In “Trump’s Defenders Have No Defense” (Declarations, Nov. 23), Peggy Noonan observes that “the case has been made.” “Almost everything in the impeachment hearings this week fleshed out and backed up the charge that President Trump muscled Ukraine for political gain.”
Each of the witnesses’ testimony was hearsay except for Amb. Gordon Sondland’s . His “direct” evidence supported the president, saying that President Trump told him directly that he wanted nothing from Ukraine, no quid pro quo, only for the new Ukrainian president to do what is right.
Ms. Noonan seems to be a unique voice in the impeachment din, a person who understands that a high ground still exists. Her columns imply that there is a morally sound, intelligent and unemotional way to look at the issues facing our country, to discuss them without twisted facts and without wrapping, or warping, these facts in a red or blue flag. She seems to understand the word balance and how important, even critical, this approach is.
I’ve long been a big fan of Peggy Noonan, but her obvious deep antipathy for President Trump is blinding her. She points out that no one in the White House has said “he wouldn’t do that.” Of course not, because he did do that. But “that” was not wrong, much less an impeachable offense.
Mr. Trump rightly points out that Ukraine historically has been one of the most corrupt regimes in the world. Doesn’t it make sense to delay aid until and unless we can satisfy ourselves they now are focused on rooting out corruption, particularly in light of the fact they have a new president whose talents and predilections are unknown? After receiving assurances, President Trump released the aid—without any investigation having been announced or commenced by Ukraine, the supposed quid pro quo. Does anyone seriously believe Hunter Biden’s lucrative sweetheart job with Burisma wasn’t offered to enhance Ukraine’s influence with the then vice president?
I am not sure Ms. Noonan and I were watching the same hearings. The case for impeachment wasn’t made for me. The witnesses who, in her view, clearly made the case for impeachment had already testified in close doors before their public testimony. Only those who might be favorable to the Democrats were allowed to publicly testify. Witnesses who Republicans wanted were not allowed. Under such banana-republic conditions, I’d expect any case would be clearly made.
Ms. Noonan boldly asserts the verdict is in: President Trump is guilty as charged, thus reflecting the opinion of the New York cocktail circuit. Holman Jenkins calmly asserts “Winning Was Trump’s High Crime and Misdemeanor” (Business World, Nov. 23), that Mr. Trump’s only crime is being too successful in his roughshod policy toward Ukraine, reflecting the views of roughly the other half of the nation. The country shouldn’t have to suffer this polarizing political cage fight. Let the voters decide next November.