The appropriate path forward on this central issue is to start by defining the proper and acceptable use of power. We all know what power is. How did the founders expect power to be exercised by the government?
For the greater good. To help people. To advance the moral and ethical stature of Americans as a whole and, by extension, the world at large. To set a higher standard, not just for American citizens but for democratic nations everywhere.
Except, in this case, we’re talking about the abuse of power by the executive branch. Congress passes laws to collect taxes. Those monies are given to the executive branch, which is then expected to spend that money per laws duly enacted by Congress (which, in turn, has the power of oversight to ensure the money is spent as it was mandated).
So, the exercise of power involves spending money according to the law. None of the lofty moral ambitions enumerated above come into play. That is, the executive branch is responsible for spending the money allocated to it in order the further the goals and needs as enumerated by congressional mandates.
Devoting government money and resources in order to advance a political ambition is, by definition, an abusive act. Doing so to advance a personal ambition is even more of an abuse. Doing so by the chief executive himself, who is rightfully held to the highest possible standard, is an even higher order of magnitude of abuse. Doing all three at once is more serious still.
Now, there has been “abuse creep” in Washington. For example, it’s technically an abuse of fiscal power to spend over the budgeted amount – over that collected by taxes. However, both sides have agreed to do just that for so long it’s not even thought of as an abuse of the power by our leaders.
Presidents regularly abuse their fiscal power in many small ways, holding up funding for Planned Parenthood, diverting funds to earmarks, or not enforcing Title IV regulations uniformly. All of these constant – expected! – abuses of fiscal power have combined to erode the standard itself.
This erosion of moral and ethical standards reached its apex in the impeachment, where the general facts of the Ukraine shakedown were tacitly accepted by all, but a majority believed they were not impeachable offenses. How did that happen?
Follow the money, roughly $400 million worth.
The first issue here is that $400 million might not seem like much to a nation with a $20 trillion GDP, but Ukraine’s GDP is $110 billion. That means the relative severity of the offense, in ”Washington dollars,” is $80 billion. That’s its intrinsic value to Ukraine and the figure that matters here.
In other words, would members of Congress consider it an abuse of power if the chief executive withheld $80 billion to, as an example, cited in the debate, a state needing it for hurricane relief – until the governor endorsed the President’s candidate for office?
The second issue is how that money was used. Not having that money, would the victim being shaken down just lose sleep, or have to live with a higher thermostat setting, miss 200 calories worth of food a day – or die?
Would a city go without water to keep their lawns green, or not be able to pick up trash for a month – or be taken over by a ruthless totalitarian regime that would obliterate their fledgling democracy?
Both of these comparisons go to the idea of severity. How do you pose the action undertaken by the President in terms that can be understood by Congress? Let’s say Alaska was under attack by the Russians. They need $80 billion to fight back the naval assault on their shores.
The attack is already underway. Alaskans have already died. The Russians have already occupied territory the size of Maryland. More Alaskans will die without the promised military aid.
The lawyers for the defense argued that the Ukraine money was only delayed for six weeks or so and that it was money in the pipeline and wouldn’t have arrived for some months anyway. Where’s the harm?
Again, how to pose his “harm” issue in terms that Congress can relate to. We need an example that has significant symbolism. How do you, members of Congress, feel when Iraqis burn our flag? We spent over $1 trillion winning their freedom for them, and it cost our nation 40,000 dead or wounded American soldiers. Do you worry about our troops still in-country when Iraqis are burning the stars and stripes? Do you think seeing that’s disheartening to our troops? What if all communications were cut off to those same soldiers. Can you imagine yourself in their place? Would you be terrified? Would you feel abandoned in your hour of need?
Do you empathize with the wounds our soldiers receive after the Iraqis riot and rampage their base, waving their burning flags of defiance? Or do you just call their severe injuries “headaches” and get back to your golf game.
And, no, the Ukrainians aren’t just a small ally fighting an insignificant conflict with a second-rate enemy. They’re fighting to hold the line at Gettysburg. They’re the Hessian volunteers who made the difference between winning and losing our Revolutionary War. Their loss of Crimea was the Pearl Harbor of the New World Order. Turning our backs on them is tantamount to telegraphing to Hitler the exact time and place for our D Day landings in Normandy.
If we don’t stand by Ukraine in its hour of need, Taiwan knows we won’t honor our commitments to defend them against aggression by China. Venezuela knows they can count on Russia more than on us. Africa is driven even further into the arms of China. If we abandon Ukraine, we abandon all the goodwill earned by generations of our troops in our military bases and our military alliances worldwide.
Writing off a corrupt act by the President of the United States against the sovereign state of Ukraine, in the middle of their own war against corruption, sends them a clear message: we don’t care.
Worse yet, it tells them: we’re on the side of corruption. Cave in to the Russian schemes to subvert your freedom or else.
Resistance against Russia is futile.
You will be assimilated.