Trump and Ukraine: What We Know - DILBERT

Trump and Ukraine: What We Know

As Americans watch two different movies, here’s a way to discern what’s happening off the screen.

By 

Scott Adams

Oct. 6, 2019 3:19 pm ET

ILLUSTRATION: SCOTT ADAMS

If you’ve followed the Ukraine phone-call news, you might have noticed reality branching into two completely different movies. In one, President Trump was doing his job of protecting the republic by asking an allied country to help out on an important legal investigation. The other movie involves Orange Hitler bullying a foreign country into meddling in our elections by “digging up dirt” on a political opponent.

Which movie is the real one, if such a thing exists? I’d like to offer a rule of thumb for evaluating political news: If a fact is reported the same by both the left-leaning and the right-leaning press, it’s probably a fact. If not, wait and see.

It’s also smart to wait a week or two before you make up your mind, as the fog of war often makes early reporting unreliable. But after the fog clears, if all sides agree on a fact, it’s probably a fact. Or at least it’s credible, even if future reporting debunks it.

In the case of Mr. Trump’s Ukraine phone call, all sides agree a whistleblower exists, at least in the minimal sense of using the whistleblower process. We also agree a phone call was made, and the transcript seems to capture what was said. We also know a few other facts: Secretary of State Mike Pompeo was on the call, and the whistleblower contacted Rep. Adam Schiff’s office before filing the complaint, and some other details.

But that’s where the agreement stops. One side says the quid pro quo—in the form of Mr. Trump’s asking his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate Crowdstrike and Joe Biden at the risk of losing military funds already approved by Congress—was so obvious it didn’t need to be stated in direct language. The other side says every conversation among world leaders carries some kind of implied quid pro quo, and in this case the request for investigation was entirely appropriate. You might even say it was one of Mr. Trump’s highest priorities, given the risk that a potential future President Biden might be compromised in his dealings with a foreign government.

I see conflicting reporting on the biggest fact about Mr. Biden and Ukraine: Did the then vice president want the prosecutor fired because his son Hunter was on the board of Burisma, which was at some point under investigation by Ukrainian authorities? The press on the left says no, the right says yes. My rule of thumb says we shouldn’t treat either version as true—for now.

Did Hunter Biden accept the Burisma board seat, which paid $50,000 a month, while Ukraine was part of his father’s official portfolio? Yes, all sides report that to be a fact. Was Hunter qualified for such a role? Both sides say not so much. Both sides also agree that Hunter’s taking that position wasn’t illegal but sure looks swampy.

YOU MAY ALSO LIKE

UP NEXT

0:00 / 1:06

Opinion: Joe Biden Forced Ukraine to Fire Prosecutor for Aid Money

Best of the Web: During a Council on Foreign Relations discussion on January 23, 2018, former Vice President Joe Biden spoke about his dealings in Ukraine. Image: Shutterstock / AP / Composite: Brad Howard

Both sides further agree that Joe Biden is on video bragging about getting a Ukraine prosecutor fired by using the threat of withholding U.S. aid in the amount of $1 billion. But there is disagreement on why he did it. Was it because the prosecutor was ineffective and suspected of corruption himself or because the prosecutor was fighting corruption at Burisma? We see opposing press reports on the left and the right, so my rule says wait for all of that to sort out.

If you strip out the parts of the Ukraine story we can’t yet know to be true, you still know enough to have a responsible opinion. Vice President Biden was handling the Ukraine portfolio while his son had a financial interest in Ukraine, and that is enough of a conflict to merit an investigation. We all agree that the sitting president is responsible for protecting the integrity of American elections and generally keeping foreign interference in U.S. politics to a minimum. That’s what Mr. Trump was doing on the Ukraine phone call. (For those of you who say such matters should be handled at lower levels of government, my experience in corporate America tells me nothing much gets done until the bosses talk and agree. I assume government is similar.)

All sides can also agree that Mr. Trump was serving his own re-election interests by asking Ukraine to investigate Mr. Biden. But we also agree our political system allows that—even encourages it—so long as the president is also clearly pursuing the national interest. Before the Democratic primary, would it be good for the country to know more about Joe Biden’s relationship with Ukraine? Democrats should appreciate finding out soon if there is anything of concern, because I assume they don’t want to go into the general election with a candidate who has some surprises in his Ukrainian closet.

What we all agree to be true about Joe and Hunter Biden is that they had the types of interactions with Ukraine that raise eyebrows and invite a closer look. We also all agree that protecting the integrity of American elections should be a top priority for a president.

I won’t try to convince you that my rule of thumb works every time. I assume there are times when one side is simply right and the other is wrong. But keep an eye out for how often the rule does prove reliable. And remember to wait a week or two for the fog to clear before you make any decisions about what is fact and what is not.

Mr. Adams is creator of Dilbert and author of “Loserthink: How Untrained Brains are Ruining America.”