Dear Lettered Professors…

If the investigation(s) requested by the President lacked a valid predicate, you would be correct. Unfortunately there were two investigations requested:

  1. The actions of people in the Ukraine with respect to the 2016 election. Ukraine’s courts have already ruled illegal actions were taken to influence the U.S. election. And no, this assertion has neither been “debunked” nor “discredited.” We could have gained clarity on this if Ms. Chalupa, a fact witness to this matter — were called to testify. The Republicans wanted to call her. Adam Schiff denied their request. The ruling of the Ukrainian court establishes a predicate for the President’s request, and a treaty between the two countries spells out terms of cooperation for just this purpose.
  2. And then there is Qui Pro Joe — what spills out of his own mouth establishes the valid predicate for the second request. No one is claiming Hunter Biden did anything wrong — the question is whether he did anything at all for the money he received. If Quid Pro Joe had not held up $1B in aid unless the Ukrainian prosecutor investigating Burisma (not the Bidens) was fired, and if that prosecutor had been able to interview the younger Biden, it would have been very interesting to learn more about the arrangement. Well sunuvabitch… the second investigation had a valid predicate, too.

Your whole argument here is pinned on false premises about what “evidence” is and who ultimately determines our national security interests. And then you conveniently forget to ask whether valid predicates existed for the requested investigations.

But Biden is Trump’s opponent! So does that make him “above the law”? It certainly does not extinguish the valid predicates for the requested investigations.

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store