In her regular Washington Post column Kathleen Parker, no Trump supporter, articulates a view of Trump’s impeachment that approximates my own:
From this set of circumstances, House Democrats and most of the media have inferred that the president variously engaged in a quid pro quo, bribery and/or extortion and, more recently, abuse of power. Democrats have struggled to name that crime, so they might have difficulty landing on the correct language to use in their forthcoming articles of impeachment.
Here’s the obvious sticking point: If the elder Biden were not running for president, no one would question Trump’s request for information related to the younger Biden’s overpaid position on the board of a natural gas company while his father was vice president of the United States and, coincidentally, charged with pushing anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine.
But then, virtually everyone knows that the only reason Trump was concerned about corruption was because Joe Biden was a likely opponent in the 2020 election. We know, too, that military aid was withheld for a time but released once a whistleblower report surfaced. The perceived offense isn’t so much that Trump did these things but that an investigation — or at least the announcement of an investigation by Ukraine — would have directly benefited his 2020 election prospects.
When Biden says he never discussed the board position with his son other than to say, “I hope you know what you’re doing,†I take him at his word. But I also question why he didn’t say, “Son, I love you, but you can’t take this job as long as I’m vice president of the United States.â€
Here’s the obvious sticking point: If the elder Biden were not running for president, no one would question Trump’s request for information related to the younger Biden’s overpaid position on the board of a natural gas company while his father was vice president of the United States and, coincidentally, charged with pushing anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine.
But then, virtually everyone knows that the only reason Trump was concerned about corruption was because Joe Biden was a likely opponent in the 2020 election. We know, too, that military aid was withheld for a time but released once a whistleblower report surfaced. The perceived offense isn’t so much that Trump did these things but that an investigation — or at least the announcement of an investigation by Ukraine — would have directly benefited his 2020 election prospects.
When Biden says he never discussed the board position with his son other than to say, “I hope you know what you’re doing,†I take him at his word. But I also question why he didn’t say, “Son, I love you, but you can’t take this job as long as I’m vice president of the United States.â€
Let’s be honest: There was something odd going on with Hunter Biden and Burisma. Given his lack of qualifications, Hunter Biden’s hiring by Burisma was transparently because of his last name, as he admitted himself during an October interview with ABC News. This isn’t a crime, either, except perhaps of perception. The younger Biden got lucky when he was born a Biden and, apparently, has enjoyed the benefits without inconvenience to his conscience.
Trump may be everything his critics say he is: corrupt, dishonest, an embarrassment and a liar. But what he did wasn’t illegal in the vein of extortion or bribery, accusations which Democrats used before moving toward a discussion of broader concepts of high crimes and misdemeanors. While an act needn’t be criminal to be impeachable, the argument that Trump’s conduct rises to the level of impeachable offense revolves around the facts that, one, Trump was seeking help from a foreign nation and, two, that he might have benefited personally. Involvement of a foreign nation in the nation’s politics was an early concern of the Constitution’s framers, which is partly why they included the impeachment clause.
Given that Trump didn’t really care about an investigation and sought only to connect the former vice president with a corruption investigation, it is fair to infer that his motives were political. But asking a fellow head of state to investigate a person doing business in another country isn’t quite the same as inviting him to meddle in U.S. elections. Ultimately, the result might be the same, assuming a damaging finding about Joe Biden. But wouldn’t American voters want to know if such were the case? And, isn’t Trump the meddler to the extent that he, not Ukraine, would have used the information?
And abuse of power in the absence of a crime requires corrupt intent. It is true that one may infer intent from a pattern of actions but it is not true that one may infer intent from a series of assumptions. A higher level of proof than that is required.
If we are determined to ratify Gerald Ford’s declaration that a “high crime and misdemeanor” is anything the House says it is, it’s equally true that removal from office is warranted by whatever the Senate says.
To my eye what this entire scandal highlights in practically every aspect is that the real scandal is what is legal.
Ironically, the impeachment effort itself is what shone light on Burisma and the Bidens. Trump’s “I’d like a favor though†never yielded fruit.
I think its far more likely that the motivation was the vaporization of $7B in US aid and loan guarantees, and the shenanigans surrounding the 2016 election. The Biden angle is a convenient and tortured logic.
Of all the actual fact witnesses – oh, wait, there’s only 1 – Sondland quotes the President as saying I want no quid pro quo. Period, full stop. Everyone else is speculating. And as Greyshambler rationally points out, if not for Democrat efforts to use their tortured interpretation as a weapon against Trump no one would be paying attention to Joe Biden.
Democrats shot their own dicks off, the people have tuned out, and Nancy I out on a limb.
No quid pro, he just wanted to exchange arms for an investigation. So we have tons of circumstantial evidence and direct evidence from Trump saying he wanted the trade (he just didnt want to call it a quid pro quo). The transcript also speaks for itself. In exchange for arms we usually get money, maybe rights to have a base somewhere. Not a personal favor for a president.
“If the elder Biden were not running for president, no one would question Trump’s request for information related to the younger Biden’s overpaid position”
Disagree. It would have still been a bizarre request. In a country rife with corruption to single out the son of a former rival would look like an attempt at revenge not a valid attempt to crack down on corruption. Certainly the kind of pettiness we would expect from Trump. Would it have been enough to seek impeachment? Not sure. Clearly an abbuse of power but not as toxic as affecting an election.
Steve
First of all, there is no quid pro quo required to establish a violation of the law and an impeachable offense. Merely soliciting a foreign national or government for something of value is a crime under 50 USC 30121 and also appears to constitute bribery under the definition of that crime as it was understood when the Constitution was drafted.
Second, Biden was already a declared candidate for President at the time Trump started pressuring the Ukrainians to investigate him and his son and to assist in uncovering information related to a Kremlin-inspired conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was the nation that interfered in the 2016 election.
Third, there is no evidence that, as Vice-President, Biden did or said anything to get his son that Burisma job or prevent an investigation of Burisma, Yes, Biden was among the people pressuring the Ukraine government to get rid of the Prosecutor General. I doing so, though, he was communicating the official policy of the Obama Administration, a policy that was also being advocated by the European Union, France, Germany, and the United Kingdom. The prosecutor in question was himself known to be corrupt and had ties to Russian oligarchs,
The evidence is clear that this President (Trump) was abusing his power to advance his political interests. Notwithstanding the fact that the Trump Cultists in the Republican Senate will let their dear leader off, impeachment is entirely appropriate.
Nonsense, Doug. Pure nonsense. Its a free country and you are free to let your wildest imagination go, well, wild. Calling people cultists just tells me you have no coherent argument. But then, every time in these sham hearings people have been asked to put up or shut up – you know, like with first hand knowledge and facts as opposed to raw speculation – ………………crickets. Every time.
Turley, a noted Trump cultist, depantsed people like you.
@Doug,
1) Attempted bribery or any inchoate offenses were not common law crimes prior to the Revolution. They were punishable through the Star Chamber, until thrown into disrepute and abolished by the Habeas Corpus Act of 1640 in the lead up to the English Civil War. Inchoate offenses were made part of the English Common law by Lord Mansfield in Rex v. Scofield (1784) (attempted arson), which followed the Treaty of Paris.
2) The Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals reversed that portion of Blagojevich’s conviction based upon his attempt to exchange a seat for Obama pal Valerie Jarrett if Obama appointed him to a cabinet, comparable position in the federal government, or if he could find someone to donate $10 million and up to a new “social-welfare†organization that he would control. An exchange of political favors between sovereigns is not bribery. US v. Blagojevich, 794 F.3d 729 (7th Cir. 2015), cert. denied.
I’ve not followed domestic politics closely, but . . .
3) The basis for asking for an investigation is merely a suspicion of wrongdoing. To claim that there is “no evidence” does not call into dispute a request for an investigation.
4) Soliciting foreign nationals for information on a party opponent seems like a better angle. But I’m sure we’ll hear about the Steele dossier and dozens of more examples.
While we are talking about corruption, why hasn’t Trump asked the Ukraine to investigate Rick Perry? Looks pretty close to what happened with Biden. If Trump truly cares about corruption, LOL, he needs to mention this to Zelensky.
https://www.texasobserver.org/rick-perry-exports-his-pay-to-play-politics-to-ukraine/?utm_source=txo&utm_medium=int_circ&utm_campaign=nov_20_2019_ward
Steve