As a rule of thumb, underlings in organizations always gripe about their superiors. The very fact that there is a line of command, a superior and inferiors, a boss and employees, this is enough to create different views of what decisions should be. Everyone in an organization like the White House has different information and different objectives. They have different perspectives and powers. They have different backgrounds and ambitions. Anyone who has worked in an organization has experienced the result, which is office politics and griping. Many people as subordinates cannot help but complain when they oppose decisions or actions of their bosses.
Who sets policy? Who makes the big decisions? Who has that responsibility? What are the lines of authority in any organization?
It’s in this context that an NBC News article dated Oct. 14, 2019 can be understood, its headline being “Bolton wanted White House lawyers alerted to Ukrainian efforts, called it ‘drug deal,’ witness tells Congress”. The article exists because someone in the House hearing room leaked it. The occasion was closed door testimony of an underling named Fiona Hill, who is identified as a “former White House official and “former Russian analyst”. The House Democrats subpoenaed Hill to testify.
It should be obvious to all that the House Democrats are well into Russiagate 2.0 or Ukrainegate, and that there’s no content worthy of impeachment to it. Its substance is entirely political. It’s a political attack scheme designed to cover up massive Democrat corruption, stop Trump, hamper Trump, destroy Trump, destroy Trump’s agenda, raise money, solidify the Trump opposition, slander Trump, libel Trump, and take back the White House.
The House Democrats are calling as witnesses subordinates to the President in order to undermine his authority. They want to tie his hands. This impeachment talk is all about power and policies, about differences of opinion on policies, about ambitions to regain power. It is not about wrongdoing in the sense of a genuine high crime. The House Democrats are misusing their powers in a power-play designed to take down a president. They don’t want his exposure of their corruption to be believed.
All of it is useless griping of a subordinate who could only be second-guessing and criticizing the actions of her boss, who happens to be the Chief Executive, a man occupying an elected office. Ms. Hill was hired help. That’s all. Trump gets to conduct foreign policy, and he has the power to establish the substance of foreign policy. But this is not how the underlings see it, as we can tell from the press reports.
We have only the reported brief content of Hill’s testimony to go by. With that proviso, we are told
“‘She saw wrongdoing related to the Ukraine policy and reported it,’ one source said.”
“Hill additionally told lawmakers about what she described as a rogue operation carried out by US Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland and White House acting chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, which Bolton characterized as being like a ‘drug deal,’ that source said.”
In other words, Hill didn’t like aspects of Trump’s Ukraine policy. She wanted policy to go through bureaucratic channels in the State Department and she wanted the content of it not to include the Bidens.
“Hill was concerned that Giuliani was circumventing the State Department to run what some Democrats have labeled a ‘shadow foreign policy’ by seeking the removal of US Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and pushing for Ukraine to open an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.”
She’s griping. She’s acting as if the President isn’t the boss of foreign policy, but that his underlings, including her, Bolton and the State Department, are the ones who “own” foreign policy, who establish positions, priorities, and who control all the communications. She’s acting as if Trump or any Chief Executive is a figurehead who is constrained tightly by the Deep State. This is the attitude that’s coming through in these reports.
Hill is said to have expressed a concern as follows:
“Hill also told lawmakers that the confusion on Ukraine policy was a ‘corruption’ inside the US that the Russians could exploit, according to a source with knowledge of the testimony. She said that American policy toward Ukraine has become politicized and exposed partisan divisions that Putin is able to exploit.”
Her opinion helps the Democrats to make the charge that in his handling of Ukraine Trump is aiding Russia and undermining national security. Such a charge is far-fetched, and there is no evidence that it’s factual. It’s more plausible that Trump’s moves with Ukraine and against the Bidens and against other forms of Democrat and Republican corruption enhance national security by diminishing the corrupt bases upon which foreign policies are erected.
We shouldn’t have relations with foreign countries being heavily influenced or determined by the personal gains made by politicians and companies who stand to benefit from their power to make important decisions. Trump’s anti-corruption agenda is easily more important than the vague charge that he’s giving Putin partisan divisions to exploit.
Hill and other career Deep Staters do not have the big picture in view. She’s an analyst of Russian affairs, and so she sees things through that lens. It may also be that her opinions are influenced by her political loyalties. Trump’s perspective is far broader. He’s the boss, and he oversees all the domestic departments and all the interrelationships with foreign countries. What appears sub-optimal to Hill or even counter-productive is viewed very differently as part of Trump’s master plan, of which she and we are not privy. Neither she nor Congress is the sole boss. The boss has certain indisputable powers and his dealings with Ukraine are among them. Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi do not run the details of foreign policy. Pelosi thinks Congress is #1, but there is a separation of powers. One result is jostling and frictions; but it should not be impeachment, not unless the evidence of high crimes is clear. This was not the case with Russiagate and it’s not the case with Ukrainegate. A relationship with Ukraine that sought to uncover corruption and get to the bottom of Russiagate cannot be characterized as a high crime, not in motive and not in ramifications, actual or possible.
The sour grapes of subordinates who disagree with decisions of their superiors differs in kind from knowledge of superiors committing high crimes. The House Democrats are down to interviewing disgruntled White House employees or career Deep State workers who have differences of opinion with a president. But unless they come up with something that shows that Trump did something illegal or sold out to some foreign country, they have nothing but gripes to go on. Meanwhile, there is evidence of CIA, FBI, Clinton and Biden wrongdoing that deserves investigation.9:24 am on October 15, 2019 Email Michael S. Rozeff