I don’t know what I’m going to do with myself now that the hearings are over. I’m going to be in quid pro quo withdrawal. How am I going to Schiff into low gear.
I’m sure going to miss hearing whether there was a quid pro quo or not by our witchhunted President. Hopefully there will be breaking news about the latest quid pro quos as I can’t imagine life without them.
First you should know something about me. Sometimes I’m intensely conservative. Then other times I become a flaky liberal.
Depends on the issue. And whether I’ve had one or two glasses of wine and how I’m feeling about life in general.
To show you how politically fluid I am, in the last election I voted for Hillary as Trump’s manner and style struck me as decidedly unpresidential. Now, doing so well in the stock market, and seeing our economy percolate, I’m happy he’s President and frankly I don’t blame him for wanting to know more about corruption in the Ukraine and how Biden and his son benefitted. But was there a quid pro quo?
So you might say that what’s moving me deeper into the Trump camp is this relentless drive by Democrats to impeach him, yet it may be backfiring as I’m reading President Trump has surged in pools recently. The latest Emerson College poll has him leading former Vice President Biden 51%-49% in a hypothetical matchup — a four-point turnaround amid the House Democrats’ impeachhunt.
On the final day of the hearings, stone faced Fiona Hill, the White House’s former top Europe and Russia expert, was so deadpan in her antrumpithy that it was almost comical if it wasn’t so boring.
Sitting beside her, David Holmes, an official in the United States Embassy in Ukraine, allegedly witnessed a key phone call between President Trump and Gordon Sondland, his ambassador to the European Union. Curious. I’ve taken phone calls. Received them, but never witnessed any.
So what were the highlights or lowlights?
- Dr. Hill called Mr. Trump’s demands for Ukraine to announce investigations into Joe Biden and the 2016 elections a “domestic political errand” that diverged from American foreign policy goals. So we’re impeaching a president for running an errand?
- Dr. Hill was asked about a now-famous line from her deposition, in which she quoted John Bolton, the national security adviser at the time, as saying, “I am not part of whatever drug deal Sondland and Mulvaney are cooking up.” She said she took “drug deal” to mean the scheme of exchanging a White House meeting for the investigations Mr. Trump sought, the infamous Quid Pro Quo.
- Both Dr. Hill and Mr. Holmes said that the use of the name “Burisma” — a Ukrainian energy company — was code for investigating the Bidens. Asked whether “anyone involved in Ukraine matters in the spring and summer would understand that as well,” Mr. Holmes had a one-word reply: “Yes.” Ah the quid pro quo!
- Mr. Holmes said he had a “clear impression” that the hold on nearly $400 million in military aid for Ukraine was “likely intended by the president either as an expression of dissatisfaction with the Ukrainians who had not yet agreed to the Burisma/Biden investigation, or as an effort to increase the pressure on them to do so.”
Well I suppose technically a President is not supposed to use foreign aid as a weapon against a political opponent and certainly criticism is warranted and maybe even some censure. But is it an impeachable offense to be so curious and do what you’ve done all your business life—wheel and deal? Quid pro quo?
Can you blame him for wanting to see how corrupt were the Bidens as young Hunter was paid a heck of a lot for something he knew little about?
Anyway, thank goodness the hearings are over and maybe we can soon resolve this matter in the Senate and get on with running our country.
But what will life be like without my buddies quid, pro and quo? I’ll miss ‘em dearly.
Don’t miss my latest book “Love Boat 78” due out next month. After you buy it on Amazon, I’ll see to it that you’ll enjoy reading it. And consider that a quid pro quo. TM
