I’m a bit surprised that this op-ed by Josh Blackman at the New York Times headlines its opinion page. In it he articulates the argument that I did here, namely, that soliciting a political benefit is not or at least should not be an impeachable offense:
The way things look, President Trump will almost certainly not be removed from office. The precedents set by the articles of impeachment, however, will endure far longer. And regrettably, the House of Representatives has transformed presidential impeachment from a constitutional parachute — an emergency measure to save the Republic in free-fall — into a parliamentary vote of “no confidence.â€
The House seeks to expel Mr. Trump because he acted “for his personal political benefit rather than for a legitimate policy purpose.†Mr. Trump’s lawyers responded, “elected officials almost always consider the effect that their conduct might have on the next election.†The president’s lawyers are right. And that behavior does not amount to an abuse of power.
Politicians pursue public policy, as they see it, coupled with a concern about their own political future. Otherwise legal conduct, even when plainly politically motivated — but without moving beyond a threshold of personal political gain — does not amount to an impeachable “abuse of power.†The House’s shortsighted standard will fail to knock out Mr. Trump but, if taken seriously, threatens to put virtually every elected official in peril. The voters, and not Congress, should decide whether to reward or punish this self-serving feature of our political order.
I made it here some weeks ago. I continue to believe that president’s statement made in the notorious phone call between him and the Ukrainian president was not the way we want presidents to do business with foreign governments and was, as some have put it, “boneheaded”. The president should have been censured for it. The Congress should immediately have enacted a law proscribing such conduct although I honestly don’t believe they could and meet Constitutional muster.
Rather than waiting until November they chose to impeach in December. That’s not only a “no confidence” vote in the president, it’s a “no confidence” vote in the Democratic presidential nominee, whoever he or she might be.
“that soliciting a political benefit is not or at least should not be an impeachable offense”
Is that a guideline or general rule? Because I can think of many cases where that could be tested given the broad authority of the Executive and the range of what constitutes a “political benefit.”
The fact that Congressionally authorized military aid was illegally held up for many months as leverage solely for the President’s political benefit suggests that assertion isn’t true in fact.
There is obviously a tremendous difference between considering political effects and taking actions that appear solely designed for political benefit.
I’ll just state again that what puts this over the line for me is two factors:
1. Soliciting a foreign government interference in domestic politics.
2. Utilizing illegal coercive measures like withholding aid to achieve #1.
Suggesting this is normal or acceptable conduct opens the door for future Presidents to similarly internationalize their reelection campaigns and use the power and authority of the Presidency and the United States on the world stage for wholly partisan purposes.
Having said all that I do agree that the cure (impeachment) potentially could be as bad or worse than the disease. But since Trump isn’t going to be removed by the Senate, then impeachment, in this case, amounts to a stronger form of censure.
Andy, I agree, if not for the whistle blower we would not be here. The president got caught red handed.
“military aid was illegally held up”
Two events occurring simultaneously does not prove cause and effect.
“Soliciting a foreign government interference in domestic politics.”
Not so, soliciting a foreign government for information is more like it.
Apparently, not proper once the subject of the information request has thrown his hat in the ring. Where shall we get information about the dealings of powerful, influential Americans abroad, if we can’t ask foreign leaders? Trust them?
“Where shall we get information about the dealings of powerful, influential Americans abroad, if we can’t ask foreign leaders? ”
That information was asked for only when Biden was the candidate who was polled most likely to beat Trump in the 2020 election. Coincidence? From the POTUS who has never asked for an investigation into corruption anywhere before? (Of which I am aware. I keep asking conservatives for quotes showing that Trump cares more broadly about corruption and no one seems to have any.)
Andy- Agree. People keep saying this is the kind of stuff presidents always do, yet there aren’t any examples of anyone doing this. Yes, a president cuts taxes to make his voters happy. No, he doesn’t solicit help in an election from a foreign government.
Steve
I guess the bottom line with today’s political rancor, over that Ukraine phone call, is that both Biden’s are off limits when questioning the lucrative benefits derived during the senior Biden’s VP tenure in the Obama Administration. So what if there is evidence of money laundering, demands from the elder Biden to withhold Ukraine aid should a prosecutor looking into Burisma dealings not be fired is on film, untold millions floating around the Biden family’s involvement in China, Ukraine and a few other countries – all this should be ignored because of Biden running for president against Trump. Furthermore, it’s entirely proper to interpret any inquiry made by Trump, into the Biden’s’ (mis)conduct, while being point man in Ukraine, must be seen as devious, self-serving and worthy of investigation and impeachment. We must also ignore emerging details regarding concerns the Obama WH entertained about Burisma and Biden, including meetings they had with Ukrainian officials.
“Two events occurring simultaneously does not prove cause and effect.”
It doesn’t but several people have testified there was a cause and effect, Guliani and Mulvaney have admitted as much publicly and Guiliani, in particular, was not at all shy early on about stating that he intended to pressure Ukraine on the Bidens and crowdstrike. The timing of the delay fits and there is no other legitimate reason given for why the aid was held up.
“Not so, soliciting a foreign government for information is more like it.”
It wasn’t about information, it was about opening investigations – or at least announcing that Ukraine was going to open investigations.
“Apparently, not proper once the subject of the information request has thrown his hat in the ring. Where shall we get information about the dealings of powerful, influential Americans abroad, if we can’t ask foreign leaders?”
Yes, sitting Presidents should not use their executive power to compel foreign governments to get “information” on domestic political opponents. Just consider where that would lead if it were normalized behavior.
Let’s put the shoe on the other foot. Suppose President Obama in 2016 proposed a deal with Russia promising that we’ll leave them alone in Syria to do what they want as long as they gave us any and all dirt they have on Trump and opened investigations into his business dealings there.
Or maybe Obama should have conditioned sale of the F-35 to the UK to the Brits investigating Trump’s dealings in that country?
Or any similar act where Trump allegedly engaged in shady business practices overseas.
Maybe Reagan should have asked Gorbachev to investigate Dukakis for possible ties to communism.
If one believes that would all be legitimate and just normal politics, then fine, at least there is consistency in that view. But I disagree that it’s legitimate or normal and think that anything like those examples or what Pres. Trump actually did is abusing the power of the office and perverting US foreign policy for purely personal and domestic political ends.
“all this should be ignored because of Biden running for president against Trump.”
If there is something actually legitimate there, then it shouldn’t be ignored.
But there is a proper process to investigate potential wrongdoing. That process doesn’t involve sending the President’s personal lawyer to end-run the authorities who have the legal mandate to legitimately look into Bursima or anything else worthy of an investigation.
So, you’re saying that American politicians and their families should be barred from having business dealings with foreign companies? I agree. It will go over like a lead balloon.
After writing the above post I was thinking about reversing the characters in this political melodrama.
Wonder if it was Biden running for re-election, and Trump was in the position of a candidate challenging him. Wonder if Trump and a son had involved themselves in doing business in a country known to be corrupt, with a company also known to be corrupt. Wonder if the son of Trump was known to have magically made millions with no expertise to give the company for that kind of payment. Wonder if Biden had a phone call with this country’s newly elected president, who had campaigned on an anti-corruption platform, and there was a nuanced sentence exchanged asking that president to look into this company and those involved with it. In doing so, wonder if aid to this country was delayed a few months, but eventually given over to them – an even greater amount, with weaponry included that had been denied for 3 years by the prior administration – before the fiscal year’s end. Wonder if a whistleblower, though, suddenly came forward – a dyed-in the-wool conservative having long term ties to Trump and the GOP – citing 2nd hand claims of political motivation in that phone call. Wonder if no hard evidence appeared to back up this claim, the IG’s testimony given behind closed doors was never released, that there were irregularities cited in the original IG paperwork, the principles involved in the phone call sided with Biden’s version of that phone call, but a partisan move by the GOP prevailed, and Biden was excoriated by the right, the MSM and swiftly impeached by a partisan vote.
What would the democrat reaction be to such a reversal? Would Biden have been given a pass – perhaps even a pat on the back – for looking into the dubious business dealings of his opponent – Trump? Furthermore, would the GOP aggressive acts, to impeach Biden, have received MSM accolades (like is being parlayed in the current impeachment proceeding), or would they have been severely derided as an unfair partisan ploy to unseat a duly elected president?
Musical political chairs is a provocative game to play.
“People keep saying this is the kind of stuff presidents always do, yet there aren’t any examples of anyone doing this.â€
Seriously? I was previously unaware I was conversing with children here. I thought steve lived in Maryland or something, not Kansas.
“Politico reporter Ken Vogel contacted the White House for comment on a story he was working on. It’s this email that has just been revealed.
On May 1, 2019, Vogel contacted State Department official Kate Schilling about a story he was working on regarding an Obama administration meeting in January 2016 with Ukrainian prosecutors and mentioned the name of the CIA analyst believed to be the whistleblower whose complaint sparked impeachment proceedings that led to two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.
Ingraham did not state the name of the alleged whistleblower — Fox News hosts are banned from doing so until the identity is confirmed — and blacked out the name when showing excerpts of documents. However, she likely was referring to Eric Ciaramella, who some Republicans and conservative media figures believe is the whistleblower.
In the email, Vogel wrote, “We are going to report that [State Department official] Elizabeth Zentos attended a meeting at the White House on 1/19/2016 with Ukrainian prosecutors and embassy officials as well as … [redacted] from the NSC … the subjects discussed included efforts within the United State government to support prosecutions, in Ukraine and the United Kingdom, of Burisma Holdings, … and concerns that Hunter Biden’s position with the company could complicate such efforts.”
…
Using archived Obama White House visitor logs, Ingraham said her team was able to corroborate details of the January 2016 meeting, showing on the screen the names of Ukrainian officials checked into the White House by Ciaramella, who was Ukraine director on the National Security Council.â€
And then Biden has the prosecutor fired, or else. But it’s boneheaded to look into this. Impeachable. And we certainly don’t want to speak to the “whistleblower†orchestrating this, in fact this guy becomes the catalyst for an impeachment charge.
Yeah, makes sense. Because I’m the smfotfote.
“So, you’re saying that American politicians and their families should be barred from having business dealings with foreign companies?”
That’s not anything like what I wrote.
No. It’s a necessary concommitant of what you wrote. There’s no way to accomplish it otherwise.
Drew,
The two obvious problems with that allegation/theory are long-standing:
1. Who the whistleblower is doesn’t matter at this point, the facts of what the Trump administration did are what is relevant. I think Edward Snowden is a scumbag and patsy with an agenda, but that doesn’t mean I can sweep his revelations. Similarly, the whistleblower may be a partisan hack, but these allegations don’t rest on his/her credibility.
2. There has never been any evidence (that I’ve seen or heard of) that the Ukrainian prosecutor the US government wanted to be fired was doing or about to do anything to Bursima. And again, the Obama administration (along with many other countries) wanted him gone because he was corrupt and wasn’t doing anything to address corruption in Ukraine. There is no nexus to Bursima here, so the whole theory that Biden intervened specifically because his son was on Bursima’s board does not appear to have any evidentiary basis.
And this argument ignores the following:
– The corruption of the process. If there really was something rotten about Bursima and Hunter Biden, then the President should use the normal investigative and diplomatic process instead of using his personal lawyer and keeping the regular diplomatic and law enforcement arms of the US government in the dark.
– It’s clearly self-serving. Trump isn’t even trying to mask his desire to have Ukraine “investigate” the Bidens by putting it inside some other legitimate foreign policy objective. He’s not going after corruption generally, much less corruption specifically anywhere else in Ukraine. He only cares about Crowdstrike and Bursima.
His own stupidity for being so brazen and not taking any steps to establish any plausible deniability for his efforts in using his office purely for his own political benefit is why he’s in this position. It’s a complete own-goal not unlike Hillary’s server.
I do not care about Trump in the slightest but I do care about criminalizing ordinary politics and I am concerned that we are on a slippery slope that leads in that direction. Maybe my concern is unwarranted.
I agree Trump was clumsy and acted out of self interest, particularly interest in slapping back at a political adversary. That’s his m.o. But, no, I do not consider the call impeachable, and it won’t be because Trump’s tenure has been successful for most Americans, and Impeachment and removal in the Senate I believe would be deeply unpopular.
The Ukraine is not the big worry for me. China has learned from their dealings with the Clinton and Obama administrations that our elected leaders are for sale. They are quite confidant about this and it fits in with their culture. They don’t offer bribes but reward Princelings with position and wealth and know that they can wrap up their loyalty in their avarice without any Quid Pro Quo. Dave suggests making foreign dealings unlawful, then suggests that’s unworkable.
Probably quite true, as there are as many ways of buying influences as there are stars in the sky.
So, then, if Trump had been more clever, he would have simply put out a tweet such: “A little birdie told me the Bidens sold their souls to Ukraine and China for cash. I don’t know, let them defend it.”
“No. It’s a necessary concommitant of what you wrote. There’s no way to accomplish it otherwise.”
You’ll have to unpack that for me. I don’t understand how stating that “Presidents should not use their executive power to compel foreign governments to get ‘information’ on domestic political opponents” is directly linked to the idea that “American politicians and their families should be barred from having business dealings with foreign companies.”
“I do not care about Trump in the slightest but I do care about criminalizing ordinary politics and I am concerned that we are on a slippery slope that leads in that direction. Maybe my concern is unwarranted.”
My concern is at the other end of that – that we’re well on a slippery slope that normalizes the corruption of our elections and political system from incumbents using their office to get foreign governments to tip the scale.
“I do not care about Trump in the slightest but I do care about criminalizing ordinary politics and I am concerned that we are on a slippery slope that leads in that direction. Maybe my concern is unwarranted.”
Also, this isn’t criminalizing politics. Trump is not threatened with criminal action, only possible removal from office.
There is no bright line between that and exempting politicians of the other party and their families from investigation. We should be reducing such corruption not making it easier. Having surrogates do it just provides plausible deniability. It doesn’t change the fact.
Consequently, to avoid using executive power, etc. while not creating a protected class, prohibit politicians and their families from doing business with foreign companies.
“prohibit politicians and their families from doing business with foreign companies.”
Which party has that on their platform? I thought so.
Andy
Concerning point 1. The transcript is all that has ever mattered. It does not support the charges. Only speculation about motive underpins the charges. An honest person does not impute supposed fact, but looks at the evidence. Honesty is not in vogue in this matter.
The Biden’s matter, at least here, only in the court of public opinion. They are influence peddlers, you may disagree, but this is a legitimate inquiry in the use of taxpayer funds. In fact, it’s mandated. The whistleblower also matters only in the court of public opinion. He was covering up, and collaborated with Schiff. As Dave puts it, that’s a bad look for a bunch of solemn patriots defending to the death the Constitution. So they hide the pea.
As to point 2, I guess you haven’t been following too closely, or reading NYTs etc. John Solomon has interviewed the relevant people, and more importantly, reviewed the court documents. You can find it all at his website. There was an active investigation by Shokin until………….â€well son of a bitch,†he was fired, for a “solid guyâ€. Until the solid guy reopened the investigation. Heh. I’m sure Uncle Joe was just seeking truth, Justice and the American way.
If you are just going to follow it lightly, or trust CNN, NYT, WaPo, Atlantic etc you are lost. It’s all already out there. Well documented. This is why they went after John Solomon as a conspiracy theorist. And why the brief attempt at discrediting Barr and Durham. But those guys are over the target.
POTUS had to be impeached and removed because:
1. He won the 2016 election.
2. He won the 2016 election.
3. He won the 2016 election.
4. He won . . . .
The current fracas was ostensibly started off because Trump wanted to steer foreign policy regarding Ukraine in a different direction than the interagency, the consensus being that because of their experience and expertise they were better suited to do that than the President. Perhaps they are (IMO the results say not). But it isn’t their call. They’re weren’t elected boss. But they think it is their call. Hence the power struggle.
That is the real issue here: who runs the Executive, the bureaucracy or the President. Schumer’s ‘six ways from Sunday’ remark was a red cape remark to any business CEO worth a s**t. That’s flat-out insubordination. You can’t have that in an organization or you can’t get things done. The ship of state becomes rudderless and drifts (funny how that seemed to have happened the last quarter century. I wonder why?)
If one of Schumer’s staffers lied to him, or told the Senator he wasn’t going to obey an order, Chuckie would fire the SOB on the spot. But the President’s isn’t supposed to do that, or have his way with policy because his underlings disagree with his choices? F**k that. If Vindman had undermined Obama the way he did Trump, what do you think the media reaction would be? He’d be burned in effigy. For a start.
Friday may be an interesting day. Third day of Orange Man very very Bad so he must go denunciations in the Senate, Sidney Powell has promised yet another bombshell regarding the Flynn frame, and Giuliani’s supposed to issue his first podcast on Ukraine corruption. Who knows else what might drop. Wuhan flu is very much on my mind.
– The corruption of the process. If there really was something rotten about Bursima and Hunter Biden, then the President should use the normal investigative and diplomatic process instead of using his personal lawyer and keeping the regular diplomatic and law enforcement arms of the US government in the dark.
A very reasonable point of view if one assumes that the “normal investigative and diplomatic process†hasn’t already been corrupted. As Guarneri pointed out, those of us who have been reading John Solomon and other right wing media see that that is almost certainly not the case.
That’s also why the breaking story about the whistleblower matters. It’s not that we just generically think Eric Ciaramella was a scummy guy. It’s that he was the NSC guy whose portfolio was Ukraine. He would have been a lead guy in that “normal channel of investigationâ€, and he had a clear bias to protect Biden. If he was part of the squashing of the NYT story, that is more evidence of that bias which would have precluded Trump from using the normal channel.
““normal investigative and diplomatic process†hasn’t already been corrupted. As Guarneri pointed out, those of us who have been reading John Solomon and other right wing media see that that is almost certainly not the case.”
Trump has had control of the process for the last 3 years. I steer some reason you dont trust Trump?
“POTUS had to be impeached and removed because:
1. He won the 2016 election.”
Nope. He wasn’t impeached until he tried to get a foreign country to help with his election.
“I do not care about Trump in the slightest but I do care about criminalizing ordinary politics ”
You seem to be implying that a president asking another country to provide dirt on his leading opponent in an effort to help his own election efforts is normal politics. When has this happened before?
Steve
I think it happens all of the time. I don’t think that presidents have done things for anything but political reasons in thirty years if ever. What is different is that Trump has people within his own staff working against him. He inspires no loyalty but he does inspire dislike.
“I think it happens all of the time.”
You really think that other presidents have asked foreign countries to intervene in our elections? Any examples?
I think, Steve, there are a few of us who don’t agree with your interpretation of Trump’s phone call being malevolently motivated by political self interest. Your linkage of Trump’s hesitancy, to immediately release aid to Ukraine, to a quid pro quo action also seems a stretch with no evidence, especially in lieu of the notorious systemic corruption known to be rampant in that country, making a cautionary disbursal of funds all the more warranted.
Speaking of corruption, I also find your distaste for “criminalizing ordinary politics†insatiable when applied to what you find as fatal flaws in Trump’s conversation with President Zelensky, but strangely muted in addressing Biden’s earlier openly quid pro quo threat, to withhold billion dollars of aid should a prosecutor not be fired. Biden’s boastful “arm twist†is even more egregious-sounding, considering all the monies, emails, WH meetings that accompanied the inordinate amount of money going into Hunter Biden’s pockets when his father was point man to Ukraine. What begs to be answered, too, is how involved was President Obama in all this, especially with those recently revealed 2016 meetings taking place in the WH?
BTW, Steve, Obama actively tried to thwart Netanyaho from being elected. His dislike for the man was enormous.
1) Trump has never been interested in corruption as an issue. It is not believable that the only time he addresses it is when talking about his leading political opponent, and that it was just a way to address general corruption. Not believable.
2) I have already said, I think Andy said, if you want to investigate Biden go ahead. Fine with me. However, it was current EU policy that Ukraine needed to be reformed and they want Sorokin (sp?) gone. What Biden did was in line with that policy. If you show me statements from EU leaders stating that their policy was that Ukraine should try to hep Trump get re-elected then I will concede that what Trump did was at least publicly supported.
Netanyahu had long ago made it clear that he supports our right wing politicians. Republicans place his needs and wants above those of the American people so I guess I cant blame since he gets such good return win his investment. That said, it is disputed that Obama aided Netanyahu’s opponents. See link. Finally, what is the relevance here? As a gratuitous swipe at Obama, OK, but we are talking about the current POTUS asking another country to help him get re-elected.
Steve
Here’s a Washington Post article demonstrating the charge of interfering in Israel’s election in 2015 is far from being “gratuitous.” —-> NGO Connected To Obama’s 2008 Campaign Used US Tax Dollars Trying To Oust Netanyahu
OneVoice deployed its taxpayer-funded campaign resources to launch the largest anti-Netanyahu grassroots organizing campaign in Israel in 2015. Despite OneVoice’s known history of political activism in Israel, the State Department did nothing to guard against the clear risk that OneVoice could engage in electioneering activities using a taxpayer-funded grassroots campaign infrastructure after the grant period.
Ironically, the State Department said the above ” OneVoice’s conduct was fully compliant with Department regulations and guidelines.” However, it’s mind-boggling to ascribe to any sense of fairness that one party, deliberately using funding to throw a foreign leader they disliked out of office, was within the margins of being “OK,” while a phone call, only interpreted (without evidence) as being politically self-serving, could credibly trigger an impeachment exercise.  Â