The Difference Between What Donald Trump Did and What Joe Biden Did

Ever since a whistleblower came forward with the allegation of a quid pro quo between Donald Trump and Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskiy, Trump’s supporters have scrambled. According to the whistleblower’s account, Trump pressured Zelenskiy to investigate his political opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter Biden, as a condition for releasing needed military aid funds that had already been allocated to Ukraine. 

At first, Trump’s supporters quickly denied that there was a quid pro quo. Then, when it became apparent that denial was a lie, they tried to rationalize Trump’s actions with the idea that quid pro quo situations happen “all the time” between the U.S. and foreign governments. Now that the whistleblower’s story has been widely corroborated by a number of credible witnesses who found Trump’s actions “troubling,” Trump’s supporters are desperately trying to divert attention away from possible wrongdoing by equating Trump’s actions with those of Joe Biden when Biden had worked to help remove a corrupt Ukrainian prosecutor.

On the November 10, 2019 broadcast of NBC’s Meet the Press, Senator Rand Paul (R-KY), echoed the current GOP talking points when he said, “I think, really, what’s going to happen is people are going to say, ‘Oh, they’re impeaching President Trump for exactly the same thing that Joe Biden did.’

“He threatened the aid, if they didn’t fire someone. And supposedly, the president did, if they didn’t investigate someone. So it sounds exactly like what Joe Biden did. And if they weren’t going to impeach Joe Biden, they look like, you know, hypocrites, in a way, for going only after President Trump and having not a word to say about what Joe Biden did…It’s exactly the same scenario.”

But it isn’t.

Rand Paul was referring to the idea that (then vice president) Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, was a paid board member of the Ukrainian gas company, Burisma, during the time that then Vice President Joe Biden was working to have a Ukrainian prosecutor removed in order to, as Paul, and other Trump supporters put it, stop the prosecutor from investigating Hunter Biden’s company. This is, at best, a stretching of certain facts. 

Later in the show, Rep. Jim Himes (D-Conn.), said, “…That has nothing to do, absolutely nothing to do with the actions of the United States president in extorting Ukraine in a way that damaged our national security.”

Joe Biden was not trying to fire a Ukrainian prosecutor to keep him from investigating his son’s company. He was trying to follow through, with the support of U.S. allies, on removing a prosecutor who was failing to investigate Ukrainian corruption, and who many agreed was himself corrupt. Contrary to damaging national security, Biden’s efforts were to strengthen security for Ukraine, as well as its allies. 

At the same time that some of Trump’s supporters have conceded that there may have been a quid pro quo, they’re also quick to try to say that Trump’s first interest was to fight corruption in Ukraine. With a president who, according to the Washington Post, has made more than 14,500 false or misleading claims during his presidency as of October 14, 2019, this is hard to imagine. What’s more, at the time Trump had decided to conditionally withhold military aid from Ukraine, the U.S. Departments of Defense and State had both certified that Ukraine had made great progress in decreasing corruption, and recommended the U.S. proceed with the aid to Ukraine. 

In resorting to “what-aboutism” as a defense against the whistleblower’s complaint and all of the testimony that backs it up, Trump’s supporters appear to be aware that they have little else to present as an argument. 

Full Himes: ‘We’ve Got To Get Off This Quid Pro Quo Thing’ | Meet The Press | NBC News [2019-11-10]

Biden defends son’s dealings in Ukraine while attacking Trump | Fox News
[2019-10-28]

Do Trump’s Tweets Indicate Impeachment Fear?

During Robert Mueller’s Russia Investigation, the word “impeachment” was frequently tossed about in association with Donald Trump. In Trump’s most recent scandal, involving evidence that Trump may have used the powers of his office to get information from a foreign head of state about a political opponent, “impeachment” is no longer just a murmur.

Over the weekend, Trump sent out no less than 80 tweets to express his disdain for what he calls “another witch hunt,” as Democrats moved to go forward with an impeachment inquiry into Trump’s phone calls with the new president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelenskiy.

Though Trump publicly tries to maintain a demeanor that alternates between indifference and scorn, the frequency and outrageousness of his recent tweets seem to indicate otherwise. Trump frequently tweets out preposterous pronouncements, but his tweeting over the weekend seems to have reached a new magnitude of extreme and threatening overtone.

“If the Democrats are successful in removing the President from office (which they will never be), it will cause a Civil War like fracture in this Nation from which our Country will never heal,'” Trump tweeted, quoting Pastor Robert Jeffress.

Republican House member Adam Kinzinger  (Illinois) responded, “I have visited nations ravaged by civil war.@realDonaldTrump. I have never imagined such a quote to be repeated by a President. This is beyond repugnant.”

Trump attacked Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., chairman of the House Intelligence Committee via Twitter, claiming that Schiff had misrepresented Trump’s phone call with Zelenskiy, and suggesting Schiff be arrested for treason.

In response, Republican strategist Mike Murphy tweeted, ”Out. Of. Control. Treason? A POTUS saying this? #UnfitAndUnstable.”

Michael Steele, a former Republican National Committee chairman, said about Trump’s manic tweeting, “That’s the president wetting his pants a little bit. This has him nervous. There’s real concern here. The flashing tweets that keep jumping out is his way of trying to get control of something that he’s losing a grip on.”

Trump sent menacing-sounding tweets regarding the whistleblower whose complaint opened this investigation, as well. “…In addition, I want to meet not only my accuser, who presented SECOND & THIRD HAND INFORMATION, but also the person who illegally gave this information, which was largely incorrect, to the ‘Whistleblower.’ Was this person SPYING on the U.S. President? Big Consequences!”

Trump’s tweets, along with his comments last week that the whistleblower was something “close to a spy,” and that in the old days, spies were dealt with differently, prompted three house members to respond: “…Threats of violence from the leader of our country have a chilling effect on the entire whistleblower process, with grave consequences for our democracy and national security.”

Over the weekend, lawyers for the whistleblower expressed concerns for their client’s safety, asking that leaders “condemn any intimidation against our client and others.”

It’s a little surreal that a U.S. president would say something that reasonable people would interpret as a potential threat to the safety of one of his constituents. 

It’s not improbable that Trump’s growing nervousness about an impeachment inquiry, coupled with his lack of impulse control, could cause him, in the weeks ahead, to build a stack of menacing or power-abusing tweets that in themselves could be grounds for an impeachment inquiry.

President Donald Trump fights back amid US impeachment inquiry |
Al-Jazeera [2019-09-30]

Pelosi says impeachment inquiry is worth losing the House in 2020 |
Fox News [2019-09-29]