I continue to be amazed at the impeachment stories and misconceptions that abound today in print media and television news. What we are missing in the mainstream media is objective reporting, reasoned analysis, and challenging questions. I ask myself why?
This morning I read an opinion piece by Ms. Peggy Noonan in the November 23/24 Wall Street Journal. The title of her opinion piece is “Trump’s Defenders Have No Defense.”
I could not let her column go unanswered. Here are my thoughts. I will provide a statement or phrase from Ms. Noonan’s column and then comment on it from my perspective. I will number her comments for ease of reference. Any words or statements in bold are my emphasis.
Extracts From Ms. Noonan’s Opinion Piece & My Comments
1. “Almost everything in the impeachment hearings this week fleshed out and backed up the charge that President Trump muscled Ukraine for political gain.”
Comment: This statement is unequivocally not true. The questions raised by Messrs. Jordan and Castor (for example) indicated that there were (are) many gaps in the testimony of Messrs. Taylor, Kent, and Sondland, and even Lieutenant Colonel Vindman. Moreover, Messrs. Taylor, Kent, and Sondland presented only hearsay testimony for the most part. And, in the case of Mr. Sondland, he presumed or concluded what he thought the back story was. It is clear to any objective reader that his understanding was incorrect.
2. “The pending question is what precisely the House and its Democratic majority will decide to include in the articles of impeachment, what statutes or standards they will assert the president violated.”
Comment: I do not believe President Trump violated any statutes, at least based on the call transcript and the testimony given so far. I do not understand what standards Ms. Noonan is referring to. Still, she, better than most, should know that presidents have considerable leeway in what they say to foreign leaders. Or, has she forgotten what Presidents Roosevelt, Truman, Kennedy, Johnson, Nixon, Carter, Bush, Clinton, and Obama did on their respective watches. To hold President Trump to a higher moral or ex post facto standard is simply ludicrous.
3. “It was his (Ambassador Sondland) third try at truthful sworn testimony and it was completely believable. It was kind of the ballgame.”
Comment: Ms. Noonan’s statement on its face is really quite silly, and I am surprised she wrote such a sentence. Also, Ms. Noonan forgets to mention that Mr. Sondland read a 23-page opening statement. Why witnesses require an opening statement, no one seems to question or challenge? These opening statements are clearly self-serving and obfuscate rather than clarify.
In his opening statement, Mr. Sondland neglected to reveal a communication he had with President Trump. In this communication, President Trump explicitly stated he wanted nothing from President Zelensky, except for him to do the right thing. To me, that is an exculpatory statement that changes the ballgame in President Trump’s favor. And when queried why he did not include this information in his 23-page statement, he stated that he did not have room. Is such a statement believable?
4. “On Thursday, Fiona Hill, the former White House Russia expert, was all business, a serious woman you don’t want to mess with. She reoriented things, warning that those who excuse or don’t wish to see Russian propaganda efforts against America, and targeting its elections, are missing the obvious. The suspicion of the president and his allies that Ukraine is the great culprit in the 2016 election is a ‘fictional narrative.‘”
Comment: Apparently, President Obama was missing the obvious when he stated in October 2016 that no one could interfere with American elections, because the American election system is so decentralized. As an aside, I have not seen any proof or evidence from any source that conclusively proves the Russians interfered with the 2016 Election and substantively or materially affected it. Conversely, as to the “fictional narrative” of the Ukrainian interference, how does Ms. Hill know this. In addition, she is one data point. No serious judgments should be made based on the testimony of one witness, no matter how “expert.” I believe there must always be corroboration from other witnesses. Finally, why is Ms. Hill considered an expert on Russia? In my experience, experts are few and far between. Moreover, in my experience, individuals who claim the status of experts usually are not.
5. “It became clear in a new and public way that pretty much everyone around the president has been forced for three years to work around his poor judgment and unpredictability in order to do their jobs.”
Comment: How did it become clear in a new and public way? What is the basis for writing such a statement? How can Ms. Noonan write that pretty much everyone was forced to work around his poor judgment and unpredictability? Forced, how? Anyone could easily walk away and quit at any time. What are examples of the President’s poor judgment? If anything, the so-called “respectable diplomats” in the State Department with their “sober testimony” have demonstrated poor judgment, almost since the end of World War II.
Here’s a question for Ms. Noonan to answer: “How many people were killed in the 28 years that Messrs. Bush, Clinton, Bush, and Obama were president versus the three years of President Trump’s administration and how many errors in judgment were made by these four presidents compared to President Trump. I have only to mention the invasion of Iraq as evidence of egregious poor judgment on the part of Bush 43. By any objective measure, President Trump has clearly the best record of the five so far.
6. “But we saw how damaging this is, how ultimately destructive, not only to coherence and respectability but to the president himself.”
“They were no match for his unpredictability and resentments, which at any moment could undo anything.“
Comment: These statements are just empty rhetoric, not in the classical sense of rhetoric but rather in today’s misused meaning. How did we see how damaging this was? Damaging in what sense and to whom? Ultimately destructive of what or whom? Coherence and respectability of what? What resentments? Could undo anything, really! Ms. Noonan’s editor must be asleep at his or her desk.
7. “As to the impeachment itself, the case has been so clearly made you wonder what exactly the Senate will be left doing. How will they hold a lengthy trial with a case this clear?
“A full-blown trial on charges most everyone will believe are true.”
Comment: I would submit that the case has not been made. I believe the Senate will bring mature judgment to the process if articles of impeachment are submitted. The trial will be short-lived, and the Senate will deliver its verdict: Not proved. All that has gone before is just political theater, based on hearsay testimony and smoke-and-mirrors evidence.
Most everyone does not believe the charges are true.
Points to Ponder + Questions for Consideration
Let me close by making a few statements and asking a few relevant questions that occur to me:
a. Why does not Ms. Noonan ever mention or highlight the nefarious behavior of Congressman Schiff and other Democrats who have called for the impeachment of President Trump, even before he was inaugurated? Clearly, Mr. Schiff’s actions and public statements over the last three years have been less than honorable and he has been economical with the truth, as philosophers are wont to say.
b. What individuals were on the July 25 call with President Zelensky and why were they on the call? Did they take notes? Did President Trump approve all listeners on the call? If not, who did approve the listeners on the call?
c. If Lieutenant Colonel Vindman were on the call, why was he on the call? Did he take notes or is his testimony based solely on memory?
d. Who were the note-takers? Where are the notes? I have been the only recorder at high-level, corporate meetings and on teleconferencing calls. Taking notes is a very challenging task. Not everyone is good at it. By the way, any summaries are always edited by one or more people to correct and clarify the substance of the meeting or call.
e. When people make statements such as “I was surprised by what was said on the call” or “the call was inappropriate,” those statements should be augmented or clarified with a “why” statement.
f. Why cannot the issue of Hunter Biden be discussed? His involvement with Burisma was a conflict of interest.
g. Who was the individual who contacted the whistleblower who filed the complaint? Why would the whistleblower accept the comments of this individual without corroboration? What was the motivation of these two individuals?
h. Why did former Vice President Biden find it necessary to threaten the Ukrainian Government with withholding a billion dollars in funding unless a specific prosecutor was fired? What was Mr. Biden’s rationale for doing so? Surely, this one action to reduce corruption in Ukraine was not commensurate with a billion dollars. That is not logical or rational.
Special Internal Link to Books & Products: https://whitebeardwisdom.com/books-products-2/
Special Outbound Link to The Asian Antiquarian: https://theasianantiquarian.com/
