Democrats try to make normal diplomatic negotiations an impeachable offense

Sharyl Attkisson:

Quid pro no.

The current impeachment debate is being framed in terms of whether or not there was a “quid pro quo”— as if that is the bar that will determine whether or not President Trump did something egregious.

There are big flaws with this framing, as well as with the use of the term.

Diplomatic quid pro quo — requiring certain actions, behavior or “conditions” in return for U.S. aid — is common, according to current and former diplomats I spoke with, and foreign policy guidance. “Under the Foreign Assistance Act of 1961, the President may determine the terms and conditions under which most forms of assistance are provided.”

The notion that there’s something inherently wrong with this sort of foreign-aid diplomacy is raising concern among some career diplomats. A former Obama administration State Department official told me that, by controversializing this common practice, “the Democrats are basically hamstringing any future president.” He adds: “That’s why this is a constitutional moment.”

...
It could be argued that Trump’s interest in digging into Ukraine’s corruption and foreign interference in the 2016 campaign transcends political desires. It fits a mandate. Since he was elected, Trump and Congress have been pressed to get to the bottom of improper foreign influence in the 2016 election that happened under the watch of Obama intel officials such as then-Director of National Intelligence James Clapper, then-CIA Director John Brennan and then-FBI Director James Comey. And the Trump administration and Congress have pledged to do all they can to prevent a repeat in 2020.

Back to the Democrats’ notion that it’s improper — or possibly even criminal — for President Trump to hold out U.S. aid in order to achieve cooperation from Ukraine’s new president. On Tuesday, headlines were made from widely leaked closed-door testimony by William Taylor, the acting U.S. ambassador to Ukraine, who assumed that position in July. Taylor reportedly testified he was “alarmed” that the Trump administration supposedly was withholding military assistance unless Ukraine committed to investigating 2016 election corruption, including alleged wrongdoing by the Ukrainian energy company Burisma.

Yet Ambassador Taylor is very familiar with the process of “conditioning” U.S. foreign aid. He spoke of it extensively in November 2011 after he had just been handpicked by then-Secretary of State Hillary Clinton for a new position as the State Department’s Special Coordinator for Middle East Transitions, specifically Egypt, Tunisia and Libya.

“You’ll condition your aid based on the direction in which these countries are going?” a reporter asked Taylor at a news conference.
...

I think the Democrats and their media cohorts are just looking for an excuse for a coup attempt.  Normal diplomacy involves a quid pro quo on a routine basis.  What is really going on here is that Democrats are trying to cover up their own quid pro quos with Ukraine to hurt a political opponent Donald Trump in 2016. 

They are condemning their own actions which were malevolent from the beginning, while Trump is just asking for an investigation of their conduct tied to Ukraine, as well as a legitimate investigation of alleged corruption by the Bidens.  Democrats do not think there is anything wrong with using the children of politicians as conduits for bribes and influence peddling.  Indeed, Biden is not the only Democrat to use that scam.

The Democrats have used Rusian gamesmanship in 2016 as an excuse for their loss, but the evidence of the Mueller Report shows it had no material effect.  That was also the conclusion of the DOJ.  There is no evidence that it changed one vote of the Electoral Colege.