The House Intelligence Committee Impeachment Inquiry wrapped up Thursday with the testimony of Dr. Fiona Hill, an NSC expert on Russian Affairs and David Holmes, a Diplomat based at the US Embassy in Kiev, Ukraine. Being the final witnesses they were expected to put the nail in the coffin, so to speak, a provide ample knowledge of Trump’s intentions. However, it is unclear if their testimony was persuasive at all. After the session and throughout Friday, both Parties were claiming victory. I really don’t think anyone on either side was truly moved to take a new position.
While Democrats berate Republicans over a claim Ukraine was requested to provide dirty information on Trump by operatives of the DNC, Republicans continue to claim the process was unfair, they were unable to question witnesses who may have had clarifying information, etc. AMAC has a reprint story from Conservative Daily News outlining how the entire impeachment proceeding has been manufactured in a last-ditch effort to oust the President. While The National Interest has a story questioning whether Dr. Hill’s testimony was the slam dunk needed by Democrats. While both stories may be of interest, particularly to conservatives, I don’t believe either would ever be read by a liberal Democrat.
To my point of view, no story has captured what I found to be the most interesting part of the Impeachment Inquiry. Dr. Hill is an extremely articulate individual. I believe she has remained non-partisan in her views. However, I also believe that like many other bureaucrats she had her own personal believes about what needed to be done in Ukraine and felt what she understood to be happening was not the correct way to carry out foreign policy. The fact is, the Constitution relegates the formation of and the implementation of foreign policy to the President of the United States. Not to bureaucrats, whether career or appointed nor to Congress. Bureaucrats and diplomats are there to carry out the policies outlined by the President. However misguided they may believe them to be.
What was missed
The point Dr. Hill made that has been completely missed by the media and Congress was, “I don’t believe there should be any interference of any kind in our election. I think it was unfair for people to already call the election and to make an attack, also, on candidate Trump and on President Trump. I know that this has put a huge cloud over this presidency and also over our whole democratic system. … Dr. Wenstrup, it was very eloquent and very moving about your service and trying to bring us together again as Americans. We need to be together again in 2020 so the American people can make a choice about the future and make their vote in a presidential election without any fear that this is being interfered in from any quarter whatsoever.”
I see this as being a rebuke of both parties in Congress for what they have been doing. Democrats are trying to influence the outcome of the 2020 election by ensuring Trump remains under a cloud of suspicion and he is thoroughly discredited. They berate President Trump for what they view as election interference and cannot see how they are interfering in the process. The big difference being, what they accuse Trump of took place in July and what they are doing has been ongoing since he was elected in 2016. Republicans have allowed themselves to fall in to the Democrats trap initially because many of them did not support Trump and almost hoped he would be removed. But as time went on and Trump with stood the onslaught until this year, they have been forced to come to his assistance because if Trump were ousted or to lose the election many of them would likely lose as well. This is why they have poorly articulated a defence for Trump, they are not true believers.
As Dr. Hill says, Americans deserve to be able to go to the polls and cast their vote for whomever they choose without all of the background noise being created by Democrats and Republicans alike. The media should keep their opinons to themselves and not spin every story that comes out to conform with their particular opinion.
