Mona Charen Exemplifies NeverTrumpers’ Straw Grasping

[mystery-ak]

Mona Charen Exemplifies NeverTrumpers’ Straw Grasping

The conservative columnist tags Trump’s Republican defenders with hypocrisy. But her argument doesn’t hold up.

Elad Vaida
- November 5th, 2019


Mona Charen is at it again. In an article from last week titled “Impeachment for Thee but Not for Me,” she argues that Republicans who supported President Clinton’s impeachment but now defend President Trump against spurious impeachment charges are hypocrites. According to her twisted logic, supporting Trump but bashing Clinton means you’re trying to have your cake and eat it, too.

Of course, Charen doesn’t say directly she supports impeachment, but it’s difficult to avoid that conclusion. She sees as “Orwellian” Trump’s forcing of Republicans “to insist, with him, that black is white.” And she defends Bill Clinton, who “by acknowledging his lie . . . at least permitted the Democrats who supported him to condemn his behavior as wrong.”

Among those she condemns for insisting that “black is white” are U.S. Representative Jim Sensenbrenner (R-Wis.), who in 1998-1999 condemned Clinton for putting himself “above the law, not once, not twice, but repeatedly,” but today defends Trump against impeachment because “he did not offer a quid pro quo to the president of Ukraine for any of this information.”

Charen also takes shots at Senator Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) who heartily supported Clinton’s impeachment, but recently introduced a resolution condemning the current impeachment inquiry on the “risible” grounds “that it denies ‘due process’ to the president.”

more
https://amgreatness.com/2019/11/05/mona-charen-exemplifies-nevertrumpers-straw-grasping/

[Jazzhead]

 I think it is time for the President's defenders to be more honest and forward-thinking in their arguments -  that there was at  least an implicit quid pro quo extended to the Ukrainians but it is not an impeachable offense.   

 I'd like to know more about the nature of the aid that Congress voted on -  was the aid approved subject to discretion afforded to the State or Defense Department to determine how and when it would be provided?   I somehow doubt that Congress expected that we'd simply write a check.   I have no issue with the general concept that funds to a foreign nation be subject to strings when that nation has a long history of corruption. 

 I also don't think it is necessarily, or even probably, the case that aid was held up to "help the President's re-election", as has so often been alleged.    Corruption in Ukraine has long been a U.S. concern,  and it appears on the surface at least that a major Ukrainian corporation hired Hunter Biden specifically to curry favor with the then-Vice President whose portfolio specifically included addressing Ukrainian corruption.    Put another way,  why should Biden's activities as Vice President be shielded from scrutiny merely because he's now running for President?     

[sneakypete]

Put another way,  why should Biden's activities as Vice President be shielded from scrutiny merely because he's now running for President?     

@Jazzhead

ESPECIALLY when the sitting President is being accused of the same things that it is provable that Biden did,yet not a single soul in the Dim Party seems to be concerned about this.

Then again,Trump may just be giving them enough rope to hang themselves before he holds a news conference and lays out the proof of the guilt of Uncle Joe and Baby Boy Hunter,and compares that TRUTH to the mere accusations of the Biden followers and the DNC.

Don't forget,Trump is NOT your standard "May I PLEASE have another,SIR?" Republican President. He doesn't allow anyone to get away with attacking him and he doesn't apologize for things he hasn't done. Or even the things he HAS done. He's a fighter,and you are going to get cuts and bruises if you start a fight with him.

The Dims were probably expecting another Boy Jorge,and are likely to find out they are dealing with Attila the Hun instead.

[XenaLee]

I think it is time for the President's defenders to be more honest and forward-thinking in their arguments -  that there was at  least an implicit quid pro quo extended to the Ukrainians but it is not an impeachable offense.   

 I'd like to know more about the nature of the aid that Congress voted on -  was the aid approved subject to discretion afforded to the State or Defense Department to determine how and when it would be provided?   I somehow doubt that Congress expected that we'd simply write a check.   I have no issue with the general concept that funds to a foreign nation be subject to strings when that nation has a long history of corruption. 

 I also don't think it is necessarily, or even probably, the case that aid was held up to "help the President's re-election", as has so often been alleged.    Corruption in Ukraine has long been a U.S. concern,  and it appears on the surface at least that a major Ukrainian corporation hired Hunter Biden specifically to curry favor with the then-Vice President whose portfolio specifically included addressing Ukrainian corruption.    Put another way,  why should Biden's activities as Vice President be shielded from scrutiny merely because he's now running for President?     

Asking an ally to investigate their own frigging corruption....that also happens to impact upon our elections (the 2016 election) and/or our political process is not a "quid pro quo".  It should be a given and a no-brainer.  Especially since there's a treaty with Ukraine addressing such cooperative investigations of corruption.  A treaty that has been in place way longer than Trump has been in office.   I mean.... it's not like Trump threatened to withhold $$$ if they didn't fire someone he wanted fired, after all.   

[PeteS in CA]

Clinton was impeached for lying in a civil lawsuit, more commonly known as perjury. While not removed from office, Clinton lost his license to practice law in Arkansas because of it. Charen obscures/ignores this simple fact, though she probably pointed it out very clearly and bluntly, 20 years ago.

As for Trump, well, the Dems are still fishing to find something they can label a crime.

[sneakypete]

As for Trump, well, the Dems are still fishing to find something they can label a crime.

@PeteS in CA

It's just a matter of time before they pass a new law that makes "being Trump" a felony,and then convict him of that.