Cal Thomas: Ukraine, a political rerun |
Featured Commentary

Cal Thomas: Ukraine, a political rerun

Cal Thomas
President Trump speaks during a meeting with Finnish President Sauli Niinisto in the Oval Office of the White House Oct. 2.

Back when reruns were a staple of summer programming, television networks aired repeats of their programs, giving viewers another opportunity to see what they had already seen. Democratic politicians are now conducting their own version of reruns.

The same bunch who brought us the failed Russian “collusion” story, the sliming of Justice Brett Kavanaugh, and charges that President Trump is a racist (which also failed, given the spectacular increase in minority employment), are now rerunning the same show with different characters.

According to a still anonymous “whistleblower” who wrote a multi-page “complaint” about a phone call between Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky that he or she heard about secondhand from other unnamed U.S. officials, Trump held back military aid to Ukraine until “dirt” on Joe Biden and his son Hunter could be provided. Hunter Biden served on the board of Burisma, a Ukrainian gas company, which paid him $3.1 million over a 16-month period. This when his father was vice president of the United States and, according to Bloomberg, pursuing “… an anti-corruption policy in Ukraine … that included a call for the resignation of the country’s top prosecutor who had previously investigated Burisma.”

Ukraine’s prosecutor general has since come out and said that there is no evidence of wrongdoing by U.S. Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden or his son, but something doesn’t pass the smell test.

The New York Times reports the whistleblower is a CIA agent who at one time was on loan to the White House. I have known several CIA agents and two directors of the CIA — George H.W. Bush and Porter Goss — and none was known for the kind of prose contained in the complaint. The document appears to have been written by a team of lawyers with a political objective, namely impeachment of the president.

This is a view shared by Fred Fleitz, president of the Center for Security Policy, a conservative, Washington, D.C.-based think tank. Fleitz is also a former deputy assistant to Trump and to the chief of staff of the National Security Council (NSC).

Writing in The New York Post, Fleitz says: “I am very familiar with transcripts of presidential phone calls since I edited and processed dozens of them when I worked for the NSC. I also know a lot about intelligence whistleblowers from my time with the CIA.

“My suspicions grew … when I saw the declassified whistleblower complaint. It appears to be written by a law professor and includes legal references and detailed footnotes. It also has an unusual legalistic reference on how this complaint should be classified. From my experience, such an extremely polished whistleblowing complaint is unheard of. This document looks as if this leaker had outside help, possibly from congressional members or staff.”

When it comes to an impeachable offense, there is no there, there.

Like other attempts to undo the results of the 2016 election, this one should also fail if Republicans stick together, as Democrats did during the impeachment of Bill Clinton. Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, revealed his party’s true motives when he said that if Trump isn’t impeached he will be re-elected.

Don’t expect Trump to start quoting this line from the Ukraine national anthem, but it could prove prophetic if Democrats fail in their latest cynical attempt to impeach him: “Like the dew before the sun enemies will fade. We will further rule and prosper in our promised land.”

Cal Thomas is a syndicated columnist.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.