President Trump was investigating grave national security issues

Isn't a US President investigating the possible corruption of an actual Vice President during said Vice President's term a question of highest national security of the United States? 

Mark Langfan

OpEds US Vice President Joe Biden
US Vice President Joe Biden
Mark Langfan
If I got a call from my mayor, I’d feel pressure.  If I got a call from my Governor, I’d feel a lot of pressure.   If I got a call from President Trump, of course I’d feel a heck of a lot of pressure.  

Arguing the question of whether the Ukrainian President felt “pressured”  due to the conversation with President Trump, is tactically a waste of time.  Worse, it strategically forces President Trump to defend a weak, and potentially indefensible irrelevant legal point on the possible “pressure" or any possible “quid pro quo.”  

The issue is not “pressure” or a “quid pro quo,” the first and only issue was if President Trump was investigating a national security crime or issue where there was a reasonable factual legal predicate(s) to investigate.  And the answer the whether there was a reasonable factual National Security predicate basis to investigate both issues of “Crowdstrike” and “Joe Biden’s ‘quid pro quo’” is a resounding: YES!  

And if there is a reasonable factual predicate to investigate both issues, then President Trump could not only have offered a “quid pro quo” to the Ukrainian President, he could have also overtly threatened a total cut-off of all US aid to the Ukraine in order to get the Ukrainians to cough up the necessary national security information.  

In order to understand the urgent national security intelligence factual predicate for President Trump’s questioning on “Crowdstrike" and Joe Biden, one has to understand some basic facts.

What is “Crowdstrike”?  Crowdstrike was a Ukrainian computer security firm that the Democratic National Committee (DNC) used to investigate its allegedly hacked computers.  Notably, the DNC did not allow the FBI or the NSA to first-hand physically or forensically examine its “hacked” computer system. In fact, the DNC only allowed several private computer security companies, and rejected FBI first-hand investigation. 

It follows that the FBI and the entire American Intelligence Community has no actual first-hand proof of anything except the hearsay conclusion of the Ukrainian Crowdstrike that “the Russians did it!”  Remember Russia and the Ukraine were at war during this entire period of time, so that taking a Ukrainian firm’s word that "the Russians did it!” is suspect to begin with.

Let’s listen to former FBI Director James Comey about where the FBI and the CIA got their “intelligence” on what to base the conclusion that “the Russians did it.” On March 20, 2017, during testimony before congress, James Comey stated "CrowdStrike, Mandiant, and ThreatConnect review[ed] the evidence of the hack and conclude[d] with high certainty that it was the work of APT 28 and APT 29 who are known to be Russian intelligence services." 

Note, Comey doesn’t say “the FBI concluded,” he says “Crowdstrike . . . reviewed the evidence and concluded with high certainty that” the Russians did it.  To make matters worse, an AP “fact-check” says Crowdstrike provided the FBI with second-hand “forensic” data.  

That’s like Scotland Yard sub-contracting out a London knifing-crime scene to Jack the Ripper, and Jack-the-Ripper handing Scotland Yard some DNA data from an innocent person, and saying “here’s the ‘forensic’ evidence that so-and-so did it.”  And then, Scotland Yard relying on Jack-the-Ripper’s alleged DNA “forensic” evidence as 100% reliable evidence for the crime of the century. 

If the American Intelligence community didn’t forensically control the actual evidence from the DNC server from start to finish, there is no actual juridical proof that would hold up in an American court that the Russians actually hacked anything, That is because there is no juridically admissible evidence that can be relied on with an actual chain of custody. 

How and why the Obama Administration didn’t control the DNC Computer "Crime Scene,” and how Crowdstrike actually concluded that "the Russians did it!” is the most urgent national security question at hand

If the Crowdstrike a hoax, the entire Obama/CIA/FBI Russian meddling report is a hoax. 

And, if the “Obama/CIA/FBI-Russians did it!” is a hoax, then Obama, Comey, and Biden (and likely Pelosi, Schumer, Nadler, and Schiff) are potentially part of a criminal conspiracy to defraud President Trump and the American Government by filing false reports and false court affidavits.

Ironically, President Trump’s personal focused investigation into the Crowdstrike DNC computer forensic “proof” of alleged Russian involvement actually proves President Trump is innocent of any involvement in any alleged Russian hack into the DNC computers. If President Trump actually knew the Russians hacked the DNC computers, the last thing he would do is try to unravel and unpack the real DNC computer forensic facts, because he would know they could prove Russian involvement.

In any event, the question of the Ukrainian Crowdstrike’s involvement in the DNC computer forensics is a question of the highest national security importance to the United States. Hence, President Trump had every right as President of the United to demand a full factual and intelligence accounting of Crowdstrike from the Ukrainian President. On the Crowdstrike issue alone, President Trump could have verbally threatened the Ukrainian President during the phone call with any and all actions with impunity in order to force the Ukraine to disgorge the necessary intelligence on Crowdstrike.

On September 25, 2019, Chris Cuomo admitted the obvious and said that former Vice President Joe Biden "absolutely engaged in a ‘quid pro quo’ with Ukraine but not for his ‘personal advantage.'"

On the Biden issue during the phone call, CNN Chris Cuomo, an attorney, has already made it easy for us to factually ground Preisdent Trump's investigation of Biden with the Ukraine president.

September 25, 2019 is the day Chris Cuomo admitted the obvious and said that former Vice President Joe Biden"absolutely engaged in a ‘quid pro quo’ with Ukraine but not for his ‘personal advantage.’” The first part of Cuomo’s admission, that there was an obvert undeniable Biden-Ukraine “quid pro quo,” is now obviously true. However, the question devolves as to whether there was any “official US government purpose” to Biden’s demanding the Ukrainians fire the Ukrainian prosecutor looking into Biden’s son’s Ukrainian company, or whether there was only a “personal purpose” behind Biden’s demand.

President Trump’s legitimate official US governmental purpose of investigating the exact facts on the “official US governmental purpose of Joe Biden’s 'quid pro quo'” was what he was investigating during the call with the Ukraine President.  

Is a US President investigating the possible corruption of an actual Vice President during said Vice President's term a question of highest national security of the United States?  It most certainly is.  President Trump's questions were completely based on inescapable hard national security fact predicate, i.e. Biden’s own video-taped bragging that the vice president threatened the Ukrainians with a billion dollars of US money if they didn’t fire the Ukrainian prosecutor.  

Once the factual national security intelligence predicate is laid, President Trump could have legally and overtly threated the Ukraine President to withhold every penny of American money until they came across with hard documentary evidence concerning Biden’s guilt or innocence.  President Trump wasn’t ordering the Ukrainian President to come up with evidence of Biden’s “guilt.” President Trump was demanding that the Ukrainian President come up with evidence. Whether that evidence would prove Biden’s guilt or innocence was not at all the point of Trump’s question.  

President Trump wasn’t saying come up with false evidence, or to withhold exculpatory evidence of Biden’s innocence.  President Trump was merely asking the Ukrainian President for evidence. 

The fact that Biden is running for President only makes the President Trump request of the Ukraine President more urgent for the national security of the United States. Should President Trump abandon his obligation as President of the United States to defend the United States be compromised because Biden might be his opponent?  In fact, President Trump heroically put himself at risk by bravely and appropriately asking for any evidence of Biden wrong-doing from the Ukrainian President.

As for Democrat hypocrisy, the Democrats claim that the Obama Administration’s obtaining a FISA warrant with unverifiable and knowingly false dossier information about Trump as a legal predicate is kosher. But, then, on the other hand, a videotape of Biden overtly bragging that he inexplicably threatened Ukraine into firing the prosecutor is not kosher, and in fact an impeachable act. Vice President Biden didn’t remotely claim or explain on the videotape that he demanded the firing of the Ukrainian prosecutor because he was corrupt. If an FISA warrant based on the grossly false Steele dossier was a kosher legal predicate for Obama, then the video-tape of Biden’s bragging about a “quid pro quo” is a stringently kosher predicate for Trump.

Only in the Orwellian good-is-evil world of the Democrat “Hate Trump and his 62 Million voters”  way of thinking could the Democrats claim to impeach President Trump for properly investigating what former President Obama and the then-FBI Director James Comey should have investigated in the first place.