Trump Will Likely be Acquitted Because the way the United States Chooses the Senate Goes against Democratic Principles.

No one seriously disputes the facts.  President Trump asked Ukrainian President Zelensky to announce that he had started two investigations that would help Trump politically.  When he did so, he communicated to Ukraine that he would withhold almost $400 million in military aid approved by Congress until Ukraine complied.  The aid was only released to Ukraine once the story broke in the news that a whistleblower had filed a complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, detailing this scheme by the President.  This has been confirmed by the Ambassador to Europe under oath.  It has been confirmed by Trump's former National Security Adviser in a book.

No one with any degree of intelligence can dispute that using the Office of the President to extract a personal favor from a foreign government is a crime.  Furthermore, no one who is being honest can dispute that seeking foreign intervention in a U.S. presidential election is the exact type of behavior that the Founding Fathers feared when it crafted the clauses of the Constitution that address the impeachment and removal of the President from office.

Yet, we stand on the precipice of the U.S. Senate voting to acquit President Trump after holding a trial where no witnesses were called, and no evidence presented.  Why?  Because the Senate is controlled by the Republican Party, and President Trump is a Republican.  The Republicans of the Senate are banding together to protect a criminal from being kicked out of office, solely to ensure that they protect their party's power.

And why does the Republican Party hold so much power in the U.S. Government?  The fact is more people consider themselves Democrats than Republicans in the United States.  Indeed, more people consider themselves independent of any political party than Republicans or Democrats.  But there are aspects of the U.S. Government that are not truly democratic in nature.  That is, there are features of the U.S. Government that are meant to thwart the will of the majority.  The Republicans have become experts at manipulating those features.

First, let's consider the House of Representatives.  Prior to 2018, the Republicans had held the House for eight straight years.  The reason was not because the Republicans were the larger political party.  As stated above, it was not.  The reason is due to how congressional districts were made up.  Republicans worked hard to gain control of as many state legislatures as they could.  Then, once the United States held a census, it became time for the states to redraw their districts.  Working like putting together a giant jigsaw puzzle, Republican state lawmakers found a way to draw those districts so that Republicans had the advantage.  This is called gerrymandering. 

Next, the Republicans took advantage of the way that the U.S. President is chosen.  Pursuant to the Constitution, the President is not directly elected by the people.  Instead, the people choose electors to meet in a body called the electoral college to choose the President.  Originally, the electoral college was meant to be a deliberative body, that would consider and debate over a number of candidates before choosing who they thought would best run the country.  However, the electoral college devolved into a proxy of the state's popular vote.  Electors were not chosen individually.  Rather, the political parties nominated their presidential candidates, and in most states whichever candidate won the state's popular vote won a full slate of that state's electors.

The problem lay in the fact that the electors were not distributed in direct proportion to the number of citizens in the several states.  Rather, each state received the same number of electors as Representatives in the House plus two representing the number of Senators each state has.  The additional two electors may create a small deviation from having the electoral college be truly proportional to the distribution of the population in the United States.  But in practice, states with smaller populations had an advantage.  Their voters had greater weight.  Where you have a number of these states voting for the same presidential candidate, they can beat out the states with larger populations, meaning a candidate who loses the popular vote can win the presidency based on the electoral college.  Prior to the 21st Century, this had happened in U.S. history.  But it was a rare occurrence.  Now, it has happened twice in the last five elections.  Moreover, there is a danger it will continue to happen in the near future with frequency.

Finally, there is the make-up of the Senate itself.  The Senate is the result of a compromise of the Founding Fathers.   States with smaller populations were afraid of loosing power to the large population states in the new government.  The solution was to create a bicameral legislature, one where the representatives were distributed based on population, and one where states were represented equally as states.  That second house of the legislature was the Senate.  Each state is guaranteed two Senators, no matter the state's population.

As stated, the reasoning was to represent the states as states.  Originally, state legislatures chose the Senators from their states.  It was only through the progressive movement of the 19th Century that the election of Senators by the people of the state became the law.

Nonetheless, this means that there is one body of Congress where states has power disproportionate to their population.  That is, states with fewer people living in it has the same power in the Senate as states with large populations.  To put it in tangible terms, a Senator from South Dakota represents about 429,000 voters, while a Senator from California represents 19 million voters.  that means that in the Senate, South Dakota voters possess about 45 times the voting power than California voters.  Thus, representation in the Senate works against democratic principles, such as the equality of all citizens.  In practice, South Dakotans are more equal than Californians.

As it turns out, voters who oppose Donald Trump tend to live in densely populated states such as California and New York.  While sparsely populated states tend to be populated by Trump supporters.  National polls show U.S. voters overwhelmingly favoring the Senate trial of President Trump to include witnesses.  National polls also show a majority of U.S. voters supporting the removal of the President.  But, due to the distribution of U.S. voters, the Senate is in control of a political party that will do anything to protect its leader.

So, it is very likely that the Senate trial will turn out to be a sham of justice, and a very guilty President will be acquitted and permitted not only to finish out his term, but run for re-election.  This is despite poll numbers showing the U.S. population supporting the opposite results.  President Trump will likely remain in office, but only because of the features of the U.S. Government that go against the principles of real democracy.

By:  William J. Kovatch, Jr.

A Lawyer's Annoyance at Congressional Hearings

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.

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.

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.

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:

• 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.

 

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.

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.

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.