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
Showing posts with label evidence. Show all posts
Showing posts with label evidence. Show all posts
Tuesday, November 19, 2019
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.
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.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)