I am a lawyer and a trained litigator. I have presented cases before Immigration Courts and the Virginia Circuit Courts. And although I have watched congressional hearings numerous times before, they still annoy me. The main reason is that these hearings are not designed so much to try to get to the truth, so much as to put on a dog and pony show in order to get as many sound bites as possible to make it to the news. These impeachment inquiries are no exception.
Let's start with who presides over the hearings. The Committee Chair is a member of the majority party in the House. In this case, the Chair of the House Intelligence Committee is Adam Schiff. But Schiff plays two roles. Not only does he preside over the hearings, but he has a political agenda. In this case, I personally happen to agree with that agenda,which is the impeachment and eventual removal of Donald Trump as President of the United States for his abuse of power. Nonetheless, I do think it is very important that the person conducting the hearings present an image of disinterested fairness. I cringe when Schiff opens up the hearings with his recitation of what he thinks the testimony will show. I wish somehow that the hearings would be presided over by some kind of neutral parliamentarian, who enforces the rules, but does not express an opinion. That would take away much of the argument that the Republicans are making, that Schiff is being unfair to them, when all he is doing is enforcing the rules. It would also free Schiff to pursue his political agenda, without making it appear like a one-sided affair.
Moving on the opening statements of the Ranking Member, Devin Nunes, I've been finding it really hard not to throw something at the TV when he speaks. Yes, I know that the Republicans' strategy is to distract everyone from the facts of the case. When you get down to it, the memorandum of the July 25th phone call is just plain damning. Right there, the President is asking for a favor right after the President of Ukraine refers to his country's desire for defensive assistance. But all of this stuff on how we aren't going to hear from the whistleblower, or the arguments over Joe Biden and his son Hunter, they are just irrelevant to the issue at hand. I keep thinking that if I ever tried to pull that kind of thing in a court of law, I'd have a really annoyed judge in front of me. "Counsel, stick to the facts of this case," I'd likely be lectured.
And if that weren't enough, in the first few hearings, we saw Republicans interrupt with their so-called "point of order." A point of order is supposed to be a complaint over a procedural issue. But the Republicans are trying to use them again to distract from the witnesses scheduled for that day, and raise their inane conspiracy theories. Point of order, we are not going to hear from the whistleblower and whether this personal may have a political agenda. Point of order, you won't let us call Hunter Biden as a witness. None of this has anything to do with the procedure, which was agreed to prior to the hearings. They are all about trying to put the irrelevant conspiracy theories before the public. And when Chairman Schiff recognizes this and cuts them off, they complain that he is not being fair. Dog and pony show.
Now, I know these hearings are not run according to the Federal Rules of Evidence. But for crying out loud, these questions are just the absolute worst. Most of the time, these are just leading questions. That is, the representative, or counsel, simply makes a statement and then asks the witness if he or she agrees with that statement. A times, when the witness tries to answer in his or her own words, the questioner tries to interrupt the answer, and emphasize the questioner's point. Not only that, there have been numerous times that the questioner has tried to characterize the witness' statement with hyperbole or exaggeration, using very loaded or judgmental words. I tell you, if I did that in court, I would get a very strong rebuke from the judge.
More annoying than that are the times that the representative doesn't even ask a question. Instead, he just takes his full time to make a political speech to please the President or his constituency. Jim Jordan, who needs to be wearing a suit jacket during these hearings for goodness sake, is the worst at this. I honestly don't understand why the Republicans put him in the Intelligence Committee specifically for these hearings, because his speeches are just not effective.
One tactic that came out more clearly during Lt. Colonel Vidman's testimony was this attempt by Republicans to unmask the whistleblower. We all know, or should know, that this is illegal. Like it or not, we need to protect the identity of a whistleblower for the very reasons that are unfolding here, before our eyes. We want people to be able to come forward with information of potential wrong-doing, without fear of reprisals. It's bad enough that the Army had announced its readiness to protect Lt. Colonel Vidman if necessary, because of all of the threats he has received. Imagine if the name of the whistleblower had gotten out. With all of those people who blindly support Trump, the whistleblower's life would most assuredly be in jeopardy. And yet, we saw Devin Nunes time and again ask Vindman to identify with whom he spoke, with whom he met, and then criticize Vindman when he refuses to name some people either based on counsel's advice or Chairman Schiff's instructions. Nunes even tried to argue that if Vindman was not asserting a Fifth Amendment right (which is the right against self-incrimination), he couldn't refuse to answer the question.
Look, while I want to be careful comparing this to a criminal action, many times criminal investigations or police action is spurred by unidentified informants. If the investigations or police action independently uncover criminal activity, the identity and motivations of the informant are irrelevant. What is relevant is the information that the investigation or police activity uncovered. The same concept applies here. Independent sources, such as the phone call memo and the witnesses who have testified so far, have corroborated what was reported in the whistleblower's complaint. The only reason to pursue the identity of the whistleblower any further, is to intimidate that person and others who may come forward to report official wrongdoing.
Let's now talk about this theme we are hearing from Republicans that the witnesses cannot identify a specific crime, or have not said words like bribery, extortion or quid pro quo. That is not the witnesses' role. The witnesses are supposed to be there to present factual testimony. Most of the witnesses are not lawyers. It is not their role to conclude that the behavior they witnessed or about which they testified amounts to any specific crime. That's a legal conclusion. It's the job of the House to determine if the facts amount to an impeachable event, regardless of how one may label it.
As I watch Devin Nunes deliver his afternoon opening statement, I have to agree with his statement that these hearings are "not serious" or "sober," but not for the reasons he has stated. Yes, it is a dog and pony show. But so far, the most egregious abuses have been from the Republicans, who are doing all they can to prevent the disclosure of facts, and hijack the hearings for their political agenda of pleasing the President and their constituents.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Header Photo
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
Wednesday, November 6, 2019
Open Enrollment for Health Insurance through the Marketplace is Here, and May Bring a Pleasant Surprise
Open enrollment is among us, if you need to buy your health insurance from your state’s marketplace pursuant to the Affordable Care Act, also known as the ACA or Obamacare. Today, I went to healthcare.gov to choose which plan I wanted for 2020. As some of you may know, I am currently fighting cancer, and incur a lot of health care expenses. I have one of the top of the line gold plans for 2019, and have been very happy with it. I was thrilled to see that not only is the same plan available for 2020, but the premiums went down by about $100 a month for me. I can’t promise the same results for you, but by all means, if you need health insurance check out what is available through your state’s marketplace on healthcare.gov. You have until December 15, 2019 to enroll.
My experience buying health insurance through the marketplace has recently been a pleasant surprise, especially considering that one of the main policy goals of the Republican Party has been to repeal Obamacare. Well, technically, the GOP has called for the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. But if you recall the Spring and Summer of 2017, you may remember that when the GOP had both houses of Congress and the Presidency, there seemed to be wide-spread agreement on the repeal part, but not a single Republican could propose a replacement. This was a scary concept for someone like me, who worked as a solo practitioner at the time, and had a pre-existing condition. If the Republicans could repeal Obamacare, but would not replace it, where was that going to leave me? Luckily, the rest of the country and I watched as Republican Senator John McCain strolled to the floor of the Senate, and famously turned his thumb down, going against his party and saving Obamacare from repeal.
Of course, that was not the end of my anxiety. One thing that is clear about President Trump is his obsession with trying to undo everything he can that President Obama accomplished. If his party could not deliver on the promise to repeal Obamacare, then Trump was going to do everything in his power to sabotage it from the inside.
He started by withholding subsidies to the insurance companies for participating in the market place. This created a great deal of panic and uncertainty. It resulted in higher premium prices and fewer choices for those who went through the marketplace. For myself, I noticed that there were only two insurance companies offering plans in my state. When I purchased the plan I thought was the better choice, I suddenly found that many of the doctors I had gotten used to seeing did not accept this insurance. Not only was my choice limited, but getting the insurance company to approve of the care I needed, such as major surgery, suddenly became a challenge. I spent a lot of time learning about peer to peer reviews and asking my doctors to call the insurance company doctors to convince them why the treatment, such as cutting recurrent cancer out of my body, was necessary.
But this was not Trump’s only strategy. He also stopped enforcing the penalty for not complying with the mandate. That is, in order for Obamacare to work, low risk healthy Americans had to purchase health insurance in order to offset the additional costs to insurance companies for being compelled to offer plans to people like me, without considering my pre-existing condition and at the same premium. Without the penalty for not buying health insurance, which was enforced by the IRS, healthy people may choose to forgo buying health insurance, thus increasing the percentage of high risk customers, which in turn would increase premiums. And that is what I experienced. Not only was my choice of plans more limited, the plans that were available were more expensive and had a high deductible.
Trump tried to drive more people out of the marketplace, by approving more short-term insurance plans. These type of plans had less coverage than the plans available on the marketplace, and were far cheaper. A small number of these plans were available before Trump won the election. I needed to utilize this option for a few months in 2016 through the first month of 2017. The premiums were super cheap. But, that was based on the customer not needing to use the plan for major health problems. This was fine for me, until the beginning of 2017 when I started showing some serious symptoms. My cancer had been in remission for several years, and thus was not considered a pre-existing condition for the purposes of this plan. Nonetheless, the insurance company fought with me tooth and nail to cover the treatment I began to need in early 2017. Indeed, the insurance company refused to pay over $36,000 worth of treatment, until I finally reported the company to my state’s insurance commission. Amazingly, after months of denials and fighting, once the insurance commission got involved the insurance company changed its tune, and my expenses once again covered. Still, from my experience with this short-term plan, I will avoid them as much as humanly possible in the future.
But even with Trump’s efforts to sabotage Obamacare, something amazing happened. The health insurance market stabilized after one year. When open enrollment came around in 2018, there were suddenly over twenty plans available to me through the marketplace. With the guidance from my healthcare providers, I was able to choose a plan that was widely accepted by the doctors I already patronized, and that offered a good amount of coverage at a reasonable price. Despite Trump’s efforts to destroy Obamacare, the system was working well for me.
That trend continued this year. Indeed, it has been reported that in many states, there are more plans available this year, and at lower premiums. For now, Trump’s efforts to destroy Obamacare without formally repealing it seems to be failing. Yes, there are lawsuits out there challenging the law as unconstitutional. There are lawsuits challenging the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions. Given my personal situation, these are developments I worry about and watch closely. But for now, Obamacare is working for me.
So I urge you, if you need health insurance, check out your state’s marketplace. Yes, you will need to input a lot of information, including information about your income. But you just might find yourself pleasantly surprised, as I was this year.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
My experience buying health insurance through the marketplace has recently been a pleasant surprise, especially considering that one of the main policy goals of the Republican Party has been to repeal Obamacare. Well, technically, the GOP has called for the repeal and replacement of Obamacare. But if you recall the Spring and Summer of 2017, you may remember that when the GOP had both houses of Congress and the Presidency, there seemed to be wide-spread agreement on the repeal part, but not a single Republican could propose a replacement. This was a scary concept for someone like me, who worked as a solo practitioner at the time, and had a pre-existing condition. If the Republicans could repeal Obamacare, but would not replace it, where was that going to leave me? Luckily, the rest of the country and I watched as Republican Senator John McCain strolled to the floor of the Senate, and famously turned his thumb down, going against his party and saving Obamacare from repeal.
Of course, that was not the end of my anxiety. One thing that is clear about President Trump is his obsession with trying to undo everything he can that President Obama accomplished. If his party could not deliver on the promise to repeal Obamacare, then Trump was going to do everything in his power to sabotage it from the inside.
He started by withholding subsidies to the insurance companies for participating in the market place. This created a great deal of panic and uncertainty. It resulted in higher premium prices and fewer choices for those who went through the marketplace. For myself, I noticed that there were only two insurance companies offering plans in my state. When I purchased the plan I thought was the better choice, I suddenly found that many of the doctors I had gotten used to seeing did not accept this insurance. Not only was my choice limited, but getting the insurance company to approve of the care I needed, such as major surgery, suddenly became a challenge. I spent a lot of time learning about peer to peer reviews and asking my doctors to call the insurance company doctors to convince them why the treatment, such as cutting recurrent cancer out of my body, was necessary.
But this was not Trump’s only strategy. He also stopped enforcing the penalty for not complying with the mandate. That is, in order for Obamacare to work, low risk healthy Americans had to purchase health insurance in order to offset the additional costs to insurance companies for being compelled to offer plans to people like me, without considering my pre-existing condition and at the same premium. Without the penalty for not buying health insurance, which was enforced by the IRS, healthy people may choose to forgo buying health insurance, thus increasing the percentage of high risk customers, which in turn would increase premiums. And that is what I experienced. Not only was my choice of plans more limited, the plans that were available were more expensive and had a high deductible.
Trump tried to drive more people out of the marketplace, by approving more short-term insurance plans. These type of plans had less coverage than the plans available on the marketplace, and were far cheaper. A small number of these plans were available before Trump won the election. I needed to utilize this option for a few months in 2016 through the first month of 2017. The premiums were super cheap. But, that was based on the customer not needing to use the plan for major health problems. This was fine for me, until the beginning of 2017 when I started showing some serious symptoms. My cancer had been in remission for several years, and thus was not considered a pre-existing condition for the purposes of this plan. Nonetheless, the insurance company fought with me tooth and nail to cover the treatment I began to need in early 2017. Indeed, the insurance company refused to pay over $36,000 worth of treatment, until I finally reported the company to my state’s insurance commission. Amazingly, after months of denials and fighting, once the insurance commission got involved the insurance company changed its tune, and my expenses once again covered. Still, from my experience with this short-term plan, I will avoid them as much as humanly possible in the future.
But even with Trump’s efforts to sabotage Obamacare, something amazing happened. The health insurance market stabilized after one year. When open enrollment came around in 2018, there were suddenly over twenty plans available to me through the marketplace. With the guidance from my healthcare providers, I was able to choose a plan that was widely accepted by the doctors I already patronized, and that offered a good amount of coverage at a reasonable price. Despite Trump’s efforts to destroy Obamacare, the system was working well for me.
That trend continued this year. Indeed, it has been reported that in many states, there are more plans available this year, and at lower premiums. For now, Trump’s efforts to destroy Obamacare without formally repealing it seems to be failing. Yes, there are lawsuits out there challenging the law as unconstitutional. There are lawsuits challenging the requirement to cover pre-existing conditions. Given my personal situation, these are developments I worry about and watch closely. But for now, Obamacare is working for me.
So I urge you, if you need health insurance, check out your state’s marketplace. Yes, you will need to input a lot of information, including information about your income. But you just might find yourself pleasantly surprised, as I was this year.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Wednesday, October 30, 2019
Republicans Put Whistleblower's Life in Jeopardy
If you frequent American political Twitter, you cannot ignore that right wing accounts have gone crazy in the later hours of Wednesday, repeating a name over and over, claiming that this person is the whistleblower who has brought the Trump presidency to its knees. Indeed, the tweeters have made no secret that they are trying to get the name to trend, thus garnering even greater online publicity. Many of the tweets are angry, and clearly care not that by publishing this name, they are placing this person's life is in jeopardy.
I will not give these tweeters the satisfaction and use the name in my writing. But consider for moment just how sick this is. There is a group of people so deranged that they care more for the fact that their president's corruption has been exposed and corroborated, than for the life of another human being.
Take a step back. President Trump released a memorandum on the telephone call he had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Although the memorandum is not a complete transcript, it contains enough detail to show that Trump strong-armed Ukraine, reminding Zelensky that the United States provides more assistance to Ukraine than Western European countries, but that the relationship was not entirely reciprocal. Then once Zelensky mentioned Ukraine's desire to purchase more anti-tank missiles, Trump is recorded as stating, "I would like you to do us a favor though." The rest of the memorandum details how Trump requested that Zelensky open an investigation to undermine the findings of the Mueller report, and to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. That is, the memorandum of the phone call that Trump claims was perfect clearly established that Trump placed pressure on Zelensky to dig up dirt that would help Trump's personal political agenda.
From the line of witnesses who have been interviewed by the three House committees currently conducting the information gathering phase of the impeachment inquiry, we have learned that Trump circumvented normal State Department procedures by sending his private attorney Rudolph Giuliani across the world to pressure Ukrainian officials into opening these investigations. We have learned that Trump dangled the prospects of a meeting between Trump and the newly elected Ukrainian President, but conditioned it on the commencement of those investigations. We learned that Trump did indeed withhold congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine, on the condition that Ukraine make a public announcement that it had begun investigating the Bidens. We have learned that Trump's aids wanted to see a draft of any statement by Zelensky before it went public concerning those investigations.
In short, the evidence and testimony presented to the House committees have not only corroborated the allegations made by the whistleblower in his or her complaint, but have gone a few steps beyond what the whistleblower alleged.
The identity of the whistleblower is therefore irrelevant now. The whistleblower provided the information that started the impeachment inquiry. That information has been confirmed, and continues to be confirmed, by other sources. There is no further need to interview the whistleblower.
Yet Trump has continued to harp that he deserves to know the name of the whistleblower. He has accused the whistleblower of treason and espionage. He has threatened the life of the whistelblower, saying that they ought to do with this person what they "used to do" with spies. That is, execute him or her. Trump knows full well that his inflammatory words could inspire the more extreme of his supporters, who could easily attempt to take matters into their own hands.
What's worse is that the name of the whistleblower has alleged been leaked to the Republicans who are part of the impeachment inquiry for some time now. Republicans are reported to have used this name several times in their questions of the witnesses, trying to build a case that the whistleblower had a bias against the President.
Indeed, not only have the most recent tweets revealed the alleged whistleblower's name, they have revealed his or her job and his or her specific employer, they have published photographs alleged to be the whistleblower, they have set out the whistleblower's work history and political leanings, all in an effort to make up an argument that the whistleblower was a partisan and that his or her information could not be trusted.
But again, what could possibly be the purpose of this now? The information in the complaint is consistent with the memorandum of the telephone call, and has been corroborated by other witnesses. The whistleblower's own biases is completely irrelevant, given the corroborating evidence. The only purpose releasing the identity, including work history, political leanings, and photographs is to work up the emotions of the President's base. Because they already oppose the impeachment inquiry, what else are they expected to do with this pent-up emotion if not act on it.
And that is the ultimate goal of the Republican Party. It is not to protect our republic from corruption. It is not to be patriotic. It goes beyond being loyal to the President. It is to send a message to this whistleblower, as well as any other potential whistleblower. That message is that despite laws intended to protect you for exposing allegedly corrupt practices, you will be in danger if you come forward. And isn't that more in line with what an autocrat would do than a leader of a democratic republic. The GOP has indeed fallen far from its roots.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
I will not give these tweeters the satisfaction and use the name in my writing. But consider for moment just how sick this is. There is a group of people so deranged that they care more for the fact that their president's corruption has been exposed and corroborated, than for the life of another human being.
Take a step back. President Trump released a memorandum on the telephone call he had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Although the memorandum is not a complete transcript, it contains enough detail to show that Trump strong-armed Ukraine, reminding Zelensky that the United States provides more assistance to Ukraine than Western European countries, but that the relationship was not entirely reciprocal. Then once Zelensky mentioned Ukraine's desire to purchase more anti-tank missiles, Trump is recorded as stating, "I would like you to do us a favor though." The rest of the memorandum details how Trump requested that Zelensky open an investigation to undermine the findings of the Mueller report, and to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. That is, the memorandum of the phone call that Trump claims was perfect clearly established that Trump placed pressure on Zelensky to dig up dirt that would help Trump's personal political agenda.
From the line of witnesses who have been interviewed by the three House committees currently conducting the information gathering phase of the impeachment inquiry, we have learned that Trump circumvented normal State Department procedures by sending his private attorney Rudolph Giuliani across the world to pressure Ukrainian officials into opening these investigations. We have learned that Trump dangled the prospects of a meeting between Trump and the newly elected Ukrainian President, but conditioned it on the commencement of those investigations. We learned that Trump did indeed withhold congressionally approved military aid to Ukraine, on the condition that Ukraine make a public announcement that it had begun investigating the Bidens. We have learned that Trump's aids wanted to see a draft of any statement by Zelensky before it went public concerning those investigations.
In short, the evidence and testimony presented to the House committees have not only corroborated the allegations made by the whistleblower in his or her complaint, but have gone a few steps beyond what the whistleblower alleged.
The identity of the whistleblower is therefore irrelevant now. The whistleblower provided the information that started the impeachment inquiry. That information has been confirmed, and continues to be confirmed, by other sources. There is no further need to interview the whistleblower.
Yet Trump has continued to harp that he deserves to know the name of the whistleblower. He has accused the whistleblower of treason and espionage. He has threatened the life of the whistelblower, saying that they ought to do with this person what they "used to do" with spies. That is, execute him or her. Trump knows full well that his inflammatory words could inspire the more extreme of his supporters, who could easily attempt to take matters into their own hands.
What's worse is that the name of the whistleblower has alleged been leaked to the Republicans who are part of the impeachment inquiry for some time now. Republicans are reported to have used this name several times in their questions of the witnesses, trying to build a case that the whistleblower had a bias against the President.
Indeed, not only have the most recent tweets revealed the alleged whistleblower's name, they have revealed his or her job and his or her specific employer, they have published photographs alleged to be the whistleblower, they have set out the whistleblower's work history and political leanings, all in an effort to make up an argument that the whistleblower was a partisan and that his or her information could not be trusted.
But again, what could possibly be the purpose of this now? The information in the complaint is consistent with the memorandum of the telephone call, and has been corroborated by other witnesses. The whistleblower's own biases is completely irrelevant, given the corroborating evidence. The only purpose releasing the identity, including work history, political leanings, and photographs is to work up the emotions of the President's base. Because they already oppose the impeachment inquiry, what else are they expected to do with this pent-up emotion if not act on it.
And that is the ultimate goal of the Republican Party. It is not to protect our republic from corruption. It is not to be patriotic. It goes beyond being loyal to the President. It is to send a message to this whistleblower, as well as any other potential whistleblower. That message is that despite laws intended to protect you for exposing allegedly corrupt practices, you will be in danger if you come forward. And isn't that more in line with what an autocrat would do than a leader of a democratic republic. The GOP has indeed fallen far from its roots.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Friday, October 25, 2019
Justice Department Criminal Probe into Mueller Investigation Reeks of Trump Authoritarianism
The investigation resulted in the indictment of 34 different individuals, including 12 Russian intelligence officers and 13 other Russian nationals. Five of Trump's own associates pleaded guilty to federal crimes, and either spent time in jail, or are currently incarcerated for their crimes. The investigation conclusively demonstrated that Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election, and tried to influence the outcome. Moreover, the investigation served as a warning to be vigilant over foreign powers planting false stories in social media in order to influence voters and call into question the integrity of the U.S. electoral process.
By most accounts, the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller was a success, and a much needed warning to the American people. Why, then, has Trump's Justice Department opened a criminal investigation looking into how that investigation was started?
The reason has much to do with President Donald Trump's warped perception of the investigation, and his narcissistic need to be praised and admired.
The investigation began not as a criminal investigation targeting Trump and his associates, but as a counterintelligence investigation based on warnings that Russia was attempting to influence the outcome of the election. When the FBI learned that Russian intelligence officers were having contacts with Trump campaign officials, such as Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, the agency turned to the special court created pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA") to apply for a warrant to permit domestic wire taps to determine exactly what Russian spies were doing. Because the Russian spies contacted Trump campaign officials, those wire taps focused on the Trump campaign and Trump properties. The original intention was not to target the Trump campaign for surveillance, but to learn what the Russians were up to and, if possible, thwart Russian intelligence operations in the United States.
Trump's ego, however, distorts his entire world perception, and therefore the reason behind the investigation. To Trump, the the FISA court approval of wire taps of Trump Tower in New York must have meant that the Government was spying on him, not the Russians. He thus saw the investigation into Russian meddling as an attack of him personally, and not on the Russian intelligence services. Because he could not stand to be questioned and criticized, he attempted numerous times, as detailed in the final Mueller Report, to obstruct that investigation. Indeed, because his first Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, recused himself from the investigation, Trump attacked his Attorney General repeatedly for being disloyal and failing to be able to stop the investigation. This is despite the fact that as an adviser to the Trump Campaign, Sessions met with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, and had legitimate reasons for the recusal.
Because Trump sees the investigation as an attack on the legitimacy of his presidency, he has been unable to accept its conclusions regarding Russian interference. Trump has continually rejected the verdict, not only of the Mueller investigation, but of the U.S. intelligence community that Russia attempted to influence the outcome of the election, favoring Trump over his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.
His compulsive opposition to the investigation of Russia shaped many of his decisions, including the firing of Attorney General Sessions, and the nomination of William Barr as the new Attorney General. Barr was already an outspoken opponent of the Mueller investigation when Trump nominated him. It therefore came as no surprise when, as Attorney General, Barr distorted the findings of the Mueller report, before releasing a redacted version to the public. Through his summary of the report, Barr conveyed that the Mueller team had exonerated the President. In reality, in the report Mueller and his team noted that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians existed, but there was plenty of evidence of the President's multiple attempts to interfere in the investigation itself.
It is Trump's distorted view of the investigation that has, in part, led to the current impeach inquiry. Despite his claims that he was exonerated by the Mueller report, Trump has obsessed over proving the illegitimacy of the investigation. Throughout the investigation, he called it a witch hunt. Indeed, he continues to refer to the Mueller investigation as a witch hunt to this day. Trump latched onto a conspiracy theory that it was the Democratic Party that invited foreign interference into the 2016 election, which somehow involved Ukraine. Part of that conspiracy theory is that the server of the Democratic National Committee, which was hacked during the 2016 campaign, somehow ended up in Ukraine. Accordingly, part of the quid pro quo of releasing the congressional approved military aid to Ukraine was an announcement from the Zelensky Government that it was investigating where the DNC server ended up. Trump's private attorney, Rudolph Guiliani, has been pressuring Ukrainian officials to open investigations, both of the Bidens and of the DNC server, for months.
Indeed, as part of his campaign to discredit the Mueller investigation, Trump has reached out to other foreign countries for help. The Russian investigation began based on a warning from an Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, who had a conversation with Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos in London. Papadopoulos was bragging that the Russians had thousands of supposedly damaging emails from Hillary Clinton. Trump has asked that Australia cooperate with Attorney General Barr in investigating whether Downer was spying on Papadopoulos. As a result of the investigation into Russia, Papadopoulos served a fourteen day prison term after pleading guilty to lying to the FBI. Trump has also reportedly sent Barr to Italy seeking information on whether a Maltese professor, Josef Misfud, who also spoke with Papadopoulos concerning Clinton's emails, was somehow connected to Italian intelligence operations.
Given the lengths to which Trump has gone to discredit the Mueller investigation, the fact that the Justice Department may have opened a criminal investigation into how the Russian probe got started should come as no surprise. Trump is no stranger to intimidation tactics. Using the Justice Department against those whom he perceives as disloyal or as part of the deep state opposition to his presidency would be in line with his autocratic tendencies. Barr's demonstrated loyalty to Trump may indeed cause the Attorney General to permit the President to use the Justice Department as a tool to intimidate those who would oppose him.
The use of the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into how the probe of Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election started is troubling to say the least. It raises serious concerns of Trump's willingness to use his office to retaliate against people he believes to be his enemies. This is not the act of a leader dedicated to the principles of freedom and democracy. It is more in line with a tactic of a despot attempting to quell opposition to his reign. Let us hope the United States has not slid that far in the direction of autocracy.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
By most accounts, the investigation conducted by Special Counsel Robert Mueller was a success, and a much needed warning to the American people. Why, then, has Trump's Justice Department opened a criminal investigation looking into how that investigation was started?
The reason has much to do with President Donald Trump's warped perception of the investigation, and his narcissistic need to be praised and admired.
The investigation began not as a criminal investigation targeting Trump and his associates, but as a counterintelligence investigation based on warnings that Russia was attempting to influence the outcome of the election. When the FBI learned that Russian intelligence officers were having contacts with Trump campaign officials, such as Campaign Chairman Paul Manafort, the agency turned to the special court created pursuant to the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act of 1978 ("FISA") to apply for a warrant to permit domestic wire taps to determine exactly what Russian spies were doing. Because the Russian spies contacted Trump campaign officials, those wire taps focused on the Trump campaign and Trump properties. The original intention was not to target the Trump campaign for surveillance, but to learn what the Russians were up to and, if possible, thwart Russian intelligence operations in the United States.
Trump's ego, however, distorts his entire world perception, and therefore the reason behind the investigation. To Trump, the the FISA court approval of wire taps of Trump Tower in New York must have meant that the Government was spying on him, not the Russians. He thus saw the investigation into Russian meddling as an attack of him personally, and not on the Russian intelligence services. Because he could not stand to be questioned and criticized, he attempted numerous times, as detailed in the final Mueller Report, to obstruct that investigation. Indeed, because his first Attorney General, Jeff Sessions, recused himself from the investigation, Trump attacked his Attorney General repeatedly for being disloyal and failing to be able to stop the investigation. This is despite the fact that as an adviser to the Trump Campaign, Sessions met with Russian Ambassador Sergei Kislyak, and had legitimate reasons for the recusal.
Because Trump sees the investigation as an attack on the legitimacy of his presidency, he has been unable to accept its conclusions regarding Russian interference. Trump has continually rejected the verdict, not only of the Mueller investigation, but of the U.S. intelligence community that Russia attempted to influence the outcome of the election, favoring Trump over his Democratic opponent, Hillary Clinton.
His compulsive opposition to the investigation of Russia shaped many of his decisions, including the firing of Attorney General Sessions, and the nomination of William Barr as the new Attorney General. Barr was already an outspoken opponent of the Mueller investigation when Trump nominated him. It therefore came as no surprise when, as Attorney General, Barr distorted the findings of the Mueller report, before releasing a redacted version to the public. Through his summary of the report, Barr conveyed that the Mueller team had exonerated the President. In reality, in the report Mueller and his team noted that there was insufficient evidence to conclude that a conspiracy between the Trump campaign and the Russians existed, but there was plenty of evidence of the President's multiple attempts to interfere in the investigation itself.
It is Trump's distorted view of the investigation that has, in part, led to the current impeach inquiry. Despite his claims that he was exonerated by the Mueller report, Trump has obsessed over proving the illegitimacy of the investigation. Throughout the investigation, he called it a witch hunt. Indeed, he continues to refer to the Mueller investigation as a witch hunt to this day. Trump latched onto a conspiracy theory that it was the Democratic Party that invited foreign interference into the 2016 election, which somehow involved Ukraine. Part of that conspiracy theory is that the server of the Democratic National Committee, which was hacked during the 2016 campaign, somehow ended up in Ukraine. Accordingly, part of the quid pro quo of releasing the congressional approved military aid to Ukraine was an announcement from the Zelensky Government that it was investigating where the DNC server ended up. Trump's private attorney, Rudolph Guiliani, has been pressuring Ukrainian officials to open investigations, both of the Bidens and of the DNC server, for months.
Indeed, as part of his campaign to discredit the Mueller investigation, Trump has reached out to other foreign countries for help. The Russian investigation began based on a warning from an Australian diplomat, Alexander Downer, who had a conversation with Trump campaign adviser, George Papadopoulos in London. Papadopoulos was bragging that the Russians had thousands of supposedly damaging emails from Hillary Clinton. Trump has asked that Australia cooperate with Attorney General Barr in investigating whether Downer was spying on Papadopoulos. As a result of the investigation into Russia, Papadopoulos served a fourteen day prison term after pleading guilty to lying to the FBI. Trump has also reportedly sent Barr to Italy seeking information on whether a Maltese professor, Josef Misfud, who also spoke with Papadopoulos concerning Clinton's emails, was somehow connected to Italian intelligence operations.
Given the lengths to which Trump has gone to discredit the Mueller investigation, the fact that the Justice Department may have opened a criminal investigation into how the Russian probe got started should come as no surprise. Trump is no stranger to intimidation tactics. Using the Justice Department against those whom he perceives as disloyal or as part of the deep state opposition to his presidency would be in line with his autocratic tendencies. Barr's demonstrated loyalty to Trump may indeed cause the Attorney General to permit the President to use the Justice Department as a tool to intimidate those who would oppose him.
The use of the Justice Department to open a criminal investigation into how the probe of Russian interference into the 2016 presidential election started is troubling to say the least. It raises serious concerns of Trump's willingness to use his office to retaliate against people he believes to be his enemies. This is not the act of a leader dedicated to the principles of freedom and democracy. It is more in line with a tactic of a despot attempting to quell opposition to his reign. Let us hope the United States has not slid that far in the direction of autocracy.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Wednesday, October 23, 2019
Trump Supporters Thrive on the Drama, and Endanger National Security
Today, Florida Representative Matt Gaetz engaged in a political stunt by leading a group of about thirty Republican House members to storm into the Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility ("SCIF") where the House Judiciary Committee was to take the deposition of the Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia, Laura Cooper, endangering national security in the process. The SCIF is a facility set up to permit members of Congress to receive classified information concerning national security while keeping the information secure. No electronic devices are permitted inside the hearing room. A special room outside of the hearing room exits so everyone who enters the hearing room can lock up their cell phones and other electronic devices.
Nonetheless, Gaetz and his Republican cohorts violated protocol, storming into the hearing room uninvited without locking up their electronic devices. Indeed, a tweet appeared on Gaetz Twitter account celebrating the intrusion. After Chairman Adam Schiff abruptly ended the proceedings, the SCIF had to be swept to ensure no electronic devices that could spy on the hearings had been left behind. As Mieke Eoyang, Vice President for the Third Way's National Security Program (@MiekeEoyang) reported on her Twitter account, many members of Congress are targets for foreign intelligence due to what they know about national security. Yet, at the same time some Congress members fail to observe strict steps to secure their sensitive conversations. Knowing what is discussed within the SCIF would be a boon to foreign adversaries, says Eoyang, which is why breaching protocol by bringing electronic devices into the hearing room is such a danger to national security.
Despite the threat to national security, Trump supporters are likely to be thrilled with Gaetz's brazen political stunt. Hard core Trump supporters thrive on the drama, regardless of the threat to the nation, both from hostile foreign entities, and from the autocratic tendencies of the chief executive and his administration. Indeed, Trump supporters love the "in your face" combative tactics that Trump and his defenders have adopted in opposition to the current impeachment inquiry.
Trump supporters have long memories. Their unwavering loyalty can be traced back to the Impeachment of President Bill Clinton. Clinton was, of course, caught lying whiles testifying under oath about a sexual encounter with a White House intern. He was impeached for perjury, however, the Democrats rallied behind their President. As a result, Clinton survived the removal trial in the Senate. Conservative voters decried how the Democrats could continue to support a man, nicknamed Slick Willie for his perceived dishonesty. As successive Republican leaders, such as Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston, resigned from Congress amid marital infidelity allegations, conservative talk show hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh, lamented that Republicans would rather throw their leaders under the bus than stand up and fight when such allegations were made.
When Trump came along in the middle of the 2016 Republican presidential nomination campaign, he turned the event into a slugfest. He slapped his opponents with derogatory nicknames, like Little Marco Rubio, and Lyin' Ted Cruz, that injected drama for low information voters, who otherwise found the crowded field of candidates uninteresting. Conservative voters had found a candidate who could fight, and who would enjoy their undying support. Trump was, in essence, their Bill Clinton.
Indeed, the support from Trump from these voters was so strong, it didn't matter that his White House was reported to be in chaos, it didn't matter that Trump would blab highly confidential intelligence to Russian officials, and, of course, it didn't matter that Trump was willing to engage in lawlessness, such as obstructing the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election on several occasions.
Those same supporters blindly defend Trump, despite what factual evidence of his wrong doings emerge. Despite public statements by Trump that he asked a foreign leader for dirt on a political opponent, their support is undying. The release of the memorandum of his telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirming that asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter did not change their minds. Even with evidence piling up indicating that Trump was withholding military aid to Ukraine, approved by Congress, until the Ukrainian Government would announce that it had opened that investigation, Trump supporters still believe his claims that the phone call was "perfect."
When Acting Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, admitted in a press conference that the flow of funds was held up until Ukraine made steps to combat corruption, which in the President's mind included the investigation, core Trump supporters' loyalty never wavered. After admitting the facts that make up the quid pro quo, Mulvaney infamously told the press corps, "get over it." While Washington pundits continue to buzz about the admission, it has hardly moved any hard core Trump supporters. Within days, Mulvney's admonition to the press to "get over it" found itself emblazoned on t-shirts for sale on Trump's 2020 campaign website. (Research has shown that t-shirt saying, "I voted for Trump, Get Over It" were available through the website even before Mulvaney's press conference. However, I could not find the simple "Get Over It" alone on a t-shirt until after Mulvaney's said it to the press.) Despite Mulvaney's admission of the President's gross illegality and abuse of power, Trump supporters could themselves get "in your face" with a defiant message, indicating Trump was still their man, no matter his outrageous offenses.
Trump supporters just don't care about the threat to national security when it comes to being loyal to "their man." Trump supporters did not protest Trump's tweeting of a classified spy satellite image taken of an Iranian rocket installation. They do not protest Trump's continual discrediting of the U.S. intelligence community. They don't mind that Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in secret multiple times. Certainly, they won't mind now that Representative Gaetz has led so many Republican representatives to breach security protocol in such an audacious manner. Indeed, his political stunt plays right into their wheelhouse, having show that they prefer the drama and confrontation that is the hallmark of the Trump Administration.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Nonetheless, Gaetz and his Republican cohorts violated protocol, storming into the hearing room uninvited without locking up their electronic devices. Indeed, a tweet appeared on Gaetz Twitter account celebrating the intrusion. After Chairman Adam Schiff abruptly ended the proceedings, the SCIF had to be swept to ensure no electronic devices that could spy on the hearings had been left behind. As Mieke Eoyang, Vice President for the Third Way's National Security Program (@MiekeEoyang) reported on her Twitter account, many members of Congress are targets for foreign intelligence due to what they know about national security. Yet, at the same time some Congress members fail to observe strict steps to secure their sensitive conversations. Knowing what is discussed within the SCIF would be a boon to foreign adversaries, says Eoyang, which is why breaching protocol by bringing electronic devices into the hearing room is such a danger to national security.
Despite the threat to national security, Trump supporters are likely to be thrilled with Gaetz's brazen political stunt. Hard core Trump supporters thrive on the drama, regardless of the threat to the nation, both from hostile foreign entities, and from the autocratic tendencies of the chief executive and his administration. Indeed, Trump supporters love the "in your face" combative tactics that Trump and his defenders have adopted in opposition to the current impeachment inquiry.
Trump supporters have long memories. Their unwavering loyalty can be traced back to the Impeachment of President Bill Clinton. Clinton was, of course, caught lying whiles testifying under oath about a sexual encounter with a White House intern. He was impeached for perjury, however, the Democrats rallied behind their President. As a result, Clinton survived the removal trial in the Senate. Conservative voters decried how the Democrats could continue to support a man, nicknamed Slick Willie for his perceived dishonesty. As successive Republican leaders, such as Newt Gingrich and Bob Livingston, resigned from Congress amid marital infidelity allegations, conservative talk show hosts, such as Rush Limbaugh, lamented that Republicans would rather throw their leaders under the bus than stand up and fight when such allegations were made.
When Trump came along in the middle of the 2016 Republican presidential nomination campaign, he turned the event into a slugfest. He slapped his opponents with derogatory nicknames, like Little Marco Rubio, and Lyin' Ted Cruz, that injected drama for low information voters, who otherwise found the crowded field of candidates uninteresting. Conservative voters had found a candidate who could fight, and who would enjoy their undying support. Trump was, in essence, their Bill Clinton.
Indeed, the support from Trump from these voters was so strong, it didn't matter that his White House was reported to be in chaos, it didn't matter that Trump would blab highly confidential intelligence to Russian officials, and, of course, it didn't matter that Trump was willing to engage in lawlessness, such as obstructing the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election on several occasions.
Those same supporters blindly defend Trump, despite what factual evidence of his wrong doings emerge. Despite public statements by Trump that he asked a foreign leader for dirt on a political opponent, their support is undying. The release of the memorandum of his telephone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky confirming that asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter did not change their minds. Even with evidence piling up indicating that Trump was withholding military aid to Ukraine, approved by Congress, until the Ukrainian Government would announce that it had opened that investigation, Trump supporters still believe his claims that the phone call was "perfect."
When Acting Chief of Staff, Mick Mulvaney, admitted in a press conference that the flow of funds was held up until Ukraine made steps to combat corruption, which in the President's mind included the investigation, core Trump supporters' loyalty never wavered. After admitting the facts that make up the quid pro quo, Mulvaney infamously told the press corps, "get over it." While Washington pundits continue to buzz about the admission, it has hardly moved any hard core Trump supporters. Within days, Mulvney's admonition to the press to "get over it" found itself emblazoned on t-shirts for sale on Trump's 2020 campaign website. (Research has shown that t-shirt saying, "I voted for Trump, Get Over It" were available through the website even before Mulvaney's press conference. However, I could not find the simple "Get Over It" alone on a t-shirt until after Mulvaney's said it to the press.) Despite Mulvaney's admission of the President's gross illegality and abuse of power, Trump supporters could themselves get "in your face" with a defiant message, indicating Trump was still their man, no matter his outrageous offenses.Trump supporters just don't care about the threat to national security when it comes to being loyal to "their man." Trump supporters did not protest Trump's tweeting of a classified spy satellite image taken of an Iranian rocket installation. They do not protest Trump's continual discrediting of the U.S. intelligence community. They don't mind that Trump met with Russian President Vladimir Putin in secret multiple times. Certainly, they won't mind now that Representative Gaetz has led so many Republican representatives to breach security protocol in such an audacious manner. Indeed, his political stunt plays right into their wheelhouse, having show that they prefer the drama and confrontation that is the hallmark of the Trump Administration.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Wednesday, October 16, 2019
There Has to be a Better Way to Choose a President
Twelve people stood on stage last night, each trying to explain why they should be the next President of the United States. But after yet another three hours of back and forth between a dozen candidates, have we learned enough to choose a president?
We were in a similar situation four years ago. At that time, we were fairly certain that Hillary Clinton was going to be the Democratic nominee. Meanwhile, the Republican race, with its multitude of characters, seemed like a farce. No one really stood out. At the time, Donald Trump has a substantial following, but not a majority of Republican voters. He gained his support mostly do to name recognition, and turning the Republican debates into Jerry Springer-like events, that many found entertaining.
Over the next few months, as primaries and caucuses were held, the experienced politicians in the Republican field found that they could not put their egos aside, and Trump racked up the delegates, based on name recognition and his entertainment value. By time the dust settled, and the two major candidates selected, many in the electorate asked, is this the best we could do.
That questions haunts the process of selecting a president to this day. Is this the best we can do? The process is easy to criticize. It takes too long. It’s tiring for potential voters. It’s superficial. It’s too expensive. It’s too divisive. It gives a small minority of people way too much power in influencing the outcome. And in the end, it is just way too possible for the choice of most American voters to be ignored, as the person losing the popular vote can still wind up being the president.
It’s no mystery why in many elections, voters complain that they are choosing the lesser of two evils.
Surely, we can do better.
While the Democrats were engaging in their debates here in the United States, a fascinating crisis of leadership unfolded in the United Kingdom. A new Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has failed to convince fellow members of Parliament that leaving the European Union without concluding a deal upon which both the U.K. and the E.U. could agree would be a satisfactory outcome of Brexit. As a result, Johnson lost vote after vote in Parliament, and even saw enough of his party’s members defect to the opposition to rob him of a majority in Parliament. There was discussion of holding an election to choose a new Parliament. What was astonishing was that no one in the United Kingdom even questioned that such an election could be completed in five weeks.
Five weeks to choose an entirely new government in the U.K.; meanwhile, the campaign to choose a new president in the United States persists for more than two years. How can that possibly be? Do we really need all that time to make a reasoned decision? Some might even argue that the U.S. presidential campaign is never-ending. Indeed, President Trump continued to hold political rallies almost immediately after being sworn into office.
Is this really the best we can do?
Richard Nixon once said of running for president, that first one had to run to the right as far as he could to court Republican voters to nominate him. Then, during the general election, that same person had to run to the center as fast as he could, to convince independent voters to choose him over his Democratic rival.
It’s no wonder why American politicians are accused of flip-flopping.
To fix the system would go beyond tweaking what the United States already has. Indeed, simply abolishing the Electoral College would not be enough. The problem with the U.S. system includes our primary system, which takes too long, gives too much influence to two states with small populations, entrenches the two party system, and leaves a large number of voters without a voice in nominating the presidential candidates.
The first big contest of the nomination season is the Iowa Caucuses. Iowa represents less than one percent of the total U.S. population. Yet, presidential candidates flock to Iowa early every four years to court the state’s voters. Especially when a candidate trails in the national polls, if that candidate can somehow convince Iowa voters to choose him or her, that candidate can experience a huge burst in popularity and news coverage. At times, a win in Iowa can create enough momentum to propel a candidate to the nomination.
Similarly, the first primary election takes place in New Hampshire, where the population is roughly one-third that of Iowa. An victory in the first election of the primary season can be as equally powerful, especially for a dark horse candidate.
But why do states with such small populations have such a big influence over the major parties’ nomination? The short answer is tradition. Other states have tried to schedule their contests before Iowa and New Hampshire. But each time, the major parties threaten to discipline those states if they do so. For example, the major parties have threatened not to recognize any delegates selected in contests that occur before Iowa and New Hampshire.
The argument is that small states would otherwise get lost in the shuffle, if states with larger populations, such as California and Florida, have all of the influence over the nominations. But why is that a good thing? Some may even argue that giving states with lower populations so much influence over the presidential nominations goes against the democratic principle of majority rule.
Moreover, the current nomination system is built around the assumption of two major parties: Democrats and Republicans. Democrats, of course, tend to lean left, or liberal, in their political views, while Republicans lean right, or conservative. But in the last few decades, the number of U.S. voters who identify themselves as either Democrats or Republicans has fallen. A 2017 Gallup poll showed 31% of Americans identified themselves as Democrats, 24% as Republicans, and 42% as independent of any political party. Confining the nomination process to just the Democratic and Republican parties means an extremely large percentage of the U.S. electorate has no say in that process. Moreover, because each party has a definite leaning on the political spectrum, this means the more extreme voters in each party have a disproportionate say in who gets nominated. The nominees, then, tend to be more liberal or more conservative than the population at large. Centrist candidates are at a big disadvantage in the current system, even though most American voters tend to be more moderate than liberal or conservative.
It’s no wonder, then, why there is often wide-spread disappointment in the two major nominees for president.
Those who may favor third party candidates get ridiculed. A nominee from the Libertarian or Green Party has no chance to win. So why waste your vote on a third party the argument goes. And so, independent voters, who make up the largest block of voters, are the ones who have to compromise the most when choosing between the two major parties’ nominees.
Why does it have to be like this?
Of course, the final blow to democratic principles occurs when in the end, the choice of most U.S. voters is ignored, and the loser winds of becoming the president. This is the result of the Electoral College. To summarize, the reality of the presidential election is that there are 51 separate elections, one in each state and one in the District of Columbia. Each state is given an amount of electors equal to the number of senators and representatives that states send to Congress, with the District of Columbia receiving three. The result of this system is to give voters in states with smaller populations a greater say in who becomes the president. Thus, the loser of the popular vote can still become president provided he or she can win in enough states. This has happened five times in the history of the United States. But the last two times have happened within 16 years of each other. With Republicans having appeal to many of those smaller states, they have something of an advantage in the Electoral College system. Therefore, what was once thought of as a rare oddity of the American system threatens to become the norm in elections to come.
In sum, for a country that prides itself on being a democratic republic, its method of choosing a chief executive goes against many democratic principles.
In recent years, there has been a growing cry to eliminate the Electoral College. Some states have passed laws to give their states’ electors to whomever wins the national popular vote. The problem with concentrating on the Electoral College is that it fails to address all of the issues with the entire process.
A far more satisfying approach is to do away with the entire nomination system and Electoral College. The United States should adopt a system much like Louisiana’s non-partisan primary. In such a system, two elections are held. The first is a primary, in which every candidate runs, regardless of party affiliation. If somebody receives a majority (greater than 50%) of the vote, then we have our winner and the second election is cancelled. But if no one wins a majority in the primary, then the top two candidates face each other in the general election, held about one month later. Several countries, such as France, employ a system like this.
Such a system cuts down on the length of the presidential campaign, thus ending the non-stop campaigning we have today. Because it is a national election, no one region would have greater influence over the others. Because it is non-partisan, centrists and third party candidates have a greater chance of winning, meaning voters can freely vote their conscience, instead of choosing the lesser of two evils. It is a more democratic system, and likely to result in candidates that reflect the views of a larger proportion of the U.S. population.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
We were in a similar situation four years ago. At that time, we were fairly certain that Hillary Clinton was going to be the Democratic nominee. Meanwhile, the Republican race, with its multitude of characters, seemed like a farce. No one really stood out. At the time, Donald Trump has a substantial following, but not a majority of Republican voters. He gained his support mostly do to name recognition, and turning the Republican debates into Jerry Springer-like events, that many found entertaining.
Over the next few months, as primaries and caucuses were held, the experienced politicians in the Republican field found that they could not put their egos aside, and Trump racked up the delegates, based on name recognition and his entertainment value. By time the dust settled, and the two major candidates selected, many in the electorate asked, is this the best we could do.
That questions haunts the process of selecting a president to this day. Is this the best we can do? The process is easy to criticize. It takes too long. It’s tiring for potential voters. It’s superficial. It’s too expensive. It’s too divisive. It gives a small minority of people way too much power in influencing the outcome. And in the end, it is just way too possible for the choice of most American voters to be ignored, as the person losing the popular vote can still wind up being the president.
It’s no mystery why in many elections, voters complain that they are choosing the lesser of two evils.
Surely, we can do better.
While the Democrats were engaging in their debates here in the United States, a fascinating crisis of leadership unfolded in the United Kingdom. A new Prime Minister, Boris Johnson, has failed to convince fellow members of Parliament that leaving the European Union without concluding a deal upon which both the U.K. and the E.U. could agree would be a satisfactory outcome of Brexit. As a result, Johnson lost vote after vote in Parliament, and even saw enough of his party’s members defect to the opposition to rob him of a majority in Parliament. There was discussion of holding an election to choose a new Parliament. What was astonishing was that no one in the United Kingdom even questioned that such an election could be completed in five weeks.
Five weeks to choose an entirely new government in the U.K.; meanwhile, the campaign to choose a new president in the United States persists for more than two years. How can that possibly be? Do we really need all that time to make a reasoned decision? Some might even argue that the U.S. presidential campaign is never-ending. Indeed, President Trump continued to hold political rallies almost immediately after being sworn into office.
Is this really the best we can do?
Richard Nixon once said of running for president, that first one had to run to the right as far as he could to court Republican voters to nominate him. Then, during the general election, that same person had to run to the center as fast as he could, to convince independent voters to choose him over his Democratic rival.
It’s no wonder why American politicians are accused of flip-flopping.
To fix the system would go beyond tweaking what the United States already has. Indeed, simply abolishing the Electoral College would not be enough. The problem with the U.S. system includes our primary system, which takes too long, gives too much influence to two states with small populations, entrenches the two party system, and leaves a large number of voters without a voice in nominating the presidential candidates.
The first big contest of the nomination season is the Iowa Caucuses. Iowa represents less than one percent of the total U.S. population. Yet, presidential candidates flock to Iowa early every four years to court the state’s voters. Especially when a candidate trails in the national polls, if that candidate can somehow convince Iowa voters to choose him or her, that candidate can experience a huge burst in popularity and news coverage. At times, a win in Iowa can create enough momentum to propel a candidate to the nomination.
Similarly, the first primary election takes place in New Hampshire, where the population is roughly one-third that of Iowa. An victory in the first election of the primary season can be as equally powerful, especially for a dark horse candidate.
But why do states with such small populations have such a big influence over the major parties’ nomination? The short answer is tradition. Other states have tried to schedule their contests before Iowa and New Hampshire. But each time, the major parties threaten to discipline those states if they do so. For example, the major parties have threatened not to recognize any delegates selected in contests that occur before Iowa and New Hampshire.
The argument is that small states would otherwise get lost in the shuffle, if states with larger populations, such as California and Florida, have all of the influence over the nominations. But why is that a good thing? Some may even argue that giving states with lower populations so much influence over the presidential nominations goes against the democratic principle of majority rule.
Moreover, the current nomination system is built around the assumption of two major parties: Democrats and Republicans. Democrats, of course, tend to lean left, or liberal, in their political views, while Republicans lean right, or conservative. But in the last few decades, the number of U.S. voters who identify themselves as either Democrats or Republicans has fallen. A 2017 Gallup poll showed 31% of Americans identified themselves as Democrats, 24% as Republicans, and 42% as independent of any political party. Confining the nomination process to just the Democratic and Republican parties means an extremely large percentage of the U.S. electorate has no say in that process. Moreover, because each party has a definite leaning on the political spectrum, this means the more extreme voters in each party have a disproportionate say in who gets nominated. The nominees, then, tend to be more liberal or more conservative than the population at large. Centrist candidates are at a big disadvantage in the current system, even though most American voters tend to be more moderate than liberal or conservative.
It’s no wonder, then, why there is often wide-spread disappointment in the two major nominees for president.
Those who may favor third party candidates get ridiculed. A nominee from the Libertarian or Green Party has no chance to win. So why waste your vote on a third party the argument goes. And so, independent voters, who make up the largest block of voters, are the ones who have to compromise the most when choosing between the two major parties’ nominees.
Why does it have to be like this?
Of course, the final blow to democratic principles occurs when in the end, the choice of most U.S. voters is ignored, and the loser winds of becoming the president. This is the result of the Electoral College. To summarize, the reality of the presidential election is that there are 51 separate elections, one in each state and one in the District of Columbia. Each state is given an amount of electors equal to the number of senators and representatives that states send to Congress, with the District of Columbia receiving three. The result of this system is to give voters in states with smaller populations a greater say in who becomes the president. Thus, the loser of the popular vote can still become president provided he or she can win in enough states. This has happened five times in the history of the United States. But the last two times have happened within 16 years of each other. With Republicans having appeal to many of those smaller states, they have something of an advantage in the Electoral College system. Therefore, what was once thought of as a rare oddity of the American system threatens to become the norm in elections to come.
In sum, for a country that prides itself on being a democratic republic, its method of choosing a chief executive goes against many democratic principles.
In recent years, there has been a growing cry to eliminate the Electoral College. Some states have passed laws to give their states’ electors to whomever wins the national popular vote. The problem with concentrating on the Electoral College is that it fails to address all of the issues with the entire process.
A far more satisfying approach is to do away with the entire nomination system and Electoral College. The United States should adopt a system much like Louisiana’s non-partisan primary. In such a system, two elections are held. The first is a primary, in which every candidate runs, regardless of party affiliation. If somebody receives a majority (greater than 50%) of the vote, then we have our winner and the second election is cancelled. But if no one wins a majority in the primary, then the top two candidates face each other in the general election, held about one month later. Several countries, such as France, employ a system like this.
Such a system cuts down on the length of the presidential campaign, thus ending the non-stop campaigning we have today. Because it is a national election, no one region would have greater influence over the others. Because it is non-partisan, centrists and third party candidates have a greater chance of winning, meaning voters can freely vote their conscience, instead of choosing the lesser of two evils. It is a more democratic system, and likely to result in candidates that reflect the views of a larger proportion of the U.S. population.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Wednesday, October 9, 2019
Refusing to Cooperate with the Impeachment Inquiry, Trump Shows His Disdain for the House of Representatives
Throwing down a gauntlet in front of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, President Donald Trump announced that he will no longer permit his Administration to cooperate with the House of Representative's impeachment inquiry. In furtherance of Trump's defiance of the House, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, who played a key role in Trump's pressuring of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate political rival Joe Biden, failed to testify at a House hearing. Sondland skipped the hearing at the instruction of Trump's State Department. Counsel to the President, Pat Cippollone confirmed the decision to impede the House investigation through a letter to Democratic House leaders, written on the President's behalf on White House stationary.
While this move to escalate the tension between the Democratically-controlled House and the Trump Administration will play well with Trump's supporters, who revel in the idea of a no-holds-bar fight with ideologically opposed parties, Trump's outward contempt for the House risks a more aggressive push for his impeachment.
Although Trump holds the Democratic leaders in Congress in disdain, congress is obliged to oversee the actions of the Executive Branch. This is all part of the checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution, which seeks to ensure that no one branch of government dominates over the other two. It is a power meant to guard against tyranny and authoritarianism.
Given the gravity of the current situation, the President must be willing to provide information to Congress, and make members of his Administration available for testimony.
In this regard, some communications with the President may be privileged due to national security or the public interest. But a wholesale refusal to cooperate with congressionally issued subpoenas can hardly be justified, especially after the President himself released a memorandum of a telephone call between Trump and Zelensky where Trump clearly requested the Ukrainian President's help in gathering dirt against Trump's political rival, Joe Biden. As the head of the Federal Elections Commission confirmed in June of this year, the act of soliciting something of value (in this case research on an opponent) in connection with a federal election is in and of itself a violation of law. If the President pressured Ukraine by withholding congressionally approved military aid, his behavior becomes all the more egregious.
In the middle of this situation stands the U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Trump dismissed the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovich, because she stood in the way of Trump's efforts to have Ukraine investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. Despite the fact that Ukraine is not a member of the European Union, Sondland took over the role of coordinating the U.S. Government's policy with respect to the Ukraine. Recently, text messages involving Sondland surfaced, strongly suggesting that Trump was using the military aid to pressure Ukraine. Sondland's testimony, therefore, is important to determine the extent of the President's malfeasance.
Trump's refusal to permit Sondland, or any other member of the Administration, to cooperate with the House inquiry appears as a powerful indication that Trump has something to hide. Moreover, given that Robert Mueller and his team of investigators have already documented Trump's tendency to obstruct official investigations, the President is courting yet another reason for his impeachment; that is obstruction of Congress.
In this regard, the President's Counsel charges that the impeachment inquiry violates the President's due process rights, and fails to follow accepted procedures from prior impeachment inquiries. Cipollone's criticism of the House is misguided as he fails to recognize the purpose behind the separate steps of the impeachment and removal process, as well as the breadth of authority the Constitution grants the House over impeachment proceedings.
The Constitution is not concerned with the personal rights and interests of the person who happens to occupy the Office of President. Nor should it be. The Constitution is concerned with the well-being of the Republic. In this regard, the President acts as a fiduciary, a person who is required to suppress his or her own personal interests, in favor of making decisions that are in the best interests of the people of the United States.
This is why impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, nor should it be treated as one. Impeachment is about the integrity of the U.S. Government. At one point in his political career, the President's staunchest defender in the Senate agreed with this principle. Senator Lindsey Graham, serving as a Representative in the House of Representative in 1999, said of impeachment:
While this move to escalate the tension between the Democratically-controlled House and the Trump Administration will play well with Trump's supporters, who revel in the idea of a no-holds-bar fight with ideologically opposed parties, Trump's outward contempt for the House risks a more aggressive push for his impeachment.
Although Trump holds the Democratic leaders in Congress in disdain, congress is obliged to oversee the actions of the Executive Branch. This is all part of the checks and balances of the U.S. Constitution, which seeks to ensure that no one branch of government dominates over the other two. It is a power meant to guard against tyranny and authoritarianism.
Given the gravity of the current situation, the President must be willing to provide information to Congress, and make members of his Administration available for testimony.
In this regard, some communications with the President may be privileged due to national security or the public interest. But a wholesale refusal to cooperate with congressionally issued subpoenas can hardly be justified, especially after the President himself released a memorandum of a telephone call between Trump and Zelensky where Trump clearly requested the Ukrainian President's help in gathering dirt against Trump's political rival, Joe Biden. As the head of the Federal Elections Commission confirmed in June of this year, the act of soliciting something of value (in this case research on an opponent) in connection with a federal election is in and of itself a violation of law. If the President pressured Ukraine by withholding congressionally approved military aid, his behavior becomes all the more egregious.
In the middle of this situation stands the U.S. Ambassador to the E.U. Trump dismissed the U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovich, because she stood in the way of Trump's efforts to have Ukraine investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. Despite the fact that Ukraine is not a member of the European Union, Sondland took over the role of coordinating the U.S. Government's policy with respect to the Ukraine. Recently, text messages involving Sondland surfaced, strongly suggesting that Trump was using the military aid to pressure Ukraine. Sondland's testimony, therefore, is important to determine the extent of the President's malfeasance.
Trump's refusal to permit Sondland, or any other member of the Administration, to cooperate with the House inquiry appears as a powerful indication that Trump has something to hide. Moreover, given that Robert Mueller and his team of investigators have already documented Trump's tendency to obstruct official investigations, the President is courting yet another reason for his impeachment; that is obstruction of Congress.
In this regard, the President's Counsel charges that the impeachment inquiry violates the President's due process rights, and fails to follow accepted procedures from prior impeachment inquiries. Cipollone's criticism of the House is misguided as he fails to recognize the purpose behind the separate steps of the impeachment and removal process, as well as the breadth of authority the Constitution grants the House over impeachment proceedings.
The Constitution is not concerned with the personal rights and interests of the person who happens to occupy the Office of President. Nor should it be. The Constitution is concerned with the well-being of the Republic. In this regard, the President acts as a fiduciary, a person who is required to suppress his or her own personal interests, in favor of making decisions that are in the best interests of the people of the United States.
This is why impeachment is not a criminal proceeding, nor should it be treated as one. Impeachment is about the integrity of the U.S. Government. At one point in his political career, the President's staunchest defender in the Senate agreed with this principle. Senator Lindsey Graham, serving as a Representative in the House of Representative in 1999, said of impeachment:
- You don’t even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body[, the House of Representatives,] determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role. . . . Impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office.
At the time, Graham was arguing in favor of the impeachment of President Bill Clinton, who lied while under oath about a sexual relationship he had with a White House intern. Graham not only pressed for Clinton's impeachment in the House, but also served as a House Manager during Clinton's trial in the Senate. As Manager, Graham was tasked with presenting the reasons why the House concluded Clinton should be removed from office.
Yet, consistent with the President's narcissism, Trump's public defense against impeachment has, many times, focused on Trump's personal interests, and not the best interests of the United States. Thus, Trump makes claims concerning personal legal rights, like the argument that his lawyers should be permitted to cross-examine witnesses and call witnesses of their own.
But impeachment is not a criminal proceeding. It is a political one. Article I of the Constitution grants the House of Representatives "the sole Power of Impeachment." There are no other provisions in the Constitution which define the role of the House in impeachment, or the procedures that the House must follow. It is therefore up to the House itself to define its own rules and proceed accordingly.
The Constitution is very specific on effects of an impeachment. It stands as but the first step in a process to determine whether to remove a person from civil office. Pursuant to Article II, once the House has impeached the President, the Senate then holds a trial, with the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presiding. The Senate can only convict with a two-thirds majority. Article II, Section 3, Clause 7 of the Constitution limits the effect of impeachment:
- Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States; but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to law.
The Constitution may use words such as "trial" and "conviction" which are reminiscent of criminal law. But it is clear that impeachment is not meant to be punishment. The Constitution reserves the decision on whether a person removed from office will be subject to any criminal proceeding and criminal punishment to the appropriate law enforcement authorities.
Nonetheless, analogies can be made between criminal process and the impeachment and removal of a president. In this regard, impeachment can be seen as similar to a grand jury proceeding, through which a prosecutor can seek an indictment. This is the decision to charge a person with a crime and hold a trial. But even in criminal law, at that first stage of a criminal prosecution, not all of the personal rights enumerated in the Constitution apply. A person subject to a grand jury proceeding is not entitled to the right of legal counsel or the right to cross-examine witnesses. Moreover, the Government in a grand jury proceeding is not required to present evidence that favors the accused.
To support the argument that the House is proceeding unfairly, the White House relies on certain procedures followed in prior impeachment processes. But again, this fails to recognize that the House has the "sole Power of Impeachment." The House is not bound to follow any procedures established in prior impeachment proceedings. In addition, because impeachment is a political act, not a criminal law proceeding, it is not subject to judicial review. Under the political questions doctrine, the courts will not hear a case when the Constitution textually commits the issue to one of the political branches of government, that is Congress or the Executive. Because the text of the Constitution unequivocally gives the power over impeachment to the House, the courts will not review the exercise of that power. What process the House will follow that leads up to a vote on articles of impeachment is simply up to the discretion of the House and its leaders.
Another argument that Trump uses to support his decision to thwart the impeachment inquiry is that the Democrats in the House are attempting to overturn the 2016 presidential election. He likens impeachment to a coup. But again, impeachment and removal from office are powers granted the House and Senate in order to protect against the abuse of office by the President. It is an entirely appropriate procedure to invoke when a president uses his authority to conduct foreign policy in manner that benefits himself privately. The Constitution protects against the abuse of the impeachment and removal power by dividing authority between the House and the Senate. Thus, impeachment itself does not remove a president from office. Rather, he must be convicted after a trial in the Senate. Moreover, in order to convict, the Constitution requires a super-majority of two-thirds before a president can be removed from office. Safeguards therefore exist to ensure that the process is a deliberative one, and not merely a negation of an election.
Indeed, even if the President is impeached, his Vice President will assume the Office of President. The President and Vice President run together on the same ticket. Presumably, with both the President and Vice President coming from the same political party. the Vice President will agree with the major policy objectives of the President. An impeachment, therefore, does not overturn an election. It simply is one step in removing a person who has shown an unfitness to hold the Office, leaving the President's political party in charge of Executive Branch.
Sadly, Trump's presidency has never been about what is best for the American people. It has always been about Trump's self-aggrandizement. He has sought outright flattery from his Cabinet members. He attempts to enforce personal loyalty, and not loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law. He has publicly stated that he sees nothing wrong with accepting help with finding disparaging information on a political opponent from a foreign source. He has viewed an investigation about national security, namely the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, as an investigation of himself instead of as the counter-intelligence investigation it was. When he sees an investigation as potential detrimental to his personal interests, he engages in witness tampering and otherwise attempts to obstruct that investigation. His current refusal is simply a continuation of that behavior. His continued willingness to thwart the law and investigations into his conduct should be considered as a violation of the trust he holds from the American people, and featured prominently in the House's deliberations on whether to impeach him.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Another argument that Trump uses to support his decision to thwart the impeachment inquiry is that the Democrats in the House are attempting to overturn the 2016 presidential election. He likens impeachment to a coup. But again, impeachment and removal from office are powers granted the House and Senate in order to protect against the abuse of office by the President. It is an entirely appropriate procedure to invoke when a president uses his authority to conduct foreign policy in manner that benefits himself privately. The Constitution protects against the abuse of the impeachment and removal power by dividing authority between the House and the Senate. Thus, impeachment itself does not remove a president from office. Rather, he must be convicted after a trial in the Senate. Moreover, in order to convict, the Constitution requires a super-majority of two-thirds before a president can be removed from office. Safeguards therefore exist to ensure that the process is a deliberative one, and not merely a negation of an election.
Indeed, even if the President is impeached, his Vice President will assume the Office of President. The President and Vice President run together on the same ticket. Presumably, with both the President and Vice President coming from the same political party. the Vice President will agree with the major policy objectives of the President. An impeachment, therefore, does not overturn an election. It simply is one step in removing a person who has shown an unfitness to hold the Office, leaving the President's political party in charge of Executive Branch.
Sadly, Trump's presidency has never been about what is best for the American people. It has always been about Trump's self-aggrandizement. He has sought outright flattery from his Cabinet members. He attempts to enforce personal loyalty, and not loyalty to the Constitution and the rule of law. He has publicly stated that he sees nothing wrong with accepting help with finding disparaging information on a political opponent from a foreign source. He has viewed an investigation about national security, namely the investigation of Russian interference in the 2016 election, as an investigation of himself instead of as the counter-intelligence investigation it was. When he sees an investigation as potential detrimental to his personal interests, he engages in witness tampering and otherwise attempts to obstruct that investigation. His current refusal is simply a continuation of that behavior. His continued willingness to thwart the law and investigations into his conduct should be considered as a violation of the trust he holds from the American people, and featured prominently in the House's deliberations on whether to impeach him.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
Trump and Giuliana Peddle Conspiracy Theory Pushed by Corrupt Former Ukrainian Prosecutor General
Over the weekend, Rudy Giuliani, acting as Trump's personally lawyer, appeared on Fox News brandishing a print-out from a website that disseminates conservative conspiracy theories, hopelesslypartisan.com. Giuliani claimed that he had evidence of Joe Biden's corruption that was better than a whistleblower, namely affidavits. Intrigued, I did some research, and found an affidavit filed in an Austrian court by none other than the former Ukrainian Prosecutor General at issue in this debacle, Viktor Shokin. After reading the affidavit, and doing more research on its context, I came away even more convinced that Trump and Giuliani are grasping at straws in an effort to throw mud at a political opponent. Specifically, Trump's entire defense rests on self-serving affidavit from a Ukrainian Prosecutor General known for protecting corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs and politicians who favor Russia's involvement in Ukrainian affairs.
Viktor Shokin was the Prosecutor General serving under Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko during the Obama Administration. At the time, the Ukrainian economy was plagued with oligarchs, allegedly willing to commit crimes such as money laundering and tax evasion. In addition, some of these oligarchs had contacts with Russian officials, and even favored Russian interference in Ukrainian politics.
One such Ukrainian oligarch was Dmitry Firtash. As a businessman, Firtash was accused of funneling money from the Russian natural gas company, Gazprom, into the campaigns of pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians. He has also been alleged to have engaged in shady business practices. The United States had charged that Firtash obtained a license to extract titanium from India with about $18.5 million in bribes.
The Ukrainian people eventually grew tired of corrupt businessmen and politicians. In 2014, a revolution occurred in Ukraine against those in power who were permitting Russian interference in Ukrainian affairs. It was due to that revolution that many Ukrainian oligarchs and corrupt politicians fled Ukraine, in some instances seeking protection in Russia
Firtash was one of those oligarch who fled Ukraine in 2014. He was eventually arrested in Austria. With the charge of bribery hanging over him, the Austrian courts considered whether to extradite Firtash to the United States for trial.
This is where Viktor Shokin comes in. Shokin filed an affidavit in the Austrian court in support of Firtash, arguing that Firtash should not be extradited to the United States. By this time, Shokin had been fired as the Prosecutor General of Ukraine. Shokin's affidavit was mostly self-serving, blaming U.S. Vide President Joe Biden for his predicament, but without pointing to any specific facts to show that Biden engaged in any wrong-doing.
The United States, and much of Western Europe, wanted Ukraine to clean up rampant corruption in the country, which included the domination of the economy by powerful oligarchs, such as Firtash. However, Shokin stood in the way of cleaning up that corruption, as he dragged his feet in investigations. In his affidavit, for example, Shokin expressed his dismay that Firtash might be detained if he returned to Ukraine, because Shokin was not aware of any crime Firtash had committed. Shokin alleged that the United States had no evidence that Firtash committed a crime, and the true U.S. motive was simply to prevent him from entering public life in Ukraine. The implication of Shokin's allegations was that the United States was being politically motivated. Namely, Shokin was supporting Firtash and his preference that Russia wield a strong influence over Ukraine, and not that Ukraine turn toward the West.
It is at this point that Shokin claims that his dismissal as Prosecutor General was due to interference by Joe Biden. Biden's son, Hunter, sat on the Board of Burism, a Ukrainian gas company Shokin asserted that he was investigation. However, those who served under Shokin have confirmed that the investigation into Burisma, and its founder, Mykola Zlochevsky, had been stalled for quite some time when Shokin gave his affidavit.
By letting the investigation against Burisma and Zlochevksy remain dormant, Shokin was once again showing his inclination to protect the very oligarchs responsible for corruption present in both the Ukrainian economy and political system.
Zlochevsky served as a government official during the administration of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych, known for favoring close connections between Ukraine and Russia, fled Ukraine during the 2014 revolution, and is currently living in exile in Russia. He is wanted by Ukraine on charges of high treason. Likewise, Zlochevsky fled Russian in 2014 amid charges of self-enrichment while serving in the Ukrainian Government. He has also been charged with tax evasion.
Once Zlovchesky fled Ukraine, the leadership of Burisma decided that they wanted to recreate the company's public image to put as much distance between the allegedly corrupt Zlovchesky and the company. Burisma invited Hunter Biden and his business partner, Devon Archer, to sit on the company's Board. (Trump and his allies circulated a photograph claiming it shows Joe Biden posing with a Burisma company boss. It turns out that the photograph showed Joe and Hunter playing golf with Archer in the Hamptons in 2014. Archer and Hunter Biden were partners in a consulting firm called Romsemont Seneca Partners.) Burisma also invited former President of Poland, Aleksander Kwasniewski to be on its Board. All of the activity that was subject to the investigation occurred before Hunter Biden was invited to join the Board, and concerned Zlovchesky's behavior. Indeed, Joe Biden wanted the investigation of Burisma restarted, which would have been contrary to the interests of his son, Hunter.
Thus, Giuliani's "evidence" against the Bidens, which is Shokin's affidavit, is completely unreliable.
There are at least two instances where Shokin, as Ukraine's Prosecutor General, inhibited the investigation and potential prosecution of alleged Ukrainian oligarchs for corruption (Firtash and Zlochevsky). He even came to the aid of Firtash in an attempt to prevent his extradition to the United States to stand trial for bribery. Shokin wold of course have reason to deflect from his own misfeasance in office, and attempt to pin the blame for his dismissal on Joe Biden.
Yet, Shokin's story has been peddled by conservative websites specializing in spreading outrageous conspiracy theories, either with very little evidence of wrongdoing, or which fail to consider the reliability of sources of those theories.
The fact still remains that Trump has admitted publicly that he asked for Ukraine's assistance in digging up dirt against a political rival. It is a fact confirmed by the memorandum of the telephone call between Trump and recently elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump's effort to deflect from his own illegal behavior falls short of credibility when the facts and context behind the effort to eradicate corruption in Ukraine dating back to the Obama Administration are revealed. Trump is simply hoping his supporters will accept the superficial accusations against Biden, without critically considering the source of those accusations.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Viktor Shokin was the Prosecutor General serving under Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko during the Obama Administration. At the time, the Ukrainian economy was plagued with oligarchs, allegedly willing to commit crimes such as money laundering and tax evasion. In addition, some of these oligarchs had contacts with Russian officials, and even favored Russian interference in Ukrainian politics.
One such Ukrainian oligarch was Dmitry Firtash. As a businessman, Firtash was accused of funneling money from the Russian natural gas company, Gazprom, into the campaigns of pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians. He has also been alleged to have engaged in shady business practices. The United States had charged that Firtash obtained a license to extract titanium from India with about $18.5 million in bribes.
The Ukrainian people eventually grew tired of corrupt businessmen and politicians. In 2014, a revolution occurred in Ukraine against those in power who were permitting Russian interference in Ukrainian affairs. It was due to that revolution that many Ukrainian oligarchs and corrupt politicians fled Ukraine, in some instances seeking protection in Russia
Firtash was one of those oligarch who fled Ukraine in 2014. He was eventually arrested in Austria. With the charge of bribery hanging over him, the Austrian courts considered whether to extradite Firtash to the United States for trial.
This is where Viktor Shokin comes in. Shokin filed an affidavit in the Austrian court in support of Firtash, arguing that Firtash should not be extradited to the United States. By this time, Shokin had been fired as the Prosecutor General of Ukraine. Shokin's affidavit was mostly self-serving, blaming U.S. Vide President Joe Biden for his predicament, but without pointing to any specific facts to show that Biden engaged in any wrong-doing.
The United States, and much of Western Europe, wanted Ukraine to clean up rampant corruption in the country, which included the domination of the economy by powerful oligarchs, such as Firtash. However, Shokin stood in the way of cleaning up that corruption, as he dragged his feet in investigations. In his affidavit, for example, Shokin expressed his dismay that Firtash might be detained if he returned to Ukraine, because Shokin was not aware of any crime Firtash had committed. Shokin alleged that the United States had no evidence that Firtash committed a crime, and the true U.S. motive was simply to prevent him from entering public life in Ukraine. The implication of Shokin's allegations was that the United States was being politically motivated. Namely, Shokin was supporting Firtash and his preference that Russia wield a strong influence over Ukraine, and not that Ukraine turn toward the West.
It is at this point that Shokin claims that his dismissal as Prosecutor General was due to interference by Joe Biden. Biden's son, Hunter, sat on the Board of Burism, a Ukrainian gas company Shokin asserted that he was investigation. However, those who served under Shokin have confirmed that the investigation into Burisma, and its founder, Mykola Zlochevsky, had been stalled for quite some time when Shokin gave his affidavit.
By letting the investigation against Burisma and Zlochevksy remain dormant, Shokin was once again showing his inclination to protect the very oligarchs responsible for corruption present in both the Ukrainian economy and political system.
Zlochevsky served as a government official during the administration of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych, known for favoring close connections between Ukraine and Russia, fled Ukraine during the 2014 revolution, and is currently living in exile in Russia. He is wanted by Ukraine on charges of high treason. Likewise, Zlochevsky fled Russian in 2014 amid charges of self-enrichment while serving in the Ukrainian Government. He has also been charged with tax evasion.
Once Zlovchesky fled Ukraine, the leadership of Burisma decided that they wanted to recreate the company's public image to put as much distance between the allegedly corrupt Zlovchesky and the company. Burisma invited Hunter Biden and his business partner, Devon Archer, to sit on the company's Board. (Trump and his allies circulated a photograph claiming it shows Joe Biden posing with a Burisma company boss. It turns out that the photograph showed Joe and Hunter playing golf with Archer in the Hamptons in 2014. Archer and Hunter Biden were partners in a consulting firm called Romsemont Seneca Partners.) Burisma also invited former President of Poland, Aleksander Kwasniewski to be on its Board. All of the activity that was subject to the investigation occurred before Hunter Biden was invited to join the Board, and concerned Zlovchesky's behavior. Indeed, Joe Biden wanted the investigation of Burisma restarted, which would have been contrary to the interests of his son, Hunter.
Thus, Giuliani's "evidence" against the Bidens, which is Shokin's affidavit, is completely unreliable.
There are at least two instances where Shokin, as Ukraine's Prosecutor General, inhibited the investigation and potential prosecution of alleged Ukrainian oligarchs for corruption (Firtash and Zlochevsky). He even came to the aid of Firtash in an attempt to prevent his extradition to the United States to stand trial for bribery. Shokin wold of course have reason to deflect from his own misfeasance in office, and attempt to pin the blame for his dismissal on Joe Biden.
Yet, Shokin's story has been peddled by conservative websites specializing in spreading outrageous conspiracy theories, either with very little evidence of wrongdoing, or which fail to consider the reliability of sources of those theories.
The fact still remains that Trump has admitted publicly that he asked for Ukraine's assistance in digging up dirt against a political rival. It is a fact confirmed by the memorandum of the telephone call between Trump and recently elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump's effort to deflect from his own illegal behavior falls short of credibility when the facts and context behind the effort to eradicate corruption in Ukraine dating back to the Obama Administration are revealed. Trump is simply hoping his supporters will accept the superficial accusations against Biden, without critically considering the source of those accusations.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Thursday, October 3, 2019
AOC Ruffles Conservatives' Feathers
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, affectionately known as AOC, has conservatives so agitated that they are foaming at the mouth. She has become their favorite target. Whenever Ocasio-Cortez is in the news, conservatives fall all over themselves trying to find new ways to attack her intelligence.
Ocasio-Cortez should be flattered by this. When else has a freshman Representative in Congress engendered so much fear from her opposition that they spend so much time and effort trying to insult her whenever she happens to make the news?
That is exactly what is going on here. Conservatives fear Ocasio-Cortez. That is because she represents a threat to the political establishment.
Coming seemingly from nowhere, Ocasio-Cortez, who is of Puerto Rican descent, defeated a powerful member of the House Democratic leadership, Joseph Crowley, in the congressional primary for a district representing parts of Queens and the Bronx. Crowley had been rumored to be a potential successor to Nancy Pelosi when Pelosi eventually steps down from her role as Speaker of the House.
At the time of her primary victory, Ocasio-Cortez worked as a waitress in a taqueria in New York. She has been described as a political novice. However, she had worked as an intern for Ted Kennedy, an organizer for Bernie Sanders' 2016 primary campaign, and for an organization that supported leadership in the Hispanic community, the National Hispanic Institute. Her education includes a bachelor of arts degree in International Relations and Economics from Boston College.
Ocasio-Cortez, who emphasized her working class background, captured national attention running a grass-roots campaign. She won the general election, becoming the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.
Her agenda is unabashedly progressive. She is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, and represents a very liberal congressional district.
When preparing to join Congress, Ocasio-Cortez complained of the orientation program for new members hosted by Harvard. She expressed exasperation that guests included corporate CEOs and lobbyists, but no one from labor unions, no activists and no community leaders. In doing so, she exposed the bias the pervades the American political system to the detriment of the working class.
Ocasio-Cortez boldly spoke out about the disadvantages and unfair images that the working class, and in particular minorities, face. She criticized the use of unpaid interns by congressional members, noting that it prevented working class students from receiving valuable experience during their education, since such students often had to find paying jobs to support their education. She rallied against the image that the poor were responsible for their own position in life, panning a Chase Bank tweet that implied that the poor should skip coffee houses, restaurants and taxi cabs.
Ocasio-Cortez noted that before she became a Representative in Congress, she would wake up n the middle of the night worried if she had paid a certain bill on time. This was not because she was irresponsible. It was because she was not being paid a living wage. Now she had a congressional salary and government health insurance, eliminating a major expense from her former life. She wanted all Americans to be able to avoid the anxiety caused by low wages.
In sum, Ocasio-Cortez bucked the system, and exposed its biases against minorities and the working class, commanding media attention along the way. She defeated a powerful incumbent, and then won a general election without relying heavily on corporate donations to her campaign. She freely exposes how intertwined corporate special interests and the government are, and how freshman members are expected to continue with system. She decries the situation of the working class poor, and debunks the myths that lead to their stigmatization.
It is because she bucks the system, and does so successfully, while representing views to which conservatives are diametrically opposed, that conservatives feel the need to attack her. In doing so, conservatives have, at times, shown how ridiculous and petty their criticisms are.
Ocasio-Cortez uses social media, such as Instagram and Twitter, to reach her constituency directly. She takes advantage of social media's platform, which emphasizes the use of video, to present herself talking about issues in informal settings. Conservatives have scoured over this video repeatedly in an attempt to find what they consider to be gaffes in order to question her intelligence.
On the campaign trail, for example, Ocasio-Cortez spoke at her alma matter, Boston College. She cautioned supporters that even if the Democrats won big in the election, they would not get everything they wanted right away. "[A]s much as I would love that. I would like to get inaugurated January 3, January 4 we’re signing health care, we’re signing this, we’re signing de-incarceration. But really, it is that we have a duty to always fight and maintain the strength of our values."
Taking Ocasio-Cortez's words out of context, Fox and Friends presented the video, saying to their audience that she lacks the requisite knowledge of how government works. Specifically, they laughed, it is only the President who is inaugurated and signs bills into law.
First, while members of Congress are technically "sworn-in," the dictionary definition of "inauguration" includes "the formal admission of someone to office." Indeed, when she was sworn-in, news media, including NBC, referred her speech that followed as an "inaugural address." Nit-picking over a word that conveys the same meaning just made Fox News, and others who repeated the criticism, look silly.
Second, when viewed in context, it is clear that Ocasio-Cortez was tempering the expectations of her supporters, and noting that progressives like herself have a lot of work to do before legislation could be passed. The use of the word "we're" indicates that she was not speaking of signing bills herself, but of progressives like her passing legislation into law consistent with their agenda, such as expanding health care coverage and addressing criminal justice reform.
Likewise, conservatives attempted to attack her working class background. A video showing how she dressed in the first days of the new Congress were meant to show that despite her claims that she personally had little money in the bank, that somehow she could afford expensive clothes. A video showing Ocasio-Cortez dancing with friends while attending Boston College was used in an attempt to argue that her self-portrayal of understanding the struggling of the working class was inaccurate. These attempts failed to convince a wider audience, and only demonstrated the pettiness of conservative criticism.
Ocasio-Cortez represents a political movement where women of color have started to gain inroads to governmental positions. She joins Ilham Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley, affectionately known as "the Squad," as freshman Representatives of color who vocally oppose President Trump and the Republican agenda. Members of the Squad have not been shy in exposing the cruelty of Trump's immigration policies. Upon visiting detention centers along the southern border, the Squad exposed abuses asylum-seeking families faced, such as lack of medical care and being forced to find drinking water from a cell's toilet. Threatened by this revelation, Trump infamously responded that members of the Squad should "go back to where they came from." Never mind that three of the four Representatives were born in the United States, and Ilham Omar was a Somali refugee who earned U.S. citizenship. Opposing Trump earned the Squad racist criticism from the President.
Concerning her policy positions, conservatives love to remind the public that they amount to "socialism," a word meant to invoke fear in the electorate. The conservative's playbook is to label a proposal they oppose as "socialism," and then cite a country, such as Venezuela, as their proof that socialism is bad. Never mind that socialism is an economic system, not a political one, and that the political instability in Venezuela is due to authoritative overreaching of the executive. Conservatives ignore that popular programs in the United States are socialistic in nature, such as social security and subsidies to farmers hurt by Trump's trade war. President Trump loves to cite Norway as a model country. Yet Norway implements socialist policies, such a free secondary education.
Conservatives also like to exaggerate Ocasio-Cortez's policy proposals. Ocasio-Cortez, for example, became a spokesperson for the proposed House Resolution 109, known as the "Green New Deal." The proposal was not legislation, in the sense that it created no legal obligations. Rather, the Green New Deal was simply a list of goals divided into two parts. The first part set goals for the United States to combat climate change, such as reducing carbon emissions to net zero within ten years. The second part recognized that this would be a radical change in the economy, and that the Government should do what it could to protect those who would otherwise be displaced by the changes. The resolution made nothing illegal, and contained no proposals on how to reach the goals. It was meant simply to start the serious debate needed to address climate change in the hopes of avoiding catastrophic change.
Critics, of course, represented the resolution as banning popular items of Americana. Thus, the proposal to build high speed rail was represented as a ban on domestic air travel. The goal of eliminating America's dependence on fossil fuels was represented as a ban on cars and office buildings. Proposed reductions in carbon emissions was represented as an attack on bovine flatulence, and thus a ban on hamburgers. Thus, conservatives chose to oppose Ocasio-Cortez's proposals through misrepresentations and scare tactics.
Recently, Ocasio-Cortez has made a new ambitious legislative proposal, addressing the plight of the working class. The proposal includes limiting rent increases, enforcing a living wage, redefining the poverty line to include expenses not originally contemplated such as child care and internet access, and ratifying the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
These proposals recognize problems that the working class poor face in their daily lives, such as inflated housing expenses, and a minimum wage that has been frozen at $7.25 per hour since 2009. To conservatives, they are radical ideas which threaten the interests of big business. Ocasio-Cortez will certainly face strong opposition to her legislation.
Nonetheless, Ocasio-Cortez is serving an important function in U.S. politics. She is using the attention that the media is giving her to start important conversations over policy, and ensuring that the interests of the working class are being addressed. With a divided Congress, it is not likely that her proposals will pass and be implemented. But calling attention to those against whom the deck is stacked is vital if America is to be true to the value of equality before the law.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Ocasio-Cortez should be flattered by this. When else has a freshman Representative in Congress engendered so much fear from her opposition that they spend so much time and effort trying to insult her whenever she happens to make the news?
That is exactly what is going on here. Conservatives fear Ocasio-Cortez. That is because she represents a threat to the political establishment.
Coming seemingly from nowhere, Ocasio-Cortez, who is of Puerto Rican descent, defeated a powerful member of the House Democratic leadership, Joseph Crowley, in the congressional primary for a district representing parts of Queens and the Bronx. Crowley had been rumored to be a potential successor to Nancy Pelosi when Pelosi eventually steps down from her role as Speaker of the House.
At the time of her primary victory, Ocasio-Cortez worked as a waitress in a taqueria in New York. She has been described as a political novice. However, she had worked as an intern for Ted Kennedy, an organizer for Bernie Sanders' 2016 primary campaign, and for an organization that supported leadership in the Hispanic community, the National Hispanic Institute. Her education includes a bachelor of arts degree in International Relations and Economics from Boston College.
Ocasio-Cortez, who emphasized her working class background, captured national attention running a grass-roots campaign. She won the general election, becoming the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.
Her agenda is unabashedly progressive. She is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, and represents a very liberal congressional district.
When preparing to join Congress, Ocasio-Cortez complained of the orientation program for new members hosted by Harvard. She expressed exasperation that guests included corporate CEOs and lobbyists, but no one from labor unions, no activists and no community leaders. In doing so, she exposed the bias the pervades the American political system to the detriment of the working class.
Ocasio-Cortez boldly spoke out about the disadvantages and unfair images that the working class, and in particular minorities, face. She criticized the use of unpaid interns by congressional members, noting that it prevented working class students from receiving valuable experience during their education, since such students often had to find paying jobs to support their education. She rallied against the image that the poor were responsible for their own position in life, panning a Chase Bank tweet that implied that the poor should skip coffee houses, restaurants and taxi cabs.
Ocasio-Cortez noted that before she became a Representative in Congress, she would wake up n the middle of the night worried if she had paid a certain bill on time. This was not because she was irresponsible. It was because she was not being paid a living wage. Now she had a congressional salary and government health insurance, eliminating a major expense from her former life. She wanted all Americans to be able to avoid the anxiety caused by low wages.
In sum, Ocasio-Cortez bucked the system, and exposed its biases against minorities and the working class, commanding media attention along the way. She defeated a powerful incumbent, and then won a general election without relying heavily on corporate donations to her campaign. She freely exposes how intertwined corporate special interests and the government are, and how freshman members are expected to continue with system. She decries the situation of the working class poor, and debunks the myths that lead to their stigmatization.
It is because she bucks the system, and does so successfully, while representing views to which conservatives are diametrically opposed, that conservatives feel the need to attack her. In doing so, conservatives have, at times, shown how ridiculous and petty their criticisms are.
Ocasio-Cortez uses social media, such as Instagram and Twitter, to reach her constituency directly. She takes advantage of social media's platform, which emphasizes the use of video, to present herself talking about issues in informal settings. Conservatives have scoured over this video repeatedly in an attempt to find what they consider to be gaffes in order to question her intelligence.
On the campaign trail, for example, Ocasio-Cortez spoke at her alma matter, Boston College. She cautioned supporters that even if the Democrats won big in the election, they would not get everything they wanted right away. "[A]s much as I would love that. I would like to get inaugurated January 3, January 4 we’re signing health care, we’re signing this, we’re signing de-incarceration. But really, it is that we have a duty to always fight and maintain the strength of our values."
Taking Ocasio-Cortez's words out of context, Fox and Friends presented the video, saying to their audience that she lacks the requisite knowledge of how government works. Specifically, they laughed, it is only the President who is inaugurated and signs bills into law.
First, while members of Congress are technically "sworn-in," the dictionary definition of "inauguration" includes "the formal admission of someone to office." Indeed, when she was sworn-in, news media, including NBC, referred her speech that followed as an "inaugural address." Nit-picking over a word that conveys the same meaning just made Fox News, and others who repeated the criticism, look silly.
Second, when viewed in context, it is clear that Ocasio-Cortez was tempering the expectations of her supporters, and noting that progressives like herself have a lot of work to do before legislation could be passed. The use of the word "we're" indicates that she was not speaking of signing bills herself, but of progressives like her passing legislation into law consistent with their agenda, such as expanding health care coverage and addressing criminal justice reform.
Likewise, conservatives attempted to attack her working class background. A video showing how she dressed in the first days of the new Congress were meant to show that despite her claims that she personally had little money in the bank, that somehow she could afford expensive clothes. A video showing Ocasio-Cortez dancing with friends while attending Boston College was used in an attempt to argue that her self-portrayal of understanding the struggling of the working class was inaccurate. These attempts failed to convince a wider audience, and only demonstrated the pettiness of conservative criticism.
Ocasio-Cortez represents a political movement where women of color have started to gain inroads to governmental positions. She joins Ilham Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley, affectionately known as "the Squad," as freshman Representatives of color who vocally oppose President Trump and the Republican agenda. Members of the Squad have not been shy in exposing the cruelty of Trump's immigration policies. Upon visiting detention centers along the southern border, the Squad exposed abuses asylum-seeking families faced, such as lack of medical care and being forced to find drinking water from a cell's toilet. Threatened by this revelation, Trump infamously responded that members of the Squad should "go back to where they came from." Never mind that three of the four Representatives were born in the United States, and Ilham Omar was a Somali refugee who earned U.S. citizenship. Opposing Trump earned the Squad racist criticism from the President.
Concerning her policy positions, conservatives love to remind the public that they amount to "socialism," a word meant to invoke fear in the electorate. The conservative's playbook is to label a proposal they oppose as "socialism," and then cite a country, such as Venezuela, as their proof that socialism is bad. Never mind that socialism is an economic system, not a political one, and that the political instability in Venezuela is due to authoritative overreaching of the executive. Conservatives ignore that popular programs in the United States are socialistic in nature, such as social security and subsidies to farmers hurt by Trump's trade war. President Trump loves to cite Norway as a model country. Yet Norway implements socialist policies, such a free secondary education.
Conservatives also like to exaggerate Ocasio-Cortez's policy proposals. Ocasio-Cortez, for example, became a spokesperson for the proposed House Resolution 109, known as the "Green New Deal." The proposal was not legislation, in the sense that it created no legal obligations. Rather, the Green New Deal was simply a list of goals divided into two parts. The first part set goals for the United States to combat climate change, such as reducing carbon emissions to net zero within ten years. The second part recognized that this would be a radical change in the economy, and that the Government should do what it could to protect those who would otherwise be displaced by the changes. The resolution made nothing illegal, and contained no proposals on how to reach the goals. It was meant simply to start the serious debate needed to address climate change in the hopes of avoiding catastrophic change.
Critics, of course, represented the resolution as banning popular items of Americana. Thus, the proposal to build high speed rail was represented as a ban on domestic air travel. The goal of eliminating America's dependence on fossil fuels was represented as a ban on cars and office buildings. Proposed reductions in carbon emissions was represented as an attack on bovine flatulence, and thus a ban on hamburgers. Thus, conservatives chose to oppose Ocasio-Cortez's proposals through misrepresentations and scare tactics.
Recently, Ocasio-Cortez has made a new ambitious legislative proposal, addressing the plight of the working class. The proposal includes limiting rent increases, enforcing a living wage, redefining the poverty line to include expenses not originally contemplated such as child care and internet access, and ratifying the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
These proposals recognize problems that the working class poor face in their daily lives, such as inflated housing expenses, and a minimum wage that has been frozen at $7.25 per hour since 2009. To conservatives, they are radical ideas which threaten the interests of big business. Ocasio-Cortez will certainly face strong opposition to her legislation.
Nonetheless, Ocasio-Cortez is serving an important function in U.S. politics. She is using the attention that the media is giving her to start important conversations over policy, and ensuring that the interests of the working class are being addressed. With a divided Congress, it is not likely that her proposals will pass and be implemented. But calling attention to those against whom the deck is stacked is vital if America is to be true to the value of equality before the law.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Sunday, September 29, 2019
Legally, Hearsay Can Support a Criminal Investgation
Ever since the jaw dropping details of the whistleblower complaint was released publicly, President Trump and his friends have been trying desperately to attack the whistleblower’s credibility. Through that complaint, the whistleblower detailed a shakedown perpetrated by Trump through his private lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, of the Ukrainian Government, going back to a time before Volodymyr Zelensky was elected President of Ukraine. Trump and Giuliani have been trying to get Ukraine to provide dirt to undermine the conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, as reached by the US intelligence community, the FBI and Robert Mueller’s investigation. Trump and Giuliani also wanted Ukraine to provide information to damage the reputation of Trump’s political rival, Joe Biden. One argument Trump has used is that the whistleblower only had “second class” information.
Of course, Trump meant that the whistleblower had second-hand knowledge, meaning the whistleblower did not listen to the telephone call with Zelensky himself. Rather, the whistleblower collected information concerning Giuliani’s pressure on Ukrainian officials from other people. Essentially, Trump’s friends, such as Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, claim that Trump cannot be impeached based on “hearsay.” Hearsay, as every lawyer knows, is when a witness tries to testify regarding something the witness heard another person say. Although the law of hearsay is complex, with some exceptions hearsay is inadmissible in a trial and cannot support a criminal conviction.
Setting aside the fact that impeachment is a political process, and not a legal criminal proceeding, what Trump, and his friends such as Graham, forget is that Trump has not been impeached yet. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has only announced that the House has opened an impeachment inquiry. This means that the House will formally begin acquiring evidence and holding hearings for the purpose of determining whether to impeach Trump. That is, the House will commence an investigation into Trump’s actions.
This is where the hearsay defense falls apart. Even if impeachment were a true criminal proceeding, the use of hearsay would not invalidate the commencement of an investigation. For example, pursuant to US law, hearsay can be used to issue a search warrant. A warrant can be issued upon a showing of probable cause. Hearsay can establish probable cause if it has indicia of reliability. Indicia of reliability can include information about the person’s background, and details that can be corroborated. Here
Concerning the whistleblower's background, the New York Times claims that he is a CIA Analyst who was attached to the White House. This would mean that the whistleblower was trained in collecting facts, and providing an analysis of what those facts mean. He would have training in foreign affairs. He would also have access to people who work with the President on a daily basis, who would have direct first-hand knowledge of the events and processes described,
Additionally, the details concerning the telephone call and the pressure placed on Ukraine have been, and are continuing to be, corroborated. First, Trump acknowledged that he placed pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky concerning Biden. Trump himself said to reporters, “Even the Ukrainian government put out a statement that that was a perfect call, there was no pressure put on them whatsoever. But there was pressure put on with respect to Joe Biden. What Joe Biden did for his son, that’s something they should be looking at.” Thus, even before the White House released the memorandum of the telephone call, Trump admitted the substance of the call, and that his aim was to compel Zelensky to provide information on Biden.
Then, the release of the memorandum of the telephone conversation itself confirmed details the whistleblower disclosed in his complaint. This included Trump referring to his view that while the United States has been good to Ukraine, the relationship has not always been reciprocal. Indeed, as recorded in the memorandum, Trump specifically asked Zelensky for a favor, which appeared to be connected to Zelensky's expressed desire to buy more Javelin missiles. This "favor" actually turned out to be two. trump wanted Ukraine to investigate whether the server of the Democratic National Committe taht had been hacked was in Ukraine. He also wanted information on Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. The whistleblower mentioned both of these in his complaint.
Moreover, Giuliani himself has been corroborating the allegation that he has been acting as the go between for Trump to Ukrainian officials, and that this has been going on for some time. Giuliani has been making appearances on television confirming that he traveled around the world to meet with Ukrainian officials and to talk about Joe Biden.
With this much corroboration, the whistleblower’s allegations would almost certainly be ruled to be supported by indicia of reliability and thus support a finding of probable cause.
Hearsay can be used to identify potential witnesses. In this instance, the House Judiciary Committee will hold hearings. It is perfectly acceptable to use the information provided by the whistleblower to identify people working in the White House from whom the Committee will want to hear. In fact, Judiciary Committee Chair Adam Schiff announced that the committee is working with the whistleblower's lawyers to have the whistleblower testify before the committee. When testifying before the committee, the whistleblower can identify with whom he spoke concerning his allegations, and how he knows about the process the White House used to try to cover up the phone call. This will help the committee identify witnesses with first-hand knowledge of the allegations, and what other evidence the committee will need to subpoena. Over the next few months, we can expect there to be ongoing testimony by White House staff, Rudy Giuliani, and members of the intelligence community concerning the pressure Trump placed on Ukraine.
It is important to keep in mind that impeachment itself is not the end process. That is, a president is not removed from office simply because the House votes in favor of impeachment. If comparisons to criminal law are to be maintained, impeachment is more like an indictment. It represents the House concluding that there are reasons why a majority of House members believe the president has abused his office and deserves to be removed. Whether the president is actually removed is determined by the Senate, which holds a trial over which the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. It will be up to the Senate to determine its own rules on how the trial proceeds, just as the House decides the rules concerning impeachment.
At this time, the United States is just at the beginning of an impeachment inquiry. To say that the whistleblower’s allegations, as outlined in his complaint, cannot support the opening of an investigation is just plain wrong. These allegations, which already have corroborating evidence, can and should serve the basis of identifying avenues the Judiciary Committee should pursue in collecting further evidence to permit the House to decide whether ultimately to impeach President Trump.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Of course, Trump meant that the whistleblower had second-hand knowledge, meaning the whistleblower did not listen to the telephone call with Zelensky himself. Rather, the whistleblower collected information concerning Giuliani’s pressure on Ukrainian officials from other people. Essentially, Trump’s friends, such as Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, claim that Trump cannot be impeached based on “hearsay.” Hearsay, as every lawyer knows, is when a witness tries to testify regarding something the witness heard another person say. Although the law of hearsay is complex, with some exceptions hearsay is inadmissible in a trial and cannot support a criminal conviction.
Setting aside the fact that impeachment is a political process, and not a legal criminal proceeding, what Trump, and his friends such as Graham, forget is that Trump has not been impeached yet. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has only announced that the House has opened an impeachment inquiry. This means that the House will formally begin acquiring evidence and holding hearings for the purpose of determining whether to impeach Trump. That is, the House will commence an investigation into Trump’s actions.
This is where the hearsay defense falls apart. Even if impeachment were a true criminal proceeding, the use of hearsay would not invalidate the commencement of an investigation. For example, pursuant to US law, hearsay can be used to issue a search warrant. A warrant can be issued upon a showing of probable cause. Hearsay can establish probable cause if it has indicia of reliability. Indicia of reliability can include information about the person’s background, and details that can be corroborated. Here
Concerning the whistleblower's background, the New York Times claims that he is a CIA Analyst who was attached to the White House. This would mean that the whistleblower was trained in collecting facts, and providing an analysis of what those facts mean. He would have training in foreign affairs. He would also have access to people who work with the President on a daily basis, who would have direct first-hand knowledge of the events and processes described,
Additionally, the details concerning the telephone call and the pressure placed on Ukraine have been, and are continuing to be, corroborated. First, Trump acknowledged that he placed pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky concerning Biden. Trump himself said to reporters, “Even the Ukrainian government put out a statement that that was a perfect call, there was no pressure put on them whatsoever. But there was pressure put on with respect to Joe Biden. What Joe Biden did for his son, that’s something they should be looking at.” Thus, even before the White House released the memorandum of the telephone call, Trump admitted the substance of the call, and that his aim was to compel Zelensky to provide information on Biden.
Then, the release of the memorandum of the telephone conversation itself confirmed details the whistleblower disclosed in his complaint. This included Trump referring to his view that while the United States has been good to Ukraine, the relationship has not always been reciprocal. Indeed, as recorded in the memorandum, Trump specifically asked Zelensky for a favor, which appeared to be connected to Zelensky's expressed desire to buy more Javelin missiles. This "favor" actually turned out to be two. trump wanted Ukraine to investigate whether the server of the Democratic National Committe taht had been hacked was in Ukraine. He also wanted information on Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. The whistleblower mentioned both of these in his complaint.
Moreover, Giuliani himself has been corroborating the allegation that he has been acting as the go between for Trump to Ukrainian officials, and that this has been going on for some time. Giuliani has been making appearances on television confirming that he traveled around the world to meet with Ukrainian officials and to talk about Joe Biden.
With this much corroboration, the whistleblower’s allegations would almost certainly be ruled to be supported by indicia of reliability and thus support a finding of probable cause.
Hearsay can be used to identify potential witnesses. In this instance, the House Judiciary Committee will hold hearings. It is perfectly acceptable to use the information provided by the whistleblower to identify people working in the White House from whom the Committee will want to hear. In fact, Judiciary Committee Chair Adam Schiff announced that the committee is working with the whistleblower's lawyers to have the whistleblower testify before the committee. When testifying before the committee, the whistleblower can identify with whom he spoke concerning his allegations, and how he knows about the process the White House used to try to cover up the phone call. This will help the committee identify witnesses with first-hand knowledge of the allegations, and what other evidence the committee will need to subpoena. Over the next few months, we can expect there to be ongoing testimony by White House staff, Rudy Giuliani, and members of the intelligence community concerning the pressure Trump placed on Ukraine.
It is important to keep in mind that impeachment itself is not the end process. That is, a president is not removed from office simply because the House votes in favor of impeachment. If comparisons to criminal law are to be maintained, impeachment is more like an indictment. It represents the House concluding that there are reasons why a majority of House members believe the president has abused his office and deserves to be removed. Whether the president is actually removed is determined by the Senate, which holds a trial over which the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. It will be up to the Senate to determine its own rules on how the trial proceeds, just as the House decides the rules concerning impeachment.
At this time, the United States is just at the beginning of an impeachment inquiry. To say that the whistleblower’s allegations, as outlined in his complaint, cannot support the opening of an investigation is just plain wrong. These allegations, which already have corroborating evidence, can and should serve the basis of identifying avenues the Judiciary Committee should pursue in collecting further evidence to permit the House to decide whether ultimately to impeach President Trump.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Thursday, September 26, 2019
Whistleblower Complaint Provides More Evidence of Trump's Abuse of Power
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released the whistleblower complaint Thursday morning, after it had been declassified. Through the complaint, the whistleblower detailed pressure placed on Ukraine to provide Trump with information he and his allies viewed as helpful for the President's 2020 campaign. That pressure went beyond a mere telephone call, and circumvented the normal channels of U.S. foreign policy. Moreover, the whistleblower detailed procedures in place to cover-up Trump's other abuses of his office for political gain.
Despite assertions by key Republican figures that the memorandum of the telephone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky revealed no "quid pro quo," the whistleblower detailed how Trump and his allies had been placing pressure on Ukrainian officials to cooperate with Trump's desire to smear his political rivals for several months.
On Wednesday, before the complaint was released, Trump was desperate to show that the telephone call did not reveal any impeachable offense. To that end, Trump and his Republican apologists attempted to constrain the analysis to the four corners of the memorandum of the telephone call, claiming that language used showed no pressure or quid pro quo. The goal was to distract the public rom the fact that no quid pro quo was even necessary to show an abuse of office, as the solicitation of information to be used against an opponent from a foreign source is itself sufficient for there to be a criminal violation of federal campaign finance law.
Trump, therefore, attempted to dispel allegations that he put pressure on Zelensky by parading the visibly nervous Ukrainian President in front of the television cameras at the United Nations on Wednesday. Not surprisingly, Zelensky responded in the negative when Trump pointedly asked if he felt pressure from the July telephone call. However, the whistleblower cited President Zelensky's website, on which was posted the first acknowledgment of telephone call on July 25, 2019. This post included a statement that Trump hoped Ukraine would "complete the investigation of corruption cases that have held back cooperation between Ukraine and the United States." From the memorandum of the telephone call, the only case of alleged corruption mentioned by Trump was the investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Clearly, Ukrainian officials understood that cooperation with Trump and his allies over providing information on Biden was a condition to renewed U.S. assistance. Given the timing of the call, which took place after Trump had suspended military aid to Ukraine, Trump's reminder to Zelensky that while the United States had provided assistance to Ukraine in the past the cooperation between the two countries had not been reciprocal, and the fact that Trump requested a favor from Zelensky immediately after Zelensky indicated a desire to purchase more Javelin missiles, it is easy to see how Zelensky viewed future cooperation with the Trump Administration would be contingent on providing the information on Biden that Trump requested.
Moreover, the whistleblower detailed how Trump and his allies placed pressure on Ukraine to investigate both the hacking of the Democratic National Committee's email server and the Bidens months before Zelensky won the presidential election. The scheme centered around a Ukrainian Prosecutor General, over whom Trump and his allies believed they had influence. Trump believed that his efforts to manipulate that prosecutor has been frustrated by official U.S. foreign policy channels.
In the July telephone call, for example, Trump refers to a "prosecutor who was very good" whom Trump believed was "shut down." Trump described this situation as "really unfair" and involving "very bad people," including "[t]he former ambassador from the United States, the woman . . . ."
Up until the release of the whistleblower complaint, many had assumed Trump was talking about Viktor Shokin. Shokin was the Prosecutor General that the Obama Administration, as well as most of Western Europe, opposed as being soft on corruption. This was the prosecutor whom Obama wanted Biden to pressure the Ukainian President to remove in 2016. However, the whistleblower discussed a more recent Ukrainian Prosecutor General, Yury Lutsenko, who served under Zelensky's predecessor, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.
The whistleblower noted that Trump's private attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, met with Lutsenko once in New York in January of 2019, and again in February of 2019 in Warsaw. In March of 2019, Lutsenko and his allies claimed that Ukraine had evidence that the Head of the National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine, Artem Stynyk, and a member of the Ukrainian Parliament, Serhiy Leshchenko, worked with the DNC and the U.S. Embassy in Kiev to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. They also claimed that U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovich obstructed Ukrainian corruption investigations by providing a "do not prosecute" list and by preventing Ukrainian prosecutors from traveling to the United States. Further, Lutsenko and his friends claimed that Biden pressured Poroshenko to fire Shokin to stop an investigation of Burisma, the Ukrainian oil and gas company that employed Biden's son, Hunter. Lutsenko stated his desire to discuss these matters with U.S. Attorney General William Barr.
The timing of Lutsenko's allegations, after Lutsenko had met with Giuliani, raise the very serious question of whether Giuliani planted these ideas in Lutsenko's head, and urged him to investigate the matters. Bearing in mind that Trump still refuses to accept the conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community, the FBI and Robert Mueller's investigation that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and that Trump regularly engages in the tactic of deflection when evidence of his wrongdoing surfaces, it is clear to see how Lutsenko's statements about the DNC would politically benefit Trump. To detract from proof of Russian interference, Trump has claimed that it was the Democrats who actually solicited foreign interference in the 2016 election from Ukraine to support Hilary Clinton's candidacy. By publicly claiming to have evidence of a DNC scheme, Lutsenko would appear to corroborate Trump's conspiracy theory.
Additionally, Ambassador Yovanovich, who was appointed by President Obama, had voiced her criticism that Lutsenko was himself soft on corruption. In April of 2019, Lutsenko walked about from the March allegation, admitting that Yovanovich never provided a "do not prosecute" list, and that it was Lutsenko who had actually requested such a list. Yovanovich was therefore acting in opposition to Trump's scheme, as implemented by Giuliani. In fact, as an Obama appointee, Yovanovich was independent of President Trump, and in a position to thwart Giuliani's attempts to solicit political help from the Ukrainian Government.
Yovanovich was recalled to Washington in March, and removed as the Ambassador in April, after Zelensky's election as President. Giuliani this was "because she was part of the efforts against the President."
Moreover, in May, Lutsenko acknowledged that there were no investigations targeting Biden or his son, Hunter, and that Ukraine had no evidence of any wrong doing of either Biden.
Nonetheless, Lutsenko had proven to be receptive to Giuliani's urgings that he investigate alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election on behalf of the Democrats, and the claim that Biden had pressured Poroshenko to remove Shokin to protect Hunter Biden. When Poroshenko lost the Ukrainian presidential election, Trump viewed it as in his personal interests to have Zelensky permit Lutsenko to continue as the Prosecutor General. This is what Trump appears to be implying in the July telephone conversation.
In furtherance of the pressure Trump and his allies were already placing on Ukraine, the President instructed Vice President Michael Pence to cancel his trip to attend Zelensky's inauguration as Ukrainian President on May 20. According to the whistleblower, it was "made clear" to Ukrainian officials that Trump did not want to meet with Zelensky until Trump saw how Zelensky "chose to act." Specifically, a meeting or telephone call between Trump and Zelensky would be contingent upon Zelensky's willingness to "play ball" with the allegations of collaboration between Ukraine and the DNC, and that Biden had acted to protect his son from an investigation into corruption.
The whistleblower, therefore, outlined a campaign of pressure on Ukrainian officials, dating back to at least January of 2019, through Trump's private attorney, to find evidence to support Trump's claims that the DNC cooperated with Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and that Biden had pressured Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor to protect his son. That is, Trump's campaign of corruption concerning Ukraine concerned more than merely one telephone call in July of 2019.
At any rate, the pressure Trump has placed on Ukraine to dig up dirt on his political opponents is but only one troubling aspect of the whistleblower complaint. Equally serious is that Trump has been conducted a sort of rogue foreign policy circumventing the normal governmental avenues of the State Department and the national security apparatus. Instead, Trump is sending his private lawyer, a man with no experience in foreign policy, to pressure Ukrainian officials into doing Trump's bidding. Indeed, Ukraine has been getting two separate set of communications from the United States, one from the official foreign policy channels, and one from Rudy Giuliani. These communications have been in conflict, necessitating U.S. Government officials to advise Zelensky and other Ukrainian political leaders on how to navigate the waters between official U.S. policy and Trump's rogue policy.
Still worse, the whistleblower detailed the extent to which Trump's corruption has been accepted by White House staff as normal. In this regard, the White House has a computer server where transcripts of the President's telephone calls are kept until they can be finalized. The data on this server is available to cabinet members and other executive appointees to allow them to keep up with Trump's communications with world leaders. However, the transcript of this conversation with President Zelensky was pulled off the widely available server, and placed on a server where telephone conversations containing sensitive matters of national security are stored. Access to this server is not widely available, but closely guarded. The Zelensky conversation was placed on the more secure server despite the fact that the conversation did not address sensitive matters of national security. Rather, the whistleblower detailed a practice whereby Trump's telephone calls where he abuses his office for private political gain are routinely taken off the widely available server, and stored on the national security server. Thus it appears that Trump's staff has been complicit in covering up multiple instances where Trump has abused his position for personal gain.
The transcript of the July conversation with President Zelensky was bad enough. But Congress should not constrain itself to considering that conversation alone. While Trump's public admissions and the memorandum of the telephone conversation are themselves enough to establish violations of Trump's constitutional oath and criminal campaign finance laws, the whistleblower's complaint details a much farther reaching scheme. This scheme involves Trump's abuse of his role in foreign relations to seek personal political gain, and a cover-up meant to protect Trump from scrutiny and accountability. All toll, the evidence in favor of Trump's impeachment is mounting, and cannot be ignored.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Despite assertions by key Republican figures that the memorandum of the telephone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky revealed no "quid pro quo," the whistleblower detailed how Trump and his allies had been placing pressure on Ukrainian officials to cooperate with Trump's desire to smear his political rivals for several months.
On Wednesday, before the complaint was released, Trump was desperate to show that the telephone call did not reveal any impeachable offense. To that end, Trump and his Republican apologists attempted to constrain the analysis to the four corners of the memorandum of the telephone call, claiming that language used showed no pressure or quid pro quo. The goal was to distract the public rom the fact that no quid pro quo was even necessary to show an abuse of office, as the solicitation of information to be used against an opponent from a foreign source is itself sufficient for there to be a criminal violation of federal campaign finance law.
Trump, therefore, attempted to dispel allegations that he put pressure on Zelensky by parading the visibly nervous Ukrainian President in front of the television cameras at the United Nations on Wednesday. Not surprisingly, Zelensky responded in the negative when Trump pointedly asked if he felt pressure from the July telephone call. However, the whistleblower cited President Zelensky's website, on which was posted the first acknowledgment of telephone call on July 25, 2019. This post included a statement that Trump hoped Ukraine would "complete the investigation of corruption cases that have held back cooperation between Ukraine and the United States." From the memorandum of the telephone call, the only case of alleged corruption mentioned by Trump was the investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Clearly, Ukrainian officials understood that cooperation with Trump and his allies over providing information on Biden was a condition to renewed U.S. assistance. Given the timing of the call, which took place after Trump had suspended military aid to Ukraine, Trump's reminder to Zelensky that while the United States had provided assistance to Ukraine in the past the cooperation between the two countries had not been reciprocal, and the fact that Trump requested a favor from Zelensky immediately after Zelensky indicated a desire to purchase more Javelin missiles, it is easy to see how Zelensky viewed future cooperation with the Trump Administration would be contingent on providing the information on Biden that Trump requested.
Moreover, the whistleblower detailed how Trump and his allies placed pressure on Ukraine to investigate both the hacking of the Democratic National Committee's email server and the Bidens months before Zelensky won the presidential election. The scheme centered around a Ukrainian Prosecutor General, over whom Trump and his allies believed they had influence. Trump believed that his efforts to manipulate that prosecutor has been frustrated by official U.S. foreign policy channels.
In the July telephone call, for example, Trump refers to a "prosecutor who was very good" whom Trump believed was "shut down." Trump described this situation as "really unfair" and involving "very bad people," including "[t]he former ambassador from the United States, the woman . . . ."
Up until the release of the whistleblower complaint, many had assumed Trump was talking about Viktor Shokin. Shokin was the Prosecutor General that the Obama Administration, as well as most of Western Europe, opposed as being soft on corruption. This was the prosecutor whom Obama wanted Biden to pressure the Ukainian President to remove in 2016. However, the whistleblower discussed a more recent Ukrainian Prosecutor General, Yury Lutsenko, who served under Zelensky's predecessor, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.
The whistleblower noted that Trump's private attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, met with Lutsenko once in New York in January of 2019, and again in February of 2019 in Warsaw. In March of 2019, Lutsenko and his allies claimed that Ukraine had evidence that the Head of the National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine, Artem Stynyk, and a member of the Ukrainian Parliament, Serhiy Leshchenko, worked with the DNC and the U.S. Embassy in Kiev to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. They also claimed that U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovich obstructed Ukrainian corruption investigations by providing a "do not prosecute" list and by preventing Ukrainian prosecutors from traveling to the United States. Further, Lutsenko and his friends claimed that Biden pressured Poroshenko to fire Shokin to stop an investigation of Burisma, the Ukrainian oil and gas company that employed Biden's son, Hunter. Lutsenko stated his desire to discuss these matters with U.S. Attorney General William Barr.
The timing of Lutsenko's allegations, after Lutsenko had met with Giuliani, raise the very serious question of whether Giuliani planted these ideas in Lutsenko's head, and urged him to investigate the matters. Bearing in mind that Trump still refuses to accept the conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community, the FBI and Robert Mueller's investigation that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and that Trump regularly engages in the tactic of deflection when evidence of his wrongdoing surfaces, it is clear to see how Lutsenko's statements about the DNC would politically benefit Trump. To detract from proof of Russian interference, Trump has claimed that it was the Democrats who actually solicited foreign interference in the 2016 election from Ukraine to support Hilary Clinton's candidacy. By publicly claiming to have evidence of a DNC scheme, Lutsenko would appear to corroborate Trump's conspiracy theory.
Additionally, Ambassador Yovanovich, who was appointed by President Obama, had voiced her criticism that Lutsenko was himself soft on corruption. In April of 2019, Lutsenko walked about from the March allegation, admitting that Yovanovich never provided a "do not prosecute" list, and that it was Lutsenko who had actually requested such a list. Yovanovich was therefore acting in opposition to Trump's scheme, as implemented by Giuliani. In fact, as an Obama appointee, Yovanovich was independent of President Trump, and in a position to thwart Giuliani's attempts to solicit political help from the Ukrainian Government.
Yovanovich was recalled to Washington in March, and removed as the Ambassador in April, after Zelensky's election as President. Giuliani this was "because she was part of the efforts against the President."
Moreover, in May, Lutsenko acknowledged that there were no investigations targeting Biden or his son, Hunter, and that Ukraine had no evidence of any wrong doing of either Biden.
Nonetheless, Lutsenko had proven to be receptive to Giuliani's urgings that he investigate alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election on behalf of the Democrats, and the claim that Biden had pressured Poroshenko to remove Shokin to protect Hunter Biden. When Poroshenko lost the Ukrainian presidential election, Trump viewed it as in his personal interests to have Zelensky permit Lutsenko to continue as the Prosecutor General. This is what Trump appears to be implying in the July telephone conversation.
In furtherance of the pressure Trump and his allies were already placing on Ukraine, the President instructed Vice President Michael Pence to cancel his trip to attend Zelensky's inauguration as Ukrainian President on May 20. According to the whistleblower, it was "made clear" to Ukrainian officials that Trump did not want to meet with Zelensky until Trump saw how Zelensky "chose to act." Specifically, a meeting or telephone call between Trump and Zelensky would be contingent upon Zelensky's willingness to "play ball" with the allegations of collaboration between Ukraine and the DNC, and that Biden had acted to protect his son from an investigation into corruption.
The whistleblower, therefore, outlined a campaign of pressure on Ukrainian officials, dating back to at least January of 2019, through Trump's private attorney, to find evidence to support Trump's claims that the DNC cooperated with Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and that Biden had pressured Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor to protect his son. That is, Trump's campaign of corruption concerning Ukraine concerned more than merely one telephone call in July of 2019.
At any rate, the pressure Trump has placed on Ukraine to dig up dirt on his political opponents is but only one troubling aspect of the whistleblower complaint. Equally serious is that Trump has been conducted a sort of rogue foreign policy circumventing the normal governmental avenues of the State Department and the national security apparatus. Instead, Trump is sending his private lawyer, a man with no experience in foreign policy, to pressure Ukrainian officials into doing Trump's bidding. Indeed, Ukraine has been getting two separate set of communications from the United States, one from the official foreign policy channels, and one from Rudy Giuliani. These communications have been in conflict, necessitating U.S. Government officials to advise Zelensky and other Ukrainian political leaders on how to navigate the waters between official U.S. policy and Trump's rogue policy.
Still worse, the whistleblower detailed the extent to which Trump's corruption has been accepted by White House staff as normal. In this regard, the White House has a computer server where transcripts of the President's telephone calls are kept until they can be finalized. The data on this server is available to cabinet members and other executive appointees to allow them to keep up with Trump's communications with world leaders. However, the transcript of this conversation with President Zelensky was pulled off the widely available server, and placed on a server where telephone conversations containing sensitive matters of national security are stored. Access to this server is not widely available, but closely guarded. The Zelensky conversation was placed on the more secure server despite the fact that the conversation did not address sensitive matters of national security. Rather, the whistleblower detailed a practice whereby Trump's telephone calls where he abuses his office for private political gain are routinely taken off the widely available server, and stored on the national security server. Thus it appears that Trump's staff has been complicit in covering up multiple instances where Trump has abused his position for personal gain.
The transcript of the July conversation with President Zelensky was bad enough. But Congress should not constrain itself to considering that conversation alone. While Trump's public admissions and the memorandum of the telephone conversation are themselves enough to establish violations of Trump's constitutional oath and criminal campaign finance laws, the whistleblower's complaint details a much farther reaching scheme. This scheme involves Trump's abuse of his role in foreign relations to seek personal political gain, and a cover-up meant to protect Trump from scrutiny and accountability. All toll, the evidence in favor of Trump's impeachment is mounting, and cannot be ignored.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Trump's Telephone Call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky Reveals Why Trump Must be Impeached
On Wednesday morning, the White House released damning evidence which revealed that U.S. President Donald Trump deliberately sought information from a foreign country that Trump hoped would be damaging to a political opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden. Specifically, the White House released a memorandum of a telephone conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that took place on July 25, 2019.
The phone call was at the heart of an allegation by an unnamed member of the U.S. intelligence community, who filed a whistleblower complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, Michael Atkinson, on August 12, 2019. Prior to the release of the transcript, all that was known of the complaint was that it concerned an allegation of an inappropriate promise made by Trump to a foreign leader through a telephone call. The complaint was deemed credible and of an urgent concern by Atkinson, who turned over the complaint to acting Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire. Because it had been deemed of urgent concern, federal law required Maguire to turn the complaint over to the intelligence committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate. When Maguire failed to do so in the time proscribed by statute, Akinson alerted Congress to the existence of the complaint.
While the Administration dragged its heels on releasing the text of the complaint, the Wall Street Journal published an article on September 21, 2019, asserting that Trump had pressured Zelensky about eight times in the telephone call to investigate Biden and his son Hunter. Despite initial denials and cries of "fake news," Trump himself acknowledged that he had pressured Zelensky into investigating Biden and his son. Trump's admission, along with his Administration's intransient stance on withholding the text of the complaint, prompted the House Democrats to meet on Tuesday night. As a result of that meeting, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had been opposed to impeachment over the findings of the Mueller Report, announced that the House would now begin a formal impeachment inquiry. Feeling the political pressure on him growing, Trump agreed to the release of the transcript of his telephone call after obtaining consent from the Ukrainian Government.
It should be noted that no real word for word transcript of the telephone conversation exists. Rather, the White House released a memorandum of the telephone call pieced together by government officials whose job included taking notes of such conversations.
Nonetheless, despite Trump's claims that the telephone call was "perfect," and that the transcript would exonerate him, the memorandum instead provides a smoking gun of an abuse of presidential power for personal political gain.
A review of the conversation demonstrates how Trump brazenly ignores his constitutional oath, and seeks to use his office for his own personal benefit.
Specifically, the memorandum confirms that Trump requested that Ukraine cooperate with his private attorney, Rudolph Guiliani, and the Attorney General, William Barr, specifically mentioning Trump's belief that Biden stopped a prosecution in the Ukraine that involved Biden's son, Hunter. After Zelensky agreed to cooperate, Trump stated that he would have both Giuliani and Barr call Zelensky.
Joe Biden, of course, seeks the Democratic nomination for the 2020 presidential election, and currently leads the pack of potential nominees in most polls. Indeed, in head to head polls, Biden leads Trump by wide margins. Receiving information that Biden acted corruptly from Ukraine could potentially help Trump in his bid for reelection.
Trump faces the problem, however, that no evidence exists showing that either of the Bidens did anything wrong. Before Zelensky was elected Ukraine's President, Vitkor Shokin served as Ukraine's top prosecutor. He was supported by Russia, who was interfering in Ukrainian internal politics. As is well known, once Ukraine started to turn more towards the West, Russia supported armed Ukrainian separatists, and even invaded Ukraine, occupying the Crimea and claiming it as Russian territory.
Shokin was viewed by Western European governments and the Obama Administration as being soft on corruption. President Obama sent Biden on a mission to Ukraine to pressure the Ukrainian President to remove Shokin by withholding about $1 billion in U.S. aid. The intention behind the move was to pressure Ukraine to be tougher on corrupt oligarchs through more aggressive investigations.
At the time, Biden's son, Hunter, held a position as a paid member of the board of a Ukrainian oil and gas company, Burisma. While Burisma had been under investigation by the Ukrainian Government, under Shokin, the investigation had stalled. Thus, by insisting on the appointment of a tougher prosecutor, Biden was not only representing official U.S. policy, but risking a renewed investigation of the company that employed Hunter. No evidence exists that Biden was using his office for personal gain, or that Hunter himself had engaged in any sort of corruption. Trump's goal. therefore, was simply to manufacture as much alternative facts as possible to cast dispersions on Biden, and hopefully use that to whittle away at Biden's lead in the polls.
In addition to claiming that his request to the Ukrainian President was appropriate, Trump has also claimed that the memorandum shows that there was no pressure placed on Zelensky, and no quid pro quo (or an exchange for something of value to Ukraine for providing the requested information). Trump's defense again strains credibility.
At the beginning of the telephone conversation, Trump reminds Zelensky that the United States has been Ukraine's biggest supported. Trump denigrates the actions of European allies, such as Germany, for not doing as much as the United States in supporting Ukraine. Zelensky responds by fawning all over Trump, agreeing with his statement "1000%." Most of Zelensky's responses transmit his desire to stay in the good graces of the Trump Administration. Specifically, Zelensky is quoted a saying, "We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next step specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes." A Javelin is a missile used by the U.S. military, and would presumably be used by Ukraine in defending its territory from Russia and Russian backed separatists.
This reference to Javelin purchases must be placed in context. Congress had approved about $250 million in military aid to Ukraine. However, just days before this telephone call, Trump had ordered that the disbursement of this aid be suspended. It should also be noted that Trump's admiration of Russian President Vladimir Putin is well-known globally. In fact, not long after this telephone conversation, Trump publicly stated his support for the readmission of Russia to the G-8, even though Russia had been thrown out because of its invasion of Ukraine. Clearly, Zelensky had reason to believe that Trump's continued support of Ukraine in its struggle against Russia was soft at best, and could be withdrawn if Ukraine did not do as Trump requested.
In that regard, Trump is quoted as stating, "I would like you to do us a favor though," immediately after Zelensky brings up his desire to buy more Javelins. The juxtaposition of this request from Trump immediately after Zelensky's spoken desire to buy more missiles, as well as his use of the word "though," indicates that Trump's willingness to provide additional aid was contingent on Ukraine's cooperation with his request for a favor.
What is interesting, however, is that Trump requests more than one favor. The first one concerned a matter Trump refered to as "Crowdstrike." Crowdstrike is the company that the Democratic National Committee used to investigate the hacking of its email server. The Crowdstrike, the FBI and Robert Mueller's investigative team all concluded that Russia was responsible for that hacking. Yet Trump refused to believe his own Government in reaching that conclusion. One reason for his belief is because Crowdstrike never turned the physical server over to the FBI. Trump believed rumors that Ukraine was in possession of the server. He therefore asked Zelensky for his help in proving that Trump's convoluted conspiracy theory was true.
It is beyond odd that Trump demanded of the Ukraine that it find evidence Trump hoped would exonerate Trump's buddy, Putin, from the conclusion of the U.S. intelligence community, the FBI and the Mueller team that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. It demonstrates Trump's refusal to accept the conclusions of the Mueller and his team, who spent about two years investigating Russia, the Trump Campaign and the Trump Administration. That investigation resulted in numerous criminal indictments, including the indictments of Russian officials.
Indeed, the timing of the telephone call further demonstrates the contempt that Trump held for Robert Mueller and his investigation. Mueller had testified before Congress on the day before this telephone call. Through his investigation, Mueller presented evidence of Russia's interference in the election, that the Trump Campaign had welcomed Russia's interference (although the conduct of campaign officials did not rise to the level of conspiracy), and of numerous instances that could support a conclusion that Trump engaged in obstruction of justice by frustrating the investigation into Russia's interference.
Mueller crafted his report on the investigation with the understanding that a sitting president could not be indicted during his term in office. Thus, Mueller was careful not to make a conclusion that Trump had committed criminal acts. Nonetheless, through his report, Mueller made it clear that his investigated did not exonerate Trump. Rather, he preserved the evidence so that it could be used presumably either by Congress through impeachment or through a criminal prosecution once Trump left office. Trump and his Administration publicly characterized the investigation as finding that there was "no collusion" and "no obstruction," despite the fact that Mueller made neither of those findings.
Trump, of course, repeatedly referred to the Mueller investigation as a "which hunt," confessing his belief that he, his campaign and his administration did nothing wrong. Thus, in an interview aired in June of 2019, Trump answered a question from George Stephanopoulos by stating that he did not think it would not be wrong to accept information about a political opponent in an election from a foreign national. Trump even indicated that if a foreign national provided such information, that he did not believe it was necessary to inform the FBI. This brazen flaunting of the law raised such an uproar, that the Chairwoman of the Federal Elections Commission was prompted to tweet that "it is illegal to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election." A thing of value incudes information that can be used against an opponent.
Trump, of course, never accepted that he did anything wrong. Thus, in the shadow of Mueller's testimony before Congress, Trump went one step further than merely welcoming foreign interference in a U.S. election; he outright solicited such interference from a foreign leader.
The conclusion here is inescapable. The memorandum of the telephone call to Zelensky shows that Trump has violated the public trust. He has violated his oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In fact, Trump himself has violated the Constitution as well as criminal law by soliciting foreign interference in connection with a federal election. In order to protect the constitutional balance, governmental ethics and our treasured democracy, the House of Representatives has no choice now, but to proceed with the impeachment inquiry.
By: Willliam J. Kovatch, Jr.
The phone call was at the heart of an allegation by an unnamed member of the U.S. intelligence community, who filed a whistleblower complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, Michael Atkinson, on August 12, 2019. Prior to the release of the transcript, all that was known of the complaint was that it concerned an allegation of an inappropriate promise made by Trump to a foreign leader through a telephone call. The complaint was deemed credible and of an urgent concern by Atkinson, who turned over the complaint to acting Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire. Because it had been deemed of urgent concern, federal law required Maguire to turn the complaint over to the intelligence committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate. When Maguire failed to do so in the time proscribed by statute, Akinson alerted Congress to the existence of the complaint.
While the Administration dragged its heels on releasing the text of the complaint, the Wall Street Journal published an article on September 21, 2019, asserting that Trump had pressured Zelensky about eight times in the telephone call to investigate Biden and his son Hunter. Despite initial denials and cries of "fake news," Trump himself acknowledged that he had pressured Zelensky into investigating Biden and his son. Trump's admission, along with his Administration's intransient stance on withholding the text of the complaint, prompted the House Democrats to meet on Tuesday night. As a result of that meeting, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had been opposed to impeachment over the findings of the Mueller Report, announced that the House would now begin a formal impeachment inquiry. Feeling the political pressure on him growing, Trump agreed to the release of the transcript of his telephone call after obtaining consent from the Ukrainian Government.
It should be noted that no real word for word transcript of the telephone conversation exists. Rather, the White House released a memorandum of the telephone call pieced together by government officials whose job included taking notes of such conversations.
Nonetheless, despite Trump's claims that the telephone call was "perfect," and that the transcript would exonerate him, the memorandum instead provides a smoking gun of an abuse of presidential power for personal political gain.
A review of the conversation demonstrates how Trump brazenly ignores his constitutional oath, and seeks to use his office for his own personal benefit.
Specifically, the memorandum confirms that Trump requested that Ukraine cooperate with his private attorney, Rudolph Guiliani, and the Attorney General, William Barr, specifically mentioning Trump's belief that Biden stopped a prosecution in the Ukraine that involved Biden's son, Hunter. After Zelensky agreed to cooperate, Trump stated that he would have both Giuliani and Barr call Zelensky.
Joe Biden, of course, seeks the Democratic nomination for the 2020 presidential election, and currently leads the pack of potential nominees in most polls. Indeed, in head to head polls, Biden leads Trump by wide margins. Receiving information that Biden acted corruptly from Ukraine could potentially help Trump in his bid for reelection.
Trump faces the problem, however, that no evidence exists showing that either of the Bidens did anything wrong. Before Zelensky was elected Ukraine's President, Vitkor Shokin served as Ukraine's top prosecutor. He was supported by Russia, who was interfering in Ukrainian internal politics. As is well known, once Ukraine started to turn more towards the West, Russia supported armed Ukrainian separatists, and even invaded Ukraine, occupying the Crimea and claiming it as Russian territory.
Shokin was viewed by Western European governments and the Obama Administration as being soft on corruption. President Obama sent Biden on a mission to Ukraine to pressure the Ukrainian President to remove Shokin by withholding about $1 billion in U.S. aid. The intention behind the move was to pressure Ukraine to be tougher on corrupt oligarchs through more aggressive investigations.
At the time, Biden's son, Hunter, held a position as a paid member of the board of a Ukrainian oil and gas company, Burisma. While Burisma had been under investigation by the Ukrainian Government, under Shokin, the investigation had stalled. Thus, by insisting on the appointment of a tougher prosecutor, Biden was not only representing official U.S. policy, but risking a renewed investigation of the company that employed Hunter. No evidence exists that Biden was using his office for personal gain, or that Hunter himself had engaged in any sort of corruption. Trump's goal. therefore, was simply to manufacture as much alternative facts as possible to cast dispersions on Biden, and hopefully use that to whittle away at Biden's lead in the polls.
In addition to claiming that his request to the Ukrainian President was appropriate, Trump has also claimed that the memorandum shows that there was no pressure placed on Zelensky, and no quid pro quo (or an exchange for something of value to Ukraine for providing the requested information). Trump's defense again strains credibility.
At the beginning of the telephone conversation, Trump reminds Zelensky that the United States has been Ukraine's biggest supported. Trump denigrates the actions of European allies, such as Germany, for not doing as much as the United States in supporting Ukraine. Zelensky responds by fawning all over Trump, agreeing with his statement "1000%." Most of Zelensky's responses transmit his desire to stay in the good graces of the Trump Administration. Specifically, Zelensky is quoted a saying, "We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next step specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes." A Javelin is a missile used by the U.S. military, and would presumably be used by Ukraine in defending its territory from Russia and Russian backed separatists.
This reference to Javelin purchases must be placed in context. Congress had approved about $250 million in military aid to Ukraine. However, just days before this telephone call, Trump had ordered that the disbursement of this aid be suspended. It should also be noted that Trump's admiration of Russian President Vladimir Putin is well-known globally. In fact, not long after this telephone conversation, Trump publicly stated his support for the readmission of Russia to the G-8, even though Russia had been thrown out because of its invasion of Ukraine. Clearly, Zelensky had reason to believe that Trump's continued support of Ukraine in its struggle against Russia was soft at best, and could be withdrawn if Ukraine did not do as Trump requested.
In that regard, Trump is quoted as stating, "I would like you to do us a favor though," immediately after Zelensky brings up his desire to buy more Javelins. The juxtaposition of this request from Trump immediately after Zelensky's spoken desire to buy more missiles, as well as his use of the word "though," indicates that Trump's willingness to provide additional aid was contingent on Ukraine's cooperation with his request for a favor.
What is interesting, however, is that Trump requests more than one favor. The first one concerned a matter Trump refered to as "Crowdstrike." Crowdstrike is the company that the Democratic National Committee used to investigate the hacking of its email server. The Crowdstrike, the FBI and Robert Mueller's investigative team all concluded that Russia was responsible for that hacking. Yet Trump refused to believe his own Government in reaching that conclusion. One reason for his belief is because Crowdstrike never turned the physical server over to the FBI. Trump believed rumors that Ukraine was in possession of the server. He therefore asked Zelensky for his help in proving that Trump's convoluted conspiracy theory was true.
It is beyond odd that Trump demanded of the Ukraine that it find evidence Trump hoped would exonerate Trump's buddy, Putin, from the conclusion of the U.S. intelligence community, the FBI and the Mueller team that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. It demonstrates Trump's refusal to accept the conclusions of the Mueller and his team, who spent about two years investigating Russia, the Trump Campaign and the Trump Administration. That investigation resulted in numerous criminal indictments, including the indictments of Russian officials.
Indeed, the timing of the telephone call further demonstrates the contempt that Trump held for Robert Mueller and his investigation. Mueller had testified before Congress on the day before this telephone call. Through his investigation, Mueller presented evidence of Russia's interference in the election, that the Trump Campaign had welcomed Russia's interference (although the conduct of campaign officials did not rise to the level of conspiracy), and of numerous instances that could support a conclusion that Trump engaged in obstruction of justice by frustrating the investigation into Russia's interference.
Mueller crafted his report on the investigation with the understanding that a sitting president could not be indicted during his term in office. Thus, Mueller was careful not to make a conclusion that Trump had committed criminal acts. Nonetheless, through his report, Mueller made it clear that his investigated did not exonerate Trump. Rather, he preserved the evidence so that it could be used presumably either by Congress through impeachment or through a criminal prosecution once Trump left office. Trump and his Administration publicly characterized the investigation as finding that there was "no collusion" and "no obstruction," despite the fact that Mueller made neither of those findings.
Trump, of course, repeatedly referred to the Mueller investigation as a "which hunt," confessing his belief that he, his campaign and his administration did nothing wrong. Thus, in an interview aired in June of 2019, Trump answered a question from George Stephanopoulos by stating that he did not think it would not be wrong to accept information about a political opponent in an election from a foreign national. Trump even indicated that if a foreign national provided such information, that he did not believe it was necessary to inform the FBI. This brazen flaunting of the law raised such an uproar, that the Chairwoman of the Federal Elections Commission was prompted to tweet that "it is illegal to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election." A thing of value incudes information that can be used against an opponent.
Trump, of course, never accepted that he did anything wrong. Thus, in the shadow of Mueller's testimony before Congress, Trump went one step further than merely welcoming foreign interference in a U.S. election; he outright solicited such interference from a foreign leader.
The conclusion here is inescapable. The memorandum of the telephone call to Zelensky shows that Trump has violated the public trust. He has violated his oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In fact, Trump himself has violated the Constitution as well as criminal law by soliciting foreign interference in connection with a federal election. In order to protect the constitutional balance, governmental ethics and our treasured democracy, the House of Representatives has no choice now, but to proceed with the impeachment inquiry.
By: Willliam J. Kovatch, Jr.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)