I have some questions

Published 11-21-2019

I’ve been one of the few people who has watched almost all of the impeachment hearings in Congress over the last week. I will admit to not reading all of the testimony, there’s only so many times I can see the words “interagency consensus” before I lose my mind, and my blood pressure reaches medically unsafe levels.

The public testimony has been rather tepid, filled with bureaucrat speak and a bunch of “smart” subject matter experts talking amongst each other because they were out of the loop. Of course they were out of the loop. At every turn and during the campaign, the professional class of Washington has shown it’s disdain for the President.

And Tuesday’s testimony was a further example of why President Trump was proven right to question who was in the know, and who to trust within the layers of professionals that staff our government apparatus.

None more embody the attitude of Washington D.C. than Lt. Col. Alex Vindman, NSC staffer and according to his public testimony, apparent leaker of the President’s call to “a member of the intelligence community” (read: whistle blower) and Ambassador George Kent. Because he disagreed with a change in policy and was suddenly outside of the circle of decision makers.

Vindman described himself as an advisor to the President. Only in Washington D.C. can someone who has never spoken to the President or even met the President co-opt this description to pad their resume. In a city chock full of “advisors”, and with multiple departments created just to counsel the President, well, let’s just say Lt. Col. Vindman is just one very small fish in an incredibly large murky swamp.

What is extremely fascinating is that the Democrats think his testimony is some smoking gun towards impeachment.

What his testimony brought out though, aside from lying either to Congress in his deposition or Tuesday, is that Vindman thought his voice wasn’t being heard, and he was the authority. Honestly, he seems just like any other mid level manager with delusions of grandeur.

After watching Tuesday morning I am left with a couple questions regarding this latest round of impeachment theater.

Who exactly sets “official U.S. policy”?

Apparently there are more than a few civil servants who think that subject matter opinions are more important than decisions made by elected officials. And speaking of elected officials, Congress absolutely knows better, but thought scoring points by noting President Trump’s deviation from “official United Stated foreign policy” isn’t going to be the rhetorical smoking gun they think it will.

Policy papers, think tank opinions, and abstracts may score points with the permanent class and get you invited to all the best symposiums, but matters little when the rubber meets the road and decisions have to be made. Listening to “The Establishment” didn’t get Trump to the White House, or to the gold plated penthouse for that matter.

At the end of the day, there is only one person’s opinion that matters when taking orders on foreign policy. The President. His policy is official policy. That isn’t situational or dependent on who’s behind the desk.

Yes, this policy and direction stuff would kind of be why elections matter.

Which leads to my next question....

What exactly is the problem with the removal of Ambassador Yavonovich from her Ukraine post? Or any of these policy people that by statute serve at the “pleasure of the President”?

Three were zero claims of abuse of power when President Obama recalled the entire diplomatic corps that was appointed by President George W Bush. Again, no claims of overreach when the Clinton’s replaced the entire Travel Office, and attorneys within the DOJ.

Funny that. The cynic in me might postulate some form of bias and hypocrisy on the part of our political class in trying to tarnish normal, constitutional actions into nefarious backroom dealings by coincidentally, every Republican elected since Nixon.

I would argue that by not going scorched earth and firing anyone that had any tie to the Obama Administration that was legally able to be fired was a cardinal error that has allowed Democrats to continually attack the Trump Administration from within the White House.