The Register Citizen (Torrington, CT)
President Trump’s Ukraine actions not treasonous
When first reading the OpEd titled “What Trump has done in Ukraine is plainly treason” (Nov. 4), I assumed it was a clever piece of political satire. I was shocked to find that the author is seemingly serious in accusing President Trump of treason. In fact, he states that “Trump has consistently engaged in a course of conduct designed to give substantial ‘aid and comfort’ to Russia...”
Why does he believe this? It is apparently because he vehemently disagrees with a number of Trump’s foreign policy choices visavis both Russia and Ukraine. Oh yes, and Trump also replaced Marie Yovanovich, President Obama’s Ambassador to Ukraine. Then there is the matter of a career State Department foreign service officer who says the Trump White House “undercut” his efforts to carry out U.S. foreign policy toward Ukraine.
He also points to the matter of President Trump referring to Ukraine as a “corrupt country” — a matter on which there is a wide range of consensus among experts that Ukraine has been, in fact, a corrupt country for quite some time. I read on with interest — waiting to learn which national security secrets about top secret weapons systems, ship and aircraft technology, troop deployment, and identities of undercover spies were passed on to Russia by Mr. Trump. Whoops — apparently none of those truly treasonous activities occurred.
I hate to be picky, but perhaps the author overlooked the fact that it is a long established matter of Constitutional law and tradition that the President is primarily responsible for and in charge of U.S foreign policy. In other words, U.S. foreign policy, which always changes by degrees with each new president, is pretty much what any sitting president says it is. The jobs of ambassadors and career foreign service officers are to carry out the foreign policy of the president, whomever he or she may be.
As for replacing the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine appointed by President Obama, all ambassadors serve at the pleasure of each president. It is, in fact, quite routine for presidents to replace many ambassadors from prior administrations. All presidents do it. So, there is really nothing abnormal or troubling about President Trump replacing this particular ambassador to Ukraine.
I would like to close by posing a few questions for those who agree with the aforementioned treason charge:
1. President Obama reversed course on an important U.S. commitment to our European allies for deployment of antimissile defenses in Poland. This was done primarily to placate Russia. Was this treason?
2. President Obama told outgoing President Medvedev of Russia that he would have more flexibility on missile defense after Obama’s reelection. This was overheard at a conference on an open microphone. Was Mr. Obama implying he would cooperate with Russia on missile defense matters? If so, was this treason?
3. President Obama removed sanctions on Iran, thereby freeing up access to more than $100 billion to Iran as part of his nuclear deal with them. He also delivered more than $1 billion in hard cash to Iran as an adjunct to this deal. The money was flown to Iran in a U.S. airplane and unloaded by hand in Iran. There is broad consensus that Iran is
There is really nothing abnormal or troubling about President Trump replacing this particular ambassador to Ukraine.
the largest sponsor of international terrorism. Was any of this treason?
4. Finally, President Trump has been far tougher on Russia with sanctions than President Obama was — even though Russia’s takeover of the Crimea (a part of Ukraine at the time) took place in 2014 when Mr. Obama was President. If Mr. Trump’s policy toward Russia is not tough enough, and if this contributes to the charge of presidential treason, what does this suggest about President Obama’s consistently weak policy toward Russia? Was President Obama a treasonous president also?
Of course, it is absurd to argue that President Obama committed treason by virtue of any of the above, just as it is equally absurd to assert that President Trump has committed treason. We may disagree with each of their policies visavis Russia and others, and we may question the judgment of each of them on some of these matters. However, disagreements on policy and matters of judgment are not treason. If they were, many of our elected representatives and much of the rest of the country would be guilty of treason each and every day.
In addition, those who were seen to be guilty would change with the political winds every four years. This is not now and never was what America is all about.
I suggest that we tone down the political rhetoric in favor of careful and balanced analysis on both sides of the political aisle.