The Patriot Post® · Demos' Double Standard — Biden's Corrupt Ukraine Quid Pro Quo
“In disquisitions of every kind there are certain primary truths, or first principles, upon which all subsequent reasoning must depend.” —Alexander Hamilton (1788)
I have often observed, “If it weren’t for double standards, Democrats wouldn’t have any.” I’m not sure who said it first, but it frequently bears repeating.
Case in point would be then-Vice President Joe Biden’s billion dollar Ukraine quid pro quo in 2015 to protect his son Hunter Biden from a Ukrainian inquiry regarding the graft he was collecting from a Ukrainian company, as a conduit to influence the old man. And then there is the more recent case involving the 2018 Durbin-Leahy-Menendez letter to Ukrainian officials, which I mentioned two weeks ago in “Democrat Obstruction 2.0.”
That column was a rebuttal to Demo Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s announcement of the Democrat Party’s 2020 campaign platform — a coup d'etat masquerading as an impeachment to overthrow the American people’s lawful election of Donald Trump — or at least to prevent his reelection.
After the colossal failure of their first coup attempt orchestrated by a handful of leftist deep-state operatives in the FBI and CIA, in August of this year, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff used intermediaries to collude with another Democrat deep-stater, a CIA “whistleblower,” to set Trump up again. For that reason, here is the list of witnesses that should top the Demos’ impeachment show.
Schiff and his shills claim that last July, Trump requested that Ukrainian officials investigate the aforementioned activities of Joe Biden and his son Hunter, or he would withhold $391 million in American aid. I would argue that Trump was well within his authority to insist that Ukraine conduct that investigation. However, Schiff is more focused on whether or not Trump demanded that the investigation be announced, claiming that would constitute inviting a foreign government to criticize a 2020 political opponent, and thus aid Trump’s campaign.
Apparently, young Hunter collected significant “cash benefits,” both from Ukraine and China, when the old man was Barack Obama’s vice president, and Democrats are crying foul that our nation’s current chief executive had the audacity to ask then-newly elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to look into that and other corruption matters. (We now know that five months before the call from Trump, Ukrainian prosecutors were already investigating Hunter Biden’s Burisma outfit.)
When Joe Biden was asked why his son received an $80,000-per-month check for sitting on the board of Burisma – at the same time the then-VP was in charge of our policy in Ukraine, he responded, “‘Cause he’s a very bright guy.”
The most amusing correspondence in this latest Demo charade is a letter from Pelosi to House Republican Leader Kevin McCarthy, in which she laughably cites her “solemn oath to support and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic.” Pelosi also insisted, “Our Founders were specifically intent on ensuring that foreign entities did not undermine the integrity of our elections.” As if her reference “to support and defend” our Constitution weren’t enough of an eye-roller, she concludes, “We hope you and other Republicans share our commitment to following the facts, upholding the Constitution, protecting our national security, and defending the integrity of our elections at such a serious moment in our nation’s history.”
Ah, yes, Democrats “upholding the Constitution.”
So, what about Biden’s BILLION dollar quid pro quo with Ukraine?
Here is Joe Biden in 2018, on the record, bragging about getting Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin fired in 2015, to protect Hunter Biden.
BIDEN: I got Ukraine. And I remember going over convincing our team … that we should be providing for loan guarantees. … I was … supposed to announce that there was another billion-dollar loan guarantee. And I had gotten a commitment from [Petro] Poroshenko and from [Arseniy] Yatsenyuk that they would take action against the state prosecutor, and they didn’t. So … they were walking out to a press conference, and I said, “No, I said I’m not going to — we’re not going to give you the billion dollars.” They said, “You have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said.” I said, “Call him.” I said, “I’m telling you, you’re not getting the billion dollars.” I said, “You’re not getting the billion, and I’m going to be leaving here—” and I think it was what, six hours. I looked. I said, “I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.” Well, son of a b—h. He got fired.
Oooops! Again in Joe Biden’s own words: “You’re not getting the billion, and I’m going to be leaving here … in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.”
Regarding the firing of Shokin, even The New York Times asserted, “Among those who had a stake in the outcome was Hunter Biden … who at the time was on the board of an energy company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch who had been in the sights of the fired prosecutor general.”
That, despite Joe Biden’s repeated claim, “I have never spoken to my son about his overseas business dealings,” in the Ukraine. (Watch Biden’s denial.)
Biden was quick to reverse the charges: “Here’s what I know. Trump should be investigated. You should be looking at Trump.”
Just move along, nothing to see here!
And what about this trio of Democrat Senators who will surely vote to convict Trump when the impeachment charade reaches the Senate?
Once again, exemplifying the Demos’ double standard in this dustup is a correspondence composed on official U.S. Senate letterhead, addressed to then-Ukrainian Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko and signed by Demo Sens. Richard Durbin (IL), Patrick Leahy (VT), and Robert Menendez (NJ).
These Demo dupes made clear that they were “strong advocates for a robust and close relationship with Ukraine” before strong-arming Lutsenko to do as they said. In regard to their fake Russian-collusion delusion to take down President Trump, the Demos complained, “We … are disappointed that some in Kyiv appear to have cast aside these [democratic] principles to avoid the ire of President Trump.” They then demanded that Lutsenko “reverse course and halt any efforts to impede cooperation with this important [Mueller] investigation.”
In other words, these three senior Democrat senators were demanding that the Ukrainian government help find some shred of evidence to back up their “Russian collusion with Trump” investigation or risk the loss of U.S. support for Ukraine.
Or, in still other words, a “quid pro quo”! Sound familiar?
As political analyst Marc A. Thiessen pointedly asks, “It’s okay for Democratic senators to encourage Ukraine to investigate Trump, but it’s not okay for the president to allegedly encourage Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden?”
When reviewing the NYT’s fact checkers regarding the clear double standard that it’s fair for Democrats to pressure Ukraine for dirt on Trump, but foul for Trump to ask questions about corruption, including that involving the Bidens, there’s an interesting revelation.
Here’s how the Times spun it: “The three Democratic senators did write a letter to Yuriy Lutsenko, then Ukraine’s prosecutor general, in May 2018. Mr. Trump’s claim of an implied ultimatum is a matter of interpretation but the letter does not include an overt threat of withholding foreign aid.”
But the Times does concede that “direct mention of foreign aid was in relation to … cooperation with Mr. Mueller’s investigation.” Which is the very definition of a quid pro quo!
Again, to be clear, The New York Times concluded that the “implied ultimatum” was “a matter of interpretation,” and that the Demos’ letter did mention foreign aid “in relation to” Mueller’s investigation, but that did not constitute an “overt threat of withholding aid.” Got that?
Thus, as for Trump’s communication with his Ukrainian counterpart, there is no “overt threat” of withholding aid, and any “implied ultimatum” is “a matter of interpretation.” Thus, no quid pro quo.
But Democrats are using their “interpretation” of an “implied ultimatum” as the basis for impeaching Trump and, with the help of their MSM publicists, are rallying considerable public support.
A double standard? Not if you’re a Democrat! Democrats embrace hypocrisy as if it was the highest of political character traits.
And on the subject of Demo double standards regarding quid pro quos, when Hillary Clinton was Secretary of State, she opposed sanctions on Russia at the same time Bill Clinton was being paid $500,000 to give a speech to the Russian bank Renaissance Capital – which was tied to the fraud case leading to the Magnitsky Act sanctions. Notably, after Bill Clinton was paid, Vladimir Putin called him to express his appreciation. In other words, she personally gained from her favor to Russia, but…no quid pro quo here, nothing to see, move along.
As it stands today, President Trump has appropriately “declined” the Democrats’ invitation to participate in their impeachment hoax.
He has now ordered his AG, William Barr, to investigate Hillary Clinton’s connection to Ukraine and the fake dossier. “The dossier was a disgrace,” Trump said. “Now it has been proven to be fake. They tried to release it before the election to affect the election… I would like the Attorney General to find out what’s going on. Because we are investigating corruption. This should never happen to our country again and that should never happen to another president again.”
Let me state again – the actions of these Democrat deep-state operatives is much more serious and consequential than those which led to Richard Nixon’s impeachment. This was, in effect, a government conspiracy to overthrow the Trump administration, a coup d'etat. And Trump’s impeachment is a diversionary political tactic, which has trivialized the constitutional impeachment authority of Congress.
(Regarding the so-called “whistleblower,” The Patriot is one of very few frontline conservative organizations to call the Democrat Party’s collaboration with deep-state bureaucrats to undermine and overthrow the election of Donald Trump, what it is. We have been deliberate and mindful in calling their actions a “Coup d'Etat.” As a matter of fact, the lawyer collaborating with the so-called “whistleblower,” Mark Zaid, also called it what it was and remains, days after President Trump took office. After Trump fired Obama holdover, Acting Attorney General Sally Yates, Zaid declared on his social media account, “#coup has started. First of many steps. #rebellion. #impeachment will follow ultimately.” When Yates replacement was named, Zaid again declared, “#coup has started. As one falls, two more will take their place. #rebellion #impeachment.” He followed that with: “Johnson (1868), Nixon (1973), Clinton (1998) impeachment hearings. Next up @realDonaldTrump (2017).” And on Watergate he insisted: “45 years from now we might be recalling stories regarding the impeachment of @realDonaldTrump. I’ll be old, but will be worth the wait.” Insisting, “Since Jan 20th, I would much rather be in Canada,” he added, “It’s very scary. We will get rid of [Trump], and this country is strong enough to survive even him and his supporters. We have to.” And remarkably, he declared, “I predict @CNN will play a key role in @realDonaldTrump not finishing out his full term as president.”)
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776