I’m trying to hold my water on the ongoing House impeachment inquiry until they and their consequences have unfolded more fully. As you can see from the graph above of President Trump’s job approval rating, the inquiry, presumably, is not having the effect that House Democrats had hoped for as, I think, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had suspected.
Meanwhile, the editors of the Wall Street Journal echo some of the things I’ve been saying here:
At the constitutional convention, Gouverneur Morris discussed the meaning of bribery and used the example of King Charles II taking money from King Louis XIV in return for supporting French policy in Europe.
Mr. Schiff’s problem is that he still hasn’t found a quid pro quo in the Ukraine episode that fits this traditional definition of bribery. Here he is on NPR again: “Well, bribery only requires that you’re soliciting something of value. It doesn’t have to be cash. It can be something of value. And clearly, given the concerted effort that was brought about to get these investigations going by the President, by Rudy Giuliani, by Ambassador [Gordon] Sondland, by others, this was something of great value to the President.â€
Sorry, but bribery requires a specific quid pro quo. Mr. Trump asked Ukraine’s President to investigate corruption, including Joe and Hunter Biden. No such investigation began. There was no “quo.†Even if an investigation had started, it is unlikely to qualify as a quo under the bribery law because it isn’t a specific and tangible enough benefit like money.
By Mr. Schiff’s definition, “something of value†is anything that might benefit Mr. Trump politically. But Mr. Trump couldn’t know a Ukraine investigation’s result or even how it would proceed. Every President asks foreign leaders for actions or policies that would benefit him politically in some way. None of this absolves Mr. Trump of rotten judgment in all of this, but it doesn’t qualify as bribery.
The emphasis is mine. Creative definitions of crimes that actually have accepted definitions will not help Democrats sway public opinion in their direction. President Obama, presumably, got “something of value” from his executive agreement with the Iranians who received actual cash money. Bill Clinton got “something of value” when he bailed out the Mexican government with a $20 billion loan (without Congressional approval). Did they commit bribery? Every president always gets “something of value” from the deals he negotiates with foreign governments.
The House Democrats should tread carefully. They should not establish any precedents they don’t care to live by.
Based on the evidence so far Trump did NOT ask Ukraine’s President to investigate “corruption” generally, the administration was only interested in Crowdstrike and Bursima. As I’ve noted several times, if the Trump admin had dressed this up and given it legitimacy as a broader foreign-policy initiative, things would be much different. But they didn’t. And it appears they understood what they were doing wasn’t above board since they used Guliani, bypassed much of the normal diplomatic process, and then retroactively tried to hide what was going on by overclassifying the relevant documents.
Secondly, the claim that it must be tangible is not supported by the evidence I’ve read. Here’s a good summary:
https://www.law.columbia.edu/sites/default/files/microsites/public-integrity/a_guide_to_commonly_used_federal_statutes_in_public_corruption_cases.pdf
and
Maybe PD has some thoughts – I haven’t gone too deep into the rabbit hole.
“The House Democrats should tread carefully. They should not establish any precedents they don’t care to live by.”
I’m more worried about the precedent that’s set if Trump’s action isn’t challenged.
And third, that there ultimately wasn’t a “quo” doesn’t matter – soliciting a “quo” is still a crime.
That is why I have harped on intent from the first revelation. Motive isn’t enough to prove corrupt intent.
I think that the same sort of things go on in every administration but that Trump doesn’t command as much loyalty from his subordinates or “the Blob” as other administrations have.
“I think that the same sort of things go on in every administration but that Trump doesn’t command as much loyalty from his subordinates or “the Blob†as other administrations have.”
Maybe, but I doubt that if another President had done the same thing it would stay hidden.
And perhaps it is circular – that the reason Trump doesn’t command as much loyalty is that he engages in this sort of behavior.
Regardless, I’m unaware of evidence that any other President has specifically asked a foreign leader to create/dig up dirt on a domestic political opponent.
Andy beat me to it. I doubt very much anything like this has happened in the past. I am sure that POTUS has talked over treaties, trade deals, etc with foreign leaders that would help them politically. I doubt very much that they have asked them to so blatantly help dig up dirt on a political opponent. There are too many people involved in foreign policy who are not appointees/political loyalists. The NSC, State Dpartment, Foreign Service, military, etc have career employees who will have varying points of view. If someone had done something as blatant as Trump had it would have leaked.
Ever wonder why even Trump’s own people arent so loyal?
Steve
I gather that neither one of you has ever heard of Lyndon Johnson:
and this one:
or maybe John Kennedy:
You may not recall Nixon trying to get the IRS to go after his opponents. He wasn’t alone. In all at least six presidents have used the IRS in that way.
If they’re using the FBI to spy on political opponents here in the U. S., you think they’ll hesitate to induce foreign governments to spy on their political opponents abroad? IMO that’s naive.
The difference is that I grew up surrounded by politicians and you didn’t.
‘The House Democrats should tread carefully. They should not establish any precedents they don’t care to live by.’
I don’t think they expect to have to live by any precedents they establish. That’s why they’re so casual about setting them. Victory and the resultant acquisition of power by any means is the goal. And once they are back in total power they won’t make the mistake of losing the 2020 election or any other significant election again.
@andy, I don’t know that you’ve seen me previously point to the Blagojevich case, where his conviction for seeking to the Obama seat was not bribery because it was an official act for an official act, which is called politics, as opposed to something of value (usually money) for an official act. Blagojevich asked Obama to appoint him to a cabinet or federal office position at the end of his term in exchange for which Blagojevich would appoint Obama’s BFF Valerie Jarrett to the Senate seat.
The most significant charges remained, which involved Blagojevich withholding money to a children’s hospital in order to get it to make a campaign contribution. That’s an official act for money (i.e., the thing of value).
https://caselaw.findlaw.com/us-7th-circuit/1708436.html
Dave,
I was not alive for any of those examples. If they happened today and the details are accurate then I think an impeachment inquiry would be appropriate.
This ties into my point about precedents. Letting this pass because Presidents a half-century or more ago also abused their offices in a somewhat similar way just reinforces a bad precedent.
PD,
Blagojevich was still impeached and removed from office for that conduct though, correct?
And I don’t think this case with Ukraine fits the definition of logrolling.
While you guys blather on about intent, you fail to consider:
That Ukraine “lost” a total of $7 billion in Obama initiated and approved aid, while Joe Biden was the Ukraine “point man.”
That an oligarch named Ihor Kolomoisky, who owned Burisma, and was given $2 billion of that $7B which he put in the bank he owned, PrivatBank and, wait for it…………….it disappeared. You know, Burisma, with Hunter Biden appointed to, shall we say, a rather lucrative no show job. All while his dad was the, ahem, “point man.” Quite embarrassing for the Obama administration. But maybe Ihor saw some special talent in Hunter unknown to us mere mortals.
Oh, and with Prosecutor Shokin chasing down these, um, unfortunate events with US taxpayer money, Biden demands his firing.
And, wait for it again, our sainted Ambassador Yovanovich is later instructing Shokin’s replacement to back off on investigating certain people. That’s illegal by the way.
But of course, even though the law says he must investigate such bald faced abuse of the taxpayer, his sole motive must be political advantage. His sole motive in getting rid of the Ambassador is he’s a meanie.
These events are all described in publicly available documents. Court documents, sworn affidavits, CNBC, WSJ and NYT’s. (although buried on page 576) Somehow I doubt you will hear it on NPR, MSNBC or CNN. Maybe truth seeker Schiff will tell us (snicker)
And of course we were treated to lectures for 3 years on the horrors of foreign interference in US elections. Why, impeachment for obstruction of justice was warranted if Trump dared mess with Mueller’s investigation. But if Trump wants to know about the Ukraine/DNC interference in the 2016 election? Impeach him!!
Spare us your conjecture about crass political motive people. You have no credibility. You obviously haven’t done any real homework.
@Andy, Blagojevich was impeached almost entirely based upon the FBI charges and evidence. Based upon the previous bipartisan agreement not to impeach the Chief Justice of the Illinois Supreme Court for abuse of power, they would not have impeached Blagojevich for the Obama seat had it not been subject to criminal charges. What are “high crimes and misdemeanors” is a contested matter.
” an official act for an official act”
Seems like a real reach to consider asking a foreign government to dig up dirt on a political opponent to help you win an election an official act. Doesn’t pass the smell test.
Steve
Meanwhile; the Democratic polls show the opposite of a Trumps unnaturally steady polls, real instability.
Warren shot up like a star to match Biden but has fallen back just as quickly. Buttigieg has some momentum and now leads Iowa?? Then Gov Patrick actually joining the race – why so late?
It sure has a 2012 R candidate of the month feel to it.
@steve, “official act” depends on whether it was done under color of law. If it would be bribery for me to pay Trump money to put a hold on funding to Ukraine, then putting a hold on funding to Ukraine is necessarily is a public act. It’s not a normative judgment.
I don’t think whatever he did is bribery. And that’s beyond wondering whether bribing a foreign leader would ever be a domestic concern.
I’m not sayin’. I’m just sayin’.
“NSC official Tim Morrison, who was on that phone call, expressed this narrative-killing opinion to the Democratic-led House Intelligence Committee last month – which would have undermined recent public testimony by several US officials who said that President Trump abused his office when he asked Zelensky to investigate former VP Joe Biden and matters related to the 2016 US election.
That said, Morrison also testified that US Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland, was involved in an effort to encourage Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden – though he could not say whether Trump was involved in those efforts.
He was uncertain of Trump’s involvement in Sondland’s efforts. “I’m still not completely certain that this was coming from the President,†Morrison testified to House Democrats. “I’m only getting this from Ambassador Sondland.â€
During a closed-door deposition as part of the House impeachment inquiry, Morrison was asked, “In your view, there was nothing improper that occurred during the call?â€
“Correct,†he answered as he was testifying under oath. -Epoch Times
Morrison replaced former NSC official Fiona Hill, who resigned from her position on July 19, days before the infamous Trump-Zelensky call. He says that the word “Burisma” never came up during that call, referring to the Ukrainian natural gas company which employed Hunter Biden on its board while Joe Biden used his position as Vice President to have a prosecutor fired who was investigating the company.
Trump asked Zelensky to investigate this, as well as allegations that Ukraine was involved with the hacked DNC server as well as the only firm allowed to look at it, Crowdstrike.
Morrison also testified that the Trump administration withheld foreign aid from Ukraine due to Trump’s general skepticism toward foreign aid, and a “concern that Ukrainians were not paying their fair share, as well as concerns [that] our aid would be misused because of the view that Ukraine has a significant corruption problem.”
Morrison was asked more about the phone call.
“You were on the call. Do you remember whether the name Burisma came up on the call?†“No, I don’t believe it did,†he said.
The answer is significant, as a junior NSC official, Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, testified to the House Intelligence Committee that Zelensky brought up the word “Burisma.†However, Morrison said that he has the “final clearing authority†on the July 25 call transcript.
“Do you remember whether anyone suggested edits adding the word Burisma to the [memorandum of conversation]?†Morrison was asked. “I do not,†he responded. Vindman testified that he suggested to edit in the word “Burisma.â€
But when asked about Vindman’s suggestions, Morrison said he approved all of them.
“Had I recalled or had it in my notes that was mentioned, yes, I would have agreed to the edit,†he said of the word “Burisma.†-Epoch Times
Morrison also told Congressional investigators that he questioned Vindman’s judgement and that other NSC officials shared those concerns.
“I had concerns about Lieutenant Colonel Vindman’s judgment. Among the discussions I had with Dr. Hill in the transition [period] was our team, my team, its strengths and its weaknesses. And Fiona and others had raised concerns about Alex’s judgment,” he recalled.
“I had concerns that he did not exercise appropriate judgment as to whom he would say what.”
When asked about rumors that Vindman might be leaking information to the press, Morrison said “It was brought to my attention that some had—some of my personnel had concerns that he did [have access to things he was not supposed to see].”
PD- I can see that bribery doesn’t make that much sense. After all, the money had already been approved. It sounds more like blackmail or extortion. Dangling approved money in front of them in return for services to be rendered.
Steve