Impeachment 101: Policy Disagreements & “Whistleblowers”


Jordan Sekulow

November 26, 2019

4 min read

Public Policy



This impeachment inquiry is about a policy dispute and a turf war amongst unelected bureaucrats over money being sent to a foreign country, Ukraine, and apparent frustration that they were left out of the process. In this case, some career bureaucrats wanted to be involved but weren’t, so a number of anti-Trump forces used their displeasure as an excuse to bash the duly elected President.

This impeachment process is essentially about who talked to whom and who should talk to whom about knowing what and deciding what. If that sounds convoluted it’s because the objection to that process is so ridiculous that it IS extremely convoluted.

That’s what the testimony has been about, both private and public.

Simply put, we’re talking about U.S. taxpayer money and arms being sent to a foreign country, and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff are trying to remove President Trump from office over that. Their supporting witnesses, who have never had direct contact with President Trump, are miffed because they are career bureaucrats and their opinions were not considered a priority over our elected President’s.

One could also debate why we even send foreign aid, but it is clear that this Administration has sent more substantive foreign aid to Ukraine than the previous Administration.

Why are we here? There was a call from President Trump to the President of Ukraine. That call and its transcript are relatively straightforward. Some people in their partisan bias are claiming that President Trump violated the law with that call when it is plain to see for any unbiased observer that such a claim is simply false. A sitting President is able to pursue any policy he or she wants, and to engage in conversations with foreign leaders as he or she deems appropriate. The President of Ukraine has even said on several occasions that he did not feel pressured to act in a certain manner by President Trump.

What you’ve also likely heard is the term “whistleblower”. The “whistleblower” was reported to have “bias”.

As best we can tell, the so-called “whistleblower” wasn’t even in the building when the President called the President of Ukraine in July of 2019. According to reports from sources, the “whistleblower” was transferred out of the White House in 2017, more than two years before the Ukraine phone call happened.

You have already or likely will hear a lot of legal or overly political phrases like “quid pro quo” or “policy dispute” as a reason or even defense of President Trump.

Quid pro quo means “a favor or advantage granted or expected in return for something.” In this case it is being claimed that President Trump held up foreign aid to Ukraine in exchange for a public declaration of an investigation into the Bidens, amongst some other criteria. Yet, nothing was given to the United States in return for the foreign aid.

What we mean when we say “policy dispute” is to say that there is a policy dispute over when, how, or even why the United States sent foreign aid, in this case money or arms, to a foreign country, Ukraine.

The public witnesses who are essentially complaining about President Trump have complained about process, the time, an manner in which we sent aid to Ukraine, NOT the end result. They have admitted as such in their testimony.

Policy disagreements are not a case for impeachment. It seems these testimonies for the witnesses are a recourse for revenge over being “looked over” rather than a sincere desire to serve the American people.

If this continues, what’s next? In the future, will a President be impeached over policy disagreements like being pro-life? Favoring tax cuts? Is a President to be impeached because the entrenched Deep State is against moving the United States Embassy in Israel to Jerusalem? Is this really what the Founders intended with impeachment?