaining 41 seats - so the assumption that the will of the people is still that Trump should be president is not a foregone conclusion, and shouldn't be taken as such.

For example, I wonder if the Democrats are taking to heart the number of times they collectively have been accused of favoring impeachment from the date of the election, a goal they have arrived at today. 

All of the times they stood in front of microphones over the past nearly three years are out there, as readily available fodder, to diminish the arguments made for actually putting forth the articles of impeachment that will be voted on at the end of all of this debate. The multiple recitations of all of those instances from members new and old, leaders and non-leaders, are not falling on deaf ears, I can assure you.  

For example, how long will we have to wait to see the actual transcript of the July 25th call, I wonder? 

We heard repeatedly today about the "this is not a transcript" memorandum of the call but we have yet to see the real transcript, and we also have no idea what else has been placed on the secret server where, apparently, the president's most inflammatory and potentially dangerous words are tucked away, out of sight.

For example, wouldn't it be sad if we were to forget how we got here, and that it would have been impossible for president Trump to be in a position to demand an investigation into Joe and Hunter Biden had Hunter Biden not been given a job, for which he was completely unqualified, by a foreign company located in a country in his father's vice-presidential portfolio?

I am not blaming the Bidens for Trump's abuse of power - not in the least. I'm as sure as the day is long that there would have been, and will be, another example of that before we are done with him and his antics. 

But I'm not blind to the optics of the younger Biden's job offer, which we all know only happened because the elder Biden was the Vice President. And no one else should be blind to that, either. 

I wonder, indeed I do, about all of this, and more.