[Screenshot from NBC News, https://www.youtube.com/watch?time_continue=2&v=UTCN0C9ciic&feature=emb_logo][/caption]
Is there a law that will protect Trump from the impeachment inquiry?
On Sunday, Kentucky Sen. Rand Paul made the case for such.
First of all, the senator explained that the Bluegrass State’s recent election results — despite the media’s assertions — reflect a red wave.
Meet the Press host Chuck Todd asked him all about it:
“Let me start with the Kentucky results first, before we get into the events of later this week, just your initial reactions. Matt Bevin — do you see his loss as something bigger than Matt Bevin, about the Republican Party as a whole?”
Rand pointed out that the GOP took a sizable broom to the ballot box:
“Well, when you look at all the races, there were six statewide races. We won five out of six. Republicans won five out of six.”
There was, however, a major bump:
“We did lose the governor’s race. We were disappointed in it. But the interesting thing is we beat a lot of other candidates that no one expected us to. So actually, in many ways, there was sort of a red wave in Kentucky.”
As for impeachment-wielding allegations against the Commander-in-Chief, Rand said the U.S. shouldn’t be giving aid to Ukraine anyway:
[“I]f it were me, I wouldn’t give them the aid, because we don’t have the money. We have to actually borrow the money from China to send it to Ukraine. So I’m against the aid. And I think it’s a mistake to do the aid.”
And here’s where the books are on Trump’s side: Current U.S. law prevents the U.S. from lending help to corrupt countries.
Therefore, the congressman explained, Trump would’ve needed to ask for a Biden investigation — since he suspected the family was corrupt — in order to give Ukraine the assistance.
Here’s Mr. Paul:
“Foreign aid, by law, can only go out to countries that are not corrupt. So, if you think that a country is acting in a corrupt way, a president can always withhold aid until the corruption is fixed. So, you’re going to have to get into the mind of Trump and his advisers and say, ‘Well, he didn’t really believe that the Bidens were corrupt.’ I think he absolutely does. I think you could give him a lie detector test and say, ‘Do you think the Bidens were corrupt? And do you think you were investigating corruption, and that corruption is in the law, that you can’t give aid to a country that has corruption?’”
So, bottom line, it’s not an issue of lawbreaking, impeachment-summoning shadiness. It’s about policy:
“This ends up being a policy debate and a partisan debate. And it has nothing to do with legality or illegality or impeachment. It’s purely a partisan way of trying to overturn the election.”
It’s also about the Democrats losing the election — because they’re afloat in a sea of Impeachment Mania.
And while they’re trying to kick Trump out the back door, Michael Bloomberg’s trying to sneak in the front (here). Will Hillary follow suit, or will she be inexorably drawn to the “I” word, far too intensely to run a pro-win, “here are great ideas for us” campaign?
The Democrats appear to have completely given up on accentuating the positive. They can’t stop attacking the President.
And that — regardless of what Kentucky’s recent vote reveals — is primed to be a huge reason for a 2020 Big League Blowout.
See 3 more pieces from me:
Find all my RedState work here.
Thank you for reading! Please sound off in the Comments section below.