The Democrats' Consideration of Ukrainian Denials in the Impeachment Inquiry

In the highly scrutinized impeachment inquiry, the Democratic party faced a complex challenge when dealing with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky's denials of any pressure exerted by former President Donald Trump. The crux of the issue lies in understanding the dynamics of international politics, the consequences of perjury, and the often hidden nature of coercion.

Facts vs. Feelings

The argument that the Democrats ignored the denials of pressure is based on a misunderstanding of the nature of persuasion and coercion. Facts matter more than feelings and actions weigh more than words. Even if Ukraine felt no direct pressure, the application of indirect pressure via withholding critical aid is a significant act. Soft persuasion and coercive tactics, often applied in grander scales such as political manipulation, might not immediately feel like pressure but can heavily influence international relations.

The Oath Factor

A key point of differentiation lies in the oath of witnesses and the position of the Ukrainian President, Zelensky. When witnesses gave testimony regarding the pressure campaign, they did so under the threat of perjury, punishable by imprisonment. Conversely, Zelensky, as a sitting head of state, had a much higher stake in his words and actions. Ignoring his denials would be unfair, as he was under no legal obligation to reveal the truth, especially if it meant exposing himself to political and professional damage.

Context and Practicality

Picture a scenario where a shopkeeper is asked about a visit by the Mafia. Out of fear and a desire to protect himself, he will likely deny any such visit. Similarly, it is reasonable that Zelensky would deny being pressured from Trump while seated beside him in a face-to-face meeting. This meeting was one that Zelensky had literally begged for, and whose outcome could determine whether Ukraine would receive crucial military assistance and future aid.

If Zelensky felt the pressure, he could very well live with the fiction that Trump never pressured him, as long as it was necessary for obtaining that vital assistance. The momentous nature of this aid means that Zelensky's public denial would be a calculated risk, made to maintain his political position and secure the funds his country desperately needed.

Assessing the Financial and Political Context

Zelensky’s military assistance from Congress was authorized, signifying that the United States recognized Ukraine’s needs. When this assistance was held up and later provided as a quid pro quo, the pressure exerted by Trump became a matter of public record. Furthermore, the President-elect Joe Biden's son, Hunter, was a board member of Burisma and his father was a top official in Ukrainian energy firm, deepening the political implications for Zelensky. The delicate balance of power and the looming threat of public humiliation meant that Zelensky was forced to deny the pressure and accept the added scrutiny as a price worth paying.

Given the complex web of international relations, political pressure, and the significant stake in receipt of military aid, it is clear that Zelensky’s denials should not be viewed as a betrayal of transparency but rather as a pragmatic political decision aimed at safeguarding his country's critical needs.

The Democrats recognized this context and focused their efforts on the actions and verifiable testimonies, rather than the forced denials. Their approach highlights the importance of looking beyond surface-level denials and towards the actual application of pressure and its implications.