Rep. Jim Jordan, R-Ohio, speaks during a
House Intelligence Committee hearing on Capitol Hill in Washington, Wednesday,
Nov. 13, 2019, during the first public impeachment hearing of President Donald
Trump's efforts to tie U.S. aid for Ukraine to investigations of his political
opponents. (Jim Lo Scalzo/Pool Photo via AP)
In the first public impeachment hearing on Wednesday,
Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) cleared up misconceptions about why President Donald
Trump held up the military assistance funds that Congress had approved for
Ukraine. Democrats insist that this delay was part of a corrupt quid pro quo —
"bribery," "extortion," and whatever the next term may be —
to force Ukraine to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of former vice president
and 2020 Democrat Joe Biden, as a political attack on his potential rival.
The Democrat narrative seems disturbingly plausible, but
Jordan gave a far better explanation for why Trump held up the money.
"There was a delay on sending hard-earned tax
dollars of the American people to Ukraine," Jordan admitted. "We’re
not talking any country, we’re talking Ukraine. Ernst & Young said one of
the three most corrupt countries on the planet. … So our president said, 'Time
out. Time out, let’s check out this new guy. Let’s see if Zelensky’s the real
deal. This new guy who got elected in April, whose party took power in July.
Let’s see if he’s legitimate.'"
Jordan continued, "Now, keep in mind, in 2018
President Trump had already done more for Ukraine than Obama did. That’s right,
President Trump — who doesn’t like foreign aid, who wanted European countries
to do more, who knew how corrupt Ukraine was — did more than Obama because he
gave them Javelins, tank-busting Javelins to fight the Russians. Our witnesses
have said this, others have said this: 'Obama gave them blankets, Trump gave
them missiles.' But when it came time to check out this new guy, President
Trump said, 'Let’s just see, let’s just see if he’s legit.'"
"So for 55 days, we checked him out. President
Zelensky had five interactions with senior U.S. officials in that timeframe.
One was, of course, the phone call, the July 25 phone call," the
congressman explained. "And there were four other face-to-face meetings
with other senior U.S. officials. And guess what, in not one of those
interactions — not one — were security assistance dollars linked to
investigating Burisma or Biden."
So what happened during those 55 days? "U.S.
senators, Ambassador [John] Bolton, Vice President Pence, all became convinced
that Zelensky was, in fact, worth the risk. He was, in fact, legit and the real
deal and a real change. And guess what? They told the president, 'He’s a
reformer, release the money.' And that’s exactly what President Trump
did."
Jordan's telling of events squared with the testimony of
former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine William Taylor, who admitted that there was
"no
linkage" of funding to Biden investigations in any of the three
meetings he had with Zelensky during the time in question.
Jordan's version of events also makes sense considering
the fact that Trump released the funding without Zelensky opening an
investigation into Hunter Biden, Burisma, or alleged anti-Trump Ukraine
meddling in the 2016 election. Yet Democrats will continue to push the quid pro
quo "extortion" narrative, because it's politically convenient.
"Now over the next few weeks, we’re going to have
more witnesses like we've had today that the Democrats will parade in here and
they’re all going to say this: 'So and so said such and such to so and so and
therefore we’ve got to impeach the president,'" Jordan continued. He
summarized testimony from Gordon Sondland to make his point: "Ambassador
Taylor recalls that I told Mr. Taylor that Mr. Morrison, who conveyed this
message to Mr. Yermak, in conjunction with Mr. Pence’s visit to Warsaw, for his
meeting with President Zelensky."
Whatever the Democrats say, the congressman insisted on
four key facts that they cannot deny: "The call shows no linkage between
dollars and the investigation into Burisma or the Bidens; President Trump
and President Zelensky have both said on the call there was no linkage, there
was no pressure, there was no pushing; Ukrainians didn’t even know the aid was
withheld at the time of the phone call; and most importantly as has been
pointed out, Ukrainians didn’t take any specific action relative to
investigations to get the money released."
Jordan concluded by lamenting that Democrats will not
bring in the whistleblower responsible for the whole impeachment inquiry.
"We will never get the chance to see the
whistleblower raise his right hand," he said. "This anonymous
so-called whistleblower with no firsthand knowledge, who is biased against the
president, who worked with Joe Biden, who is the reason we’re all sitting here
today, we’ll never get a chance to question that individual."
This conclusion reminded Americans of what Rep.
Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) had exposed earlier. Not only does the
Democrats' quid pro quo version of events not match up with the story of
Trump's Ukraine policy, but the entire impeachment push began with a
hyperpartisan whistleblower who is represented by a lawyer who celebrated a "coup"
against President Trump and predicted his impeachment — in the days after his
inauguration.
There are many key reasons why not a single Republican
joined Democrats in voting to formally open an impeachment inquiry, and why two
Democrats joined Republicans in voting against it. Jim Jordan revealed it for
what it was, and explained the real reason why Trump held up the money.
Follow
Tyler O'Neil, the author of this article, on Twitter at @Tyler2ONeil.
