Over the weekend, Rudy Giuliani, acting as Trump's personally lawyer, appeared on Fox News brandishing a print-out from a website that disseminates conservative conspiracy theories, hopelesslypartisan.com. Giuliani claimed that he had evidence of Joe Biden's corruption that was better than a whistleblower, namely affidavits. Intrigued, I did some research, and found an affidavit filed in an Austrian court by none other than the former Ukrainian Prosecutor General at issue in this debacle, Viktor Shokin. After reading the affidavit, and doing more research on its context, I came away even more convinced that Trump and Giuliani are grasping at straws in an effort to throw mud at a political opponent. Specifically, Trump's entire defense rests on self-serving affidavit from a Ukrainian Prosecutor General known for protecting corrupt Ukrainian oligarchs and politicians who favor Russia's involvement in Ukrainian affairs.
Viktor Shokin was the Prosecutor General serving under Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko during the Obama Administration. At the time, the Ukrainian economy was plagued with oligarchs, allegedly willing to commit crimes such as money laundering and tax evasion. In addition, some of these oligarchs had contacts with Russian officials, and even favored Russian interference in Ukrainian politics.
One such Ukrainian oligarch was Dmitry Firtash. As a businessman, Firtash was accused of funneling money from the Russian natural gas company, Gazprom, into the campaigns of pro-Russian Ukrainian politicians. He has also been alleged to have engaged in shady business practices. The United States had charged that Firtash obtained a license to extract titanium from India with about $18.5 million in bribes.
The Ukrainian people eventually grew tired of corrupt businessmen and politicians. In 2014, a revolution occurred in Ukraine against those in power who were permitting Russian interference in Ukrainian affairs. It was due to that revolution that many Ukrainian oligarchs and corrupt politicians fled Ukraine, in some instances seeking protection in Russia
Firtash was one of those oligarch who fled Ukraine in 2014. He was eventually arrested in Austria. With the charge of bribery hanging over him, the Austrian courts considered whether to extradite Firtash to the United States for trial.
This is where Viktor Shokin comes in. Shokin filed an affidavit in the Austrian court in support of Firtash, arguing that Firtash should not be extradited to the United States. By this time, Shokin had been fired as the Prosecutor General of Ukraine. Shokin's affidavit was mostly self-serving, blaming U.S. Vide President Joe Biden for his predicament, but without pointing to any specific facts to show that Biden engaged in any wrong-doing.
The United States, and much of Western Europe, wanted Ukraine to clean up rampant corruption in the country, which included the domination of the economy by powerful oligarchs, such as Firtash. However, Shokin stood in the way of cleaning up that corruption, as he dragged his feet in investigations. In his affidavit, for example, Shokin expressed his dismay that Firtash might be detained if he returned to Ukraine, because Shokin was not aware of any crime Firtash had committed. Shokin alleged that the United States had no evidence that Firtash committed a crime, and the true U.S. motive was simply to prevent him from entering public life in Ukraine. The implication of Shokin's allegations was that the United States was being politically motivated. Namely, Shokin was supporting Firtash and his preference that Russia wield a strong influence over Ukraine, and not that Ukraine turn toward the West.
It is at this point that Shokin claims that his dismissal as Prosecutor General was due to interference by Joe Biden. Biden's son, Hunter, sat on the Board of Burism, a Ukrainian gas company Shokin asserted that he was investigation. However, those who served under Shokin have confirmed that the investigation into Burisma, and its founder, Mykola Zlochevsky, had been stalled for quite some time when Shokin gave his affidavit.
By letting the investigation against Burisma and Zlochevksy remain dormant, Shokin was once again showing his inclination to protect the very oligarchs responsible for corruption present in both the Ukrainian economy and political system.
Zlochevsky served as a government official during the administration of Ukrainian President Viktor Yanukovych. Yanukovych, known for favoring close connections between Ukraine and Russia, fled Ukraine during the 2014 revolution, and is currently living in exile in Russia. He is wanted by Ukraine on charges of high treason. Likewise, Zlochevsky fled Russian in 2014 amid charges of self-enrichment while serving in the Ukrainian Government. He has also been charged with tax evasion.
Once Zlovchesky fled Ukraine, the leadership of Burisma decided that they wanted to recreate the company's public image to put as much distance between the allegedly corrupt Zlovchesky and the company. Burisma invited Hunter Biden and his business partner, Devon Archer, to sit on the company's Board. (Trump and his allies circulated a photograph claiming it shows Joe Biden posing with a Burisma company boss. It turns out that the photograph showed Joe and Hunter playing golf with Archer in the Hamptons in 2014. Archer and Hunter Biden were partners in a consulting firm called Romsemont Seneca Partners.) Burisma also invited former President of Poland, Aleksander Kwasniewski to be on its Board. All of the activity that was subject to the investigation occurred before Hunter Biden was invited to join the Board, and concerned Zlovchesky's behavior. Indeed, Joe Biden wanted the investigation of Burisma restarted, which would have been contrary to the interests of his son, Hunter.
Thus, Giuliani's "evidence" against the Bidens, which is Shokin's affidavit, is completely unreliable.
There are at least two instances where Shokin, as Ukraine's Prosecutor General, inhibited the investigation and potential prosecution of alleged Ukrainian oligarchs for corruption (Firtash and Zlochevsky). He even came to the aid of Firtash in an attempt to prevent his extradition to the United States to stand trial for bribery. Shokin wold of course have reason to deflect from his own misfeasance in office, and attempt to pin the blame for his dismissal on Joe Biden.
Yet, Shokin's story has been peddled by conservative websites specializing in spreading outrageous conspiracy theories, either with very little evidence of wrongdoing, or which fail to consider the reliability of sources of those theories.
The fact still remains that Trump has admitted publicly that he asked for Ukraine's assistance in digging up dirt against a political rival. It is a fact confirmed by the memorandum of the telephone call between Trump and recently elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. Trump's effort to deflect from his own illegal behavior falls short of credibility when the facts and context behind the effort to eradicate corruption in Ukraine dating back to the Obama Administration are revealed. Trump is simply hoping his supporters will accept the superficial accusations against Biden, without critically considering the source of those accusations.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Header Photo
Tuesday, October 8, 2019
Thursday, October 3, 2019
AOC Ruffles Conservatives' Feathers
Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, affectionately known as AOC, has conservatives so agitated that they are foaming at the mouth. She has become their favorite target. Whenever Ocasio-Cortez is in the news, conservatives fall all over themselves trying to find new ways to attack her intelligence.
Ocasio-Cortez should be flattered by this. When else has a freshman Representative in Congress engendered so much fear from her opposition that they spend so much time and effort trying to insult her whenever she happens to make the news?
That is exactly what is going on here. Conservatives fear Ocasio-Cortez. That is because she represents a threat to the political establishment.
Coming seemingly from nowhere, Ocasio-Cortez, who is of Puerto Rican descent, defeated a powerful member of the House Democratic leadership, Joseph Crowley, in the congressional primary for a district representing parts of Queens and the Bronx. Crowley had been rumored to be a potential successor to Nancy Pelosi when Pelosi eventually steps down from her role as Speaker of the House.
At the time of her primary victory, Ocasio-Cortez worked as a waitress in a taqueria in New York. She has been described as a political novice. However, she had worked as an intern for Ted Kennedy, an organizer for Bernie Sanders' 2016 primary campaign, and for an organization that supported leadership in the Hispanic community, the National Hispanic Institute. Her education includes a bachelor of arts degree in International Relations and Economics from Boston College.
Ocasio-Cortez, who emphasized her working class background, captured national attention running a grass-roots campaign. She won the general election, becoming the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.
Her agenda is unabashedly progressive. She is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, and represents a very liberal congressional district.
When preparing to join Congress, Ocasio-Cortez complained of the orientation program for new members hosted by Harvard. She expressed exasperation that guests included corporate CEOs and lobbyists, but no one from labor unions, no activists and no community leaders. In doing so, she exposed the bias the pervades the American political system to the detriment of the working class.
Ocasio-Cortez boldly spoke out about the disadvantages and unfair images that the working class, and in particular minorities, face. She criticized the use of unpaid interns by congressional members, noting that it prevented working class students from receiving valuable experience during their education, since such students often had to find paying jobs to support their education. She rallied against the image that the poor were responsible for their own position in life, panning a Chase Bank tweet that implied that the poor should skip coffee houses, restaurants and taxi cabs.
Ocasio-Cortez noted that before she became a Representative in Congress, she would wake up n the middle of the night worried if she had paid a certain bill on time. This was not because she was irresponsible. It was because she was not being paid a living wage. Now she had a congressional salary and government health insurance, eliminating a major expense from her former life. She wanted all Americans to be able to avoid the anxiety caused by low wages.
In sum, Ocasio-Cortez bucked the system, and exposed its biases against minorities and the working class, commanding media attention along the way. She defeated a powerful incumbent, and then won a general election without relying heavily on corporate donations to her campaign. She freely exposes how intertwined corporate special interests and the government are, and how freshman members are expected to continue with system. She decries the situation of the working class poor, and debunks the myths that lead to their stigmatization.
It is because she bucks the system, and does so successfully, while representing views to which conservatives are diametrically opposed, that conservatives feel the need to attack her. In doing so, conservatives have, at times, shown how ridiculous and petty their criticisms are.
Ocasio-Cortez uses social media, such as Instagram and Twitter, to reach her constituency directly. She takes advantage of social media's platform, which emphasizes the use of video, to present herself talking about issues in informal settings. Conservatives have scoured over this video repeatedly in an attempt to find what they consider to be gaffes in order to question her intelligence.
On the campaign trail, for example, Ocasio-Cortez spoke at her alma matter, Boston College. She cautioned supporters that even if the Democrats won big in the election, they would not get everything they wanted right away. "[A]s much as I would love that. I would like to get inaugurated January 3, January 4 we’re signing health care, we’re signing this, we’re signing de-incarceration. But really, it is that we have a duty to always fight and maintain the strength of our values."
Taking Ocasio-Cortez's words out of context, Fox and Friends presented the video, saying to their audience that she lacks the requisite knowledge of how government works. Specifically, they laughed, it is only the President who is inaugurated and signs bills into law.
First, while members of Congress are technically "sworn-in," the dictionary definition of "inauguration" includes "the formal admission of someone to office." Indeed, when she was sworn-in, news media, including NBC, referred her speech that followed as an "inaugural address." Nit-picking over a word that conveys the same meaning just made Fox News, and others who repeated the criticism, look silly.
Second, when viewed in context, it is clear that Ocasio-Cortez was tempering the expectations of her supporters, and noting that progressives like herself have a lot of work to do before legislation could be passed. The use of the word "we're" indicates that she was not speaking of signing bills herself, but of progressives like her passing legislation into law consistent with their agenda, such as expanding health care coverage and addressing criminal justice reform.
Likewise, conservatives attempted to attack her working class background. A video showing how she dressed in the first days of the new Congress were meant to show that despite her claims that she personally had little money in the bank, that somehow she could afford expensive clothes. A video showing Ocasio-Cortez dancing with friends while attending Boston College was used in an attempt to argue that her self-portrayal of understanding the struggling of the working class was inaccurate. These attempts failed to convince a wider audience, and only demonstrated the pettiness of conservative criticism.
Ocasio-Cortez represents a political movement where women of color have started to gain inroads to governmental positions. She joins Ilham Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley, affectionately known as "the Squad," as freshman Representatives of color who vocally oppose President Trump and the Republican agenda. Members of the Squad have not been shy in exposing the cruelty of Trump's immigration policies. Upon visiting detention centers along the southern border, the Squad exposed abuses asylum-seeking families faced, such as lack of medical care and being forced to find drinking water from a cell's toilet. Threatened by this revelation, Trump infamously responded that members of the Squad should "go back to where they came from." Never mind that three of the four Representatives were born in the United States, and Ilham Omar was a Somali refugee who earned U.S. citizenship. Opposing Trump earned the Squad racist criticism from the President.
Concerning her policy positions, conservatives love to remind the public that they amount to "socialism," a word meant to invoke fear in the electorate. The conservative's playbook is to label a proposal they oppose as "socialism," and then cite a country, such as Venezuela, as their proof that socialism is bad. Never mind that socialism is an economic system, not a political one, and that the political instability in Venezuela is due to authoritative overreaching of the executive. Conservatives ignore that popular programs in the United States are socialistic in nature, such as social security and subsidies to farmers hurt by Trump's trade war. President Trump loves to cite Norway as a model country. Yet Norway implements socialist policies, such a free secondary education.
Conservatives also like to exaggerate Ocasio-Cortez's policy proposals. Ocasio-Cortez, for example, became a spokesperson for the proposed House Resolution 109, known as the "Green New Deal." The proposal was not legislation, in the sense that it created no legal obligations. Rather, the Green New Deal was simply a list of goals divided into two parts. The first part set goals for the United States to combat climate change, such as reducing carbon emissions to net zero within ten years. The second part recognized that this would be a radical change in the economy, and that the Government should do what it could to protect those who would otherwise be displaced by the changes. The resolution made nothing illegal, and contained no proposals on how to reach the goals. It was meant simply to start the serious debate needed to address climate change in the hopes of avoiding catastrophic change.
Critics, of course, represented the resolution as banning popular items of Americana. Thus, the proposal to build high speed rail was represented as a ban on domestic air travel. The goal of eliminating America's dependence on fossil fuels was represented as a ban on cars and office buildings. Proposed reductions in carbon emissions was represented as an attack on bovine flatulence, and thus a ban on hamburgers. Thus, conservatives chose to oppose Ocasio-Cortez's proposals through misrepresentations and scare tactics.
Recently, Ocasio-Cortez has made a new ambitious legislative proposal, addressing the plight of the working class. The proposal includes limiting rent increases, enforcing a living wage, redefining the poverty line to include expenses not originally contemplated such as child care and internet access, and ratifying the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
These proposals recognize problems that the working class poor face in their daily lives, such as inflated housing expenses, and a minimum wage that has been frozen at $7.25 per hour since 2009. To conservatives, they are radical ideas which threaten the interests of big business. Ocasio-Cortez will certainly face strong opposition to her legislation.
Nonetheless, Ocasio-Cortez is serving an important function in U.S. politics. She is using the attention that the media is giving her to start important conversations over policy, and ensuring that the interests of the working class are being addressed. With a divided Congress, it is not likely that her proposals will pass and be implemented. But calling attention to those against whom the deck is stacked is vital if America is to be true to the value of equality before the law.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Ocasio-Cortez should be flattered by this. When else has a freshman Representative in Congress engendered so much fear from her opposition that they spend so much time and effort trying to insult her whenever she happens to make the news?
That is exactly what is going on here. Conservatives fear Ocasio-Cortez. That is because she represents a threat to the political establishment.
Coming seemingly from nowhere, Ocasio-Cortez, who is of Puerto Rican descent, defeated a powerful member of the House Democratic leadership, Joseph Crowley, in the congressional primary for a district representing parts of Queens and the Bronx. Crowley had been rumored to be a potential successor to Nancy Pelosi when Pelosi eventually steps down from her role as Speaker of the House.
At the time of her primary victory, Ocasio-Cortez worked as a waitress in a taqueria in New York. She has been described as a political novice. However, she had worked as an intern for Ted Kennedy, an organizer for Bernie Sanders' 2016 primary campaign, and for an organization that supported leadership in the Hispanic community, the National Hispanic Institute. Her education includes a bachelor of arts degree in International Relations and Economics from Boston College.
Ocasio-Cortez, who emphasized her working class background, captured national attention running a grass-roots campaign. She won the general election, becoming the youngest woman ever elected to Congress.
Her agenda is unabashedly progressive. She is a member of the Democratic Socialists of America, and represents a very liberal congressional district.
When preparing to join Congress, Ocasio-Cortez complained of the orientation program for new members hosted by Harvard. She expressed exasperation that guests included corporate CEOs and lobbyists, but no one from labor unions, no activists and no community leaders. In doing so, she exposed the bias the pervades the American political system to the detriment of the working class.
Ocasio-Cortez boldly spoke out about the disadvantages and unfair images that the working class, and in particular minorities, face. She criticized the use of unpaid interns by congressional members, noting that it prevented working class students from receiving valuable experience during their education, since such students often had to find paying jobs to support their education. She rallied against the image that the poor were responsible for their own position in life, panning a Chase Bank tweet that implied that the poor should skip coffee houses, restaurants and taxi cabs.
Ocasio-Cortez noted that before she became a Representative in Congress, she would wake up n the middle of the night worried if she had paid a certain bill on time. This was not because she was irresponsible. It was because she was not being paid a living wage. Now she had a congressional salary and government health insurance, eliminating a major expense from her former life. She wanted all Americans to be able to avoid the anxiety caused by low wages.
In sum, Ocasio-Cortez bucked the system, and exposed its biases against minorities and the working class, commanding media attention along the way. She defeated a powerful incumbent, and then won a general election without relying heavily on corporate donations to her campaign. She freely exposes how intertwined corporate special interests and the government are, and how freshman members are expected to continue with system. She decries the situation of the working class poor, and debunks the myths that lead to their stigmatization.
It is because she bucks the system, and does so successfully, while representing views to which conservatives are diametrically opposed, that conservatives feel the need to attack her. In doing so, conservatives have, at times, shown how ridiculous and petty their criticisms are.
Ocasio-Cortez uses social media, such as Instagram and Twitter, to reach her constituency directly. She takes advantage of social media's platform, which emphasizes the use of video, to present herself talking about issues in informal settings. Conservatives have scoured over this video repeatedly in an attempt to find what they consider to be gaffes in order to question her intelligence.
On the campaign trail, for example, Ocasio-Cortez spoke at her alma matter, Boston College. She cautioned supporters that even if the Democrats won big in the election, they would not get everything they wanted right away. "[A]s much as I would love that. I would like to get inaugurated January 3, January 4 we’re signing health care, we’re signing this, we’re signing de-incarceration. But really, it is that we have a duty to always fight and maintain the strength of our values."
Taking Ocasio-Cortez's words out of context, Fox and Friends presented the video, saying to their audience that she lacks the requisite knowledge of how government works. Specifically, they laughed, it is only the President who is inaugurated and signs bills into law.
First, while members of Congress are technically "sworn-in," the dictionary definition of "inauguration" includes "the formal admission of someone to office." Indeed, when she was sworn-in, news media, including NBC, referred her speech that followed as an "inaugural address." Nit-picking over a word that conveys the same meaning just made Fox News, and others who repeated the criticism, look silly.
Second, when viewed in context, it is clear that Ocasio-Cortez was tempering the expectations of her supporters, and noting that progressives like herself have a lot of work to do before legislation could be passed. The use of the word "we're" indicates that she was not speaking of signing bills herself, but of progressives like her passing legislation into law consistent with their agenda, such as expanding health care coverage and addressing criminal justice reform.
Likewise, conservatives attempted to attack her working class background. A video showing how she dressed in the first days of the new Congress were meant to show that despite her claims that she personally had little money in the bank, that somehow she could afford expensive clothes. A video showing Ocasio-Cortez dancing with friends while attending Boston College was used in an attempt to argue that her self-portrayal of understanding the struggling of the working class was inaccurate. These attempts failed to convince a wider audience, and only demonstrated the pettiness of conservative criticism.
Ocasio-Cortez represents a political movement where women of color have started to gain inroads to governmental positions. She joins Ilham Omar, Rashida Tlaib and Ayanna Pressley, affectionately known as "the Squad," as freshman Representatives of color who vocally oppose President Trump and the Republican agenda. Members of the Squad have not been shy in exposing the cruelty of Trump's immigration policies. Upon visiting detention centers along the southern border, the Squad exposed abuses asylum-seeking families faced, such as lack of medical care and being forced to find drinking water from a cell's toilet. Threatened by this revelation, Trump infamously responded that members of the Squad should "go back to where they came from." Never mind that three of the four Representatives were born in the United States, and Ilham Omar was a Somali refugee who earned U.S. citizenship. Opposing Trump earned the Squad racist criticism from the President.
Concerning her policy positions, conservatives love to remind the public that they amount to "socialism," a word meant to invoke fear in the electorate. The conservative's playbook is to label a proposal they oppose as "socialism," and then cite a country, such as Venezuela, as their proof that socialism is bad. Never mind that socialism is an economic system, not a political one, and that the political instability in Venezuela is due to authoritative overreaching of the executive. Conservatives ignore that popular programs in the United States are socialistic in nature, such as social security and subsidies to farmers hurt by Trump's trade war. President Trump loves to cite Norway as a model country. Yet Norway implements socialist policies, such a free secondary education.
Conservatives also like to exaggerate Ocasio-Cortez's policy proposals. Ocasio-Cortez, for example, became a spokesperson for the proposed House Resolution 109, known as the "Green New Deal." The proposal was not legislation, in the sense that it created no legal obligations. Rather, the Green New Deal was simply a list of goals divided into two parts. The first part set goals for the United States to combat climate change, such as reducing carbon emissions to net zero within ten years. The second part recognized that this would be a radical change in the economy, and that the Government should do what it could to protect those who would otherwise be displaced by the changes. The resolution made nothing illegal, and contained no proposals on how to reach the goals. It was meant simply to start the serious debate needed to address climate change in the hopes of avoiding catastrophic change.
Critics, of course, represented the resolution as banning popular items of Americana. Thus, the proposal to build high speed rail was represented as a ban on domestic air travel. The goal of eliminating America's dependence on fossil fuels was represented as a ban on cars and office buildings. Proposed reductions in carbon emissions was represented as an attack on bovine flatulence, and thus a ban on hamburgers. Thus, conservatives chose to oppose Ocasio-Cortez's proposals through misrepresentations and scare tactics.
Recently, Ocasio-Cortez has made a new ambitious legislative proposal, addressing the plight of the working class. The proposal includes limiting rent increases, enforcing a living wage, redefining the poverty line to include expenses not originally contemplated such as child care and internet access, and ratifying the United Nations Covenant on Economic, Social and Cultural Rights.
These proposals recognize problems that the working class poor face in their daily lives, such as inflated housing expenses, and a minimum wage that has been frozen at $7.25 per hour since 2009. To conservatives, they are radical ideas which threaten the interests of big business. Ocasio-Cortez will certainly face strong opposition to her legislation.
Nonetheless, Ocasio-Cortez is serving an important function in U.S. politics. She is using the attention that the media is giving her to start important conversations over policy, and ensuring that the interests of the working class are being addressed. With a divided Congress, it is not likely that her proposals will pass and be implemented. But calling attention to those against whom the deck is stacked is vital if America is to be true to the value of equality before the law.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Sunday, September 29, 2019
Legally, Hearsay Can Support a Criminal Investgation
Ever since the jaw dropping details of the whistleblower complaint was released publicly, President Trump and his friends have been trying desperately to attack the whistleblower’s credibility. Through that complaint, the whistleblower detailed a shakedown perpetrated by Trump through his private lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, of the Ukrainian Government, going back to a time before Volodymyr Zelensky was elected President of Ukraine. Trump and Giuliani have been trying to get Ukraine to provide dirt to undermine the conclusion that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, as reached by the US intelligence community, the FBI and Robert Mueller’s investigation. Trump and Giuliani also wanted Ukraine to provide information to damage the reputation of Trump’s political rival, Joe Biden. One argument Trump has used is that the whistleblower only had “second class” information.
Of course, Trump meant that the whistleblower had second-hand knowledge, meaning the whistleblower did not listen to the telephone call with Zelensky himself. Rather, the whistleblower collected information concerning Giuliani’s pressure on Ukrainian officials from other people. Essentially, Trump’s friends, such as Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, claim that Trump cannot be impeached based on “hearsay.” Hearsay, as every lawyer knows, is when a witness tries to testify regarding something the witness heard another person say. Although the law of hearsay is complex, with some exceptions hearsay is inadmissible in a trial and cannot support a criminal conviction.
Setting aside the fact that impeachment is a political process, and not a legal criminal proceeding, what Trump, and his friends such as Graham, forget is that Trump has not been impeached yet. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has only announced that the House has opened an impeachment inquiry. This means that the House will formally begin acquiring evidence and holding hearings for the purpose of determining whether to impeach Trump. That is, the House will commence an investigation into Trump’s actions.
This is where the hearsay defense falls apart. Even if impeachment were a true criminal proceeding, the use of hearsay would not invalidate the commencement of an investigation. For example, pursuant to US law, hearsay can be used to issue a search warrant. A warrant can be issued upon a showing of probable cause. Hearsay can establish probable cause if it has indicia of reliability. Indicia of reliability can include information about the person’s background, and details that can be corroborated. Here
Concerning the whistleblower's background, the New York Times claims that he is a CIA Analyst who was attached to the White House. This would mean that the whistleblower was trained in collecting facts, and providing an analysis of what those facts mean. He would have training in foreign affairs. He would also have access to people who work with the President on a daily basis, who would have direct first-hand knowledge of the events and processes described,
Additionally, the details concerning the telephone call and the pressure placed on Ukraine have been, and are continuing to be, corroborated. First, Trump acknowledged that he placed pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky concerning Biden. Trump himself said to reporters, “Even the Ukrainian government put out a statement that that was a perfect call, there was no pressure put on them whatsoever. But there was pressure put on with respect to Joe Biden. What Joe Biden did for his son, that’s something they should be looking at.” Thus, even before the White House released the memorandum of the telephone call, Trump admitted the substance of the call, and that his aim was to compel Zelensky to provide information on Biden.
Then, the release of the memorandum of the telephone conversation itself confirmed details the whistleblower disclosed in his complaint. This included Trump referring to his view that while the United States has been good to Ukraine, the relationship has not always been reciprocal. Indeed, as recorded in the memorandum, Trump specifically asked Zelensky for a favor, which appeared to be connected to Zelensky's expressed desire to buy more Javelin missiles. This "favor" actually turned out to be two. trump wanted Ukraine to investigate whether the server of the Democratic National Committe taht had been hacked was in Ukraine. He also wanted information on Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. The whistleblower mentioned both of these in his complaint.
Moreover, Giuliani himself has been corroborating the allegation that he has been acting as the go between for Trump to Ukrainian officials, and that this has been going on for some time. Giuliani has been making appearances on television confirming that he traveled around the world to meet with Ukrainian officials and to talk about Joe Biden.
With this much corroboration, the whistleblower’s allegations would almost certainly be ruled to be supported by indicia of reliability and thus support a finding of probable cause.
Hearsay can be used to identify potential witnesses. In this instance, the House Judiciary Committee will hold hearings. It is perfectly acceptable to use the information provided by the whistleblower to identify people working in the White House from whom the Committee will want to hear. In fact, Judiciary Committee Chair Adam Schiff announced that the committee is working with the whistleblower's lawyers to have the whistleblower testify before the committee. When testifying before the committee, the whistleblower can identify with whom he spoke concerning his allegations, and how he knows about the process the White House used to try to cover up the phone call. This will help the committee identify witnesses with first-hand knowledge of the allegations, and what other evidence the committee will need to subpoena. Over the next few months, we can expect there to be ongoing testimony by White House staff, Rudy Giuliani, and members of the intelligence community concerning the pressure Trump placed on Ukraine.
It is important to keep in mind that impeachment itself is not the end process. That is, a president is not removed from office simply because the House votes in favor of impeachment. If comparisons to criminal law are to be maintained, impeachment is more like an indictment. It represents the House concluding that there are reasons why a majority of House members believe the president has abused his office and deserves to be removed. Whether the president is actually removed is determined by the Senate, which holds a trial over which the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. It will be up to the Senate to determine its own rules on how the trial proceeds, just as the House decides the rules concerning impeachment.
At this time, the United States is just at the beginning of an impeachment inquiry. To say that the whistleblower’s allegations, as outlined in his complaint, cannot support the opening of an investigation is just plain wrong. These allegations, which already have corroborating evidence, can and should serve the basis of identifying avenues the Judiciary Committee should pursue in collecting further evidence to permit the House to decide whether ultimately to impeach President Trump.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Of course, Trump meant that the whistleblower had second-hand knowledge, meaning the whistleblower did not listen to the telephone call with Zelensky himself. Rather, the whistleblower collected information concerning Giuliani’s pressure on Ukrainian officials from other people. Essentially, Trump’s friends, such as Republican Senator Lindsey Graham, claim that Trump cannot be impeached based on “hearsay.” Hearsay, as every lawyer knows, is when a witness tries to testify regarding something the witness heard another person say. Although the law of hearsay is complex, with some exceptions hearsay is inadmissible in a trial and cannot support a criminal conviction.
Setting aside the fact that impeachment is a political process, and not a legal criminal proceeding, what Trump, and his friends such as Graham, forget is that Trump has not been impeached yet. Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has only announced that the House has opened an impeachment inquiry. This means that the House will formally begin acquiring evidence and holding hearings for the purpose of determining whether to impeach Trump. That is, the House will commence an investigation into Trump’s actions.
This is where the hearsay defense falls apart. Even if impeachment were a true criminal proceeding, the use of hearsay would not invalidate the commencement of an investigation. For example, pursuant to US law, hearsay can be used to issue a search warrant. A warrant can be issued upon a showing of probable cause. Hearsay can establish probable cause if it has indicia of reliability. Indicia of reliability can include information about the person’s background, and details that can be corroborated. Here
Concerning the whistleblower's background, the New York Times claims that he is a CIA Analyst who was attached to the White House. This would mean that the whistleblower was trained in collecting facts, and providing an analysis of what those facts mean. He would have training in foreign affairs. He would also have access to people who work with the President on a daily basis, who would have direct first-hand knowledge of the events and processes described,
Additionally, the details concerning the telephone call and the pressure placed on Ukraine have been, and are continuing to be, corroborated. First, Trump acknowledged that he placed pressure on Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky concerning Biden. Trump himself said to reporters, “Even the Ukrainian government put out a statement that that was a perfect call, there was no pressure put on them whatsoever. But there was pressure put on with respect to Joe Biden. What Joe Biden did for his son, that’s something they should be looking at.” Thus, even before the White House released the memorandum of the telephone call, Trump admitted the substance of the call, and that his aim was to compel Zelensky to provide information on Biden.
Then, the release of the memorandum of the telephone conversation itself confirmed details the whistleblower disclosed in his complaint. This included Trump referring to his view that while the United States has been good to Ukraine, the relationship has not always been reciprocal. Indeed, as recorded in the memorandum, Trump specifically asked Zelensky for a favor, which appeared to be connected to Zelensky's expressed desire to buy more Javelin missiles. This "favor" actually turned out to be two. trump wanted Ukraine to investigate whether the server of the Democratic National Committe taht had been hacked was in Ukraine. He also wanted information on Joe Biden and his son, Hunter. The whistleblower mentioned both of these in his complaint.
Moreover, Giuliani himself has been corroborating the allegation that he has been acting as the go between for Trump to Ukrainian officials, and that this has been going on for some time. Giuliani has been making appearances on television confirming that he traveled around the world to meet with Ukrainian officials and to talk about Joe Biden.
With this much corroboration, the whistleblower’s allegations would almost certainly be ruled to be supported by indicia of reliability and thus support a finding of probable cause.
Hearsay can be used to identify potential witnesses. In this instance, the House Judiciary Committee will hold hearings. It is perfectly acceptable to use the information provided by the whistleblower to identify people working in the White House from whom the Committee will want to hear. In fact, Judiciary Committee Chair Adam Schiff announced that the committee is working with the whistleblower's lawyers to have the whistleblower testify before the committee. When testifying before the committee, the whistleblower can identify with whom he spoke concerning his allegations, and how he knows about the process the White House used to try to cover up the phone call. This will help the committee identify witnesses with first-hand knowledge of the allegations, and what other evidence the committee will need to subpoena. Over the next few months, we can expect there to be ongoing testimony by White House staff, Rudy Giuliani, and members of the intelligence community concerning the pressure Trump placed on Ukraine.
It is important to keep in mind that impeachment itself is not the end process. That is, a president is not removed from office simply because the House votes in favor of impeachment. If comparisons to criminal law are to be maintained, impeachment is more like an indictment. It represents the House concluding that there are reasons why a majority of House members believe the president has abused his office and deserves to be removed. Whether the president is actually removed is determined by the Senate, which holds a trial over which the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides. It will be up to the Senate to determine its own rules on how the trial proceeds, just as the House decides the rules concerning impeachment.
At this time, the United States is just at the beginning of an impeachment inquiry. To say that the whistleblower’s allegations, as outlined in his complaint, cannot support the opening of an investigation is just plain wrong. These allegations, which already have corroborating evidence, can and should serve the basis of identifying avenues the Judiciary Committee should pursue in collecting further evidence to permit the House to decide whether ultimately to impeach President Trump.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Thursday, September 26, 2019
Whistleblower Complaint Provides More Evidence of Trump's Abuse of Power
The House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence released the whistleblower complaint Thursday morning, after it had been declassified. Through the complaint, the whistleblower detailed pressure placed on Ukraine to provide Trump with information he and his allies viewed as helpful for the President's 2020 campaign. That pressure went beyond a mere telephone call, and circumvented the normal channels of U.S. foreign policy. Moreover, the whistleblower detailed procedures in place to cover-up Trump's other abuses of his office for political gain.
Despite assertions by key Republican figures that the memorandum of the telephone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky revealed no "quid pro quo," the whistleblower detailed how Trump and his allies had been placing pressure on Ukrainian officials to cooperate with Trump's desire to smear his political rivals for several months.
On Wednesday, before the complaint was released, Trump was desperate to show that the telephone call did not reveal any impeachable offense. To that end, Trump and his Republican apologists attempted to constrain the analysis to the four corners of the memorandum of the telephone call, claiming that language used showed no pressure or quid pro quo. The goal was to distract the public rom the fact that no quid pro quo was even necessary to show an abuse of office, as the solicitation of information to be used against an opponent from a foreign source is itself sufficient for there to be a criminal violation of federal campaign finance law.
Trump, therefore, attempted to dispel allegations that he put pressure on Zelensky by parading the visibly nervous Ukrainian President in front of the television cameras at the United Nations on Wednesday. Not surprisingly, Zelensky responded in the negative when Trump pointedly asked if he felt pressure from the July telephone call. However, the whistleblower cited President Zelensky's website, on which was posted the first acknowledgment of telephone call on July 25, 2019. This post included a statement that Trump hoped Ukraine would "complete the investigation of corruption cases that have held back cooperation between Ukraine and the United States." From the memorandum of the telephone call, the only case of alleged corruption mentioned by Trump was the investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Clearly, Ukrainian officials understood that cooperation with Trump and his allies over providing information on Biden was a condition to renewed U.S. assistance. Given the timing of the call, which took place after Trump had suspended military aid to Ukraine, Trump's reminder to Zelensky that while the United States had provided assistance to Ukraine in the past the cooperation between the two countries had not been reciprocal, and the fact that Trump requested a favor from Zelensky immediately after Zelensky indicated a desire to purchase more Javelin missiles, it is easy to see how Zelensky viewed future cooperation with the Trump Administration would be contingent on providing the information on Biden that Trump requested.
Moreover, the whistleblower detailed how Trump and his allies placed pressure on Ukraine to investigate both the hacking of the Democratic National Committee's email server and the Bidens months before Zelensky won the presidential election. The scheme centered around a Ukrainian Prosecutor General, over whom Trump and his allies believed they had influence. Trump believed that his efforts to manipulate that prosecutor has been frustrated by official U.S. foreign policy channels.
In the July telephone call, for example, Trump refers to a "prosecutor who was very good" whom Trump believed was "shut down." Trump described this situation as "really unfair" and involving "very bad people," including "[t]he former ambassador from the United States, the woman . . . ."
Up until the release of the whistleblower complaint, many had assumed Trump was talking about Viktor Shokin. Shokin was the Prosecutor General that the Obama Administration, as well as most of Western Europe, opposed as being soft on corruption. This was the prosecutor whom Obama wanted Biden to pressure the Ukainian President to remove in 2016. However, the whistleblower discussed a more recent Ukrainian Prosecutor General, Yury Lutsenko, who served under Zelensky's predecessor, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.
The whistleblower noted that Trump's private attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, met with Lutsenko once in New York in January of 2019, and again in February of 2019 in Warsaw. In March of 2019, Lutsenko and his allies claimed that Ukraine had evidence that the Head of the National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine, Artem Stynyk, and a member of the Ukrainian Parliament, Serhiy Leshchenko, worked with the DNC and the U.S. Embassy in Kiev to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. They also claimed that U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovich obstructed Ukrainian corruption investigations by providing a "do not prosecute" list and by preventing Ukrainian prosecutors from traveling to the United States. Further, Lutsenko and his friends claimed that Biden pressured Poroshenko to fire Shokin to stop an investigation of Burisma, the Ukrainian oil and gas company that employed Biden's son, Hunter. Lutsenko stated his desire to discuss these matters with U.S. Attorney General William Barr.
The timing of Lutsenko's allegations, after Lutsenko had met with Giuliani, raise the very serious question of whether Giuliani planted these ideas in Lutsenko's head, and urged him to investigate the matters. Bearing in mind that Trump still refuses to accept the conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community, the FBI and Robert Mueller's investigation that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and that Trump regularly engages in the tactic of deflection when evidence of his wrongdoing surfaces, it is clear to see how Lutsenko's statements about the DNC would politically benefit Trump. To detract from proof of Russian interference, Trump has claimed that it was the Democrats who actually solicited foreign interference in the 2016 election from Ukraine to support Hilary Clinton's candidacy. By publicly claiming to have evidence of a DNC scheme, Lutsenko would appear to corroborate Trump's conspiracy theory.
Additionally, Ambassador Yovanovich, who was appointed by President Obama, had voiced her criticism that Lutsenko was himself soft on corruption. In April of 2019, Lutsenko walked about from the March allegation, admitting that Yovanovich never provided a "do not prosecute" list, and that it was Lutsenko who had actually requested such a list. Yovanovich was therefore acting in opposition to Trump's scheme, as implemented by Giuliani. In fact, as an Obama appointee, Yovanovich was independent of President Trump, and in a position to thwart Giuliani's attempts to solicit political help from the Ukrainian Government.
Yovanovich was recalled to Washington in March, and removed as the Ambassador in April, after Zelensky's election as President. Giuliani this was "because she was part of the efforts against the President."
Moreover, in May, Lutsenko acknowledged that there were no investigations targeting Biden or his son, Hunter, and that Ukraine had no evidence of any wrong doing of either Biden.
Nonetheless, Lutsenko had proven to be receptive to Giuliani's urgings that he investigate alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election on behalf of the Democrats, and the claim that Biden had pressured Poroshenko to remove Shokin to protect Hunter Biden. When Poroshenko lost the Ukrainian presidential election, Trump viewed it as in his personal interests to have Zelensky permit Lutsenko to continue as the Prosecutor General. This is what Trump appears to be implying in the July telephone conversation.
In furtherance of the pressure Trump and his allies were already placing on Ukraine, the President instructed Vice President Michael Pence to cancel his trip to attend Zelensky's inauguration as Ukrainian President on May 20. According to the whistleblower, it was "made clear" to Ukrainian officials that Trump did not want to meet with Zelensky until Trump saw how Zelensky "chose to act." Specifically, a meeting or telephone call between Trump and Zelensky would be contingent upon Zelensky's willingness to "play ball" with the allegations of collaboration between Ukraine and the DNC, and that Biden had acted to protect his son from an investigation into corruption.
The whistleblower, therefore, outlined a campaign of pressure on Ukrainian officials, dating back to at least January of 2019, through Trump's private attorney, to find evidence to support Trump's claims that the DNC cooperated with Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and that Biden had pressured Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor to protect his son. That is, Trump's campaign of corruption concerning Ukraine concerned more than merely one telephone call in July of 2019.
At any rate, the pressure Trump has placed on Ukraine to dig up dirt on his political opponents is but only one troubling aspect of the whistleblower complaint. Equally serious is that Trump has been conducted a sort of rogue foreign policy circumventing the normal governmental avenues of the State Department and the national security apparatus. Instead, Trump is sending his private lawyer, a man with no experience in foreign policy, to pressure Ukrainian officials into doing Trump's bidding. Indeed, Ukraine has been getting two separate set of communications from the United States, one from the official foreign policy channels, and one from Rudy Giuliani. These communications have been in conflict, necessitating U.S. Government officials to advise Zelensky and other Ukrainian political leaders on how to navigate the waters between official U.S. policy and Trump's rogue policy.
Still worse, the whistleblower detailed the extent to which Trump's corruption has been accepted by White House staff as normal. In this regard, the White House has a computer server where transcripts of the President's telephone calls are kept until they can be finalized. The data on this server is available to cabinet members and other executive appointees to allow them to keep up with Trump's communications with world leaders. However, the transcript of this conversation with President Zelensky was pulled off the widely available server, and placed on a server where telephone conversations containing sensitive matters of national security are stored. Access to this server is not widely available, but closely guarded. The Zelensky conversation was placed on the more secure server despite the fact that the conversation did not address sensitive matters of national security. Rather, the whistleblower detailed a practice whereby Trump's telephone calls where he abuses his office for private political gain are routinely taken off the widely available server, and stored on the national security server. Thus it appears that Trump's staff has been complicit in covering up multiple instances where Trump has abused his position for personal gain.
The transcript of the July conversation with President Zelensky was bad enough. But Congress should not constrain itself to considering that conversation alone. While Trump's public admissions and the memorandum of the telephone conversation are themselves enough to establish violations of Trump's constitutional oath and criminal campaign finance laws, the whistleblower's complaint details a much farther reaching scheme. This scheme involves Trump's abuse of his role in foreign relations to seek personal political gain, and a cover-up meant to protect Trump from scrutiny and accountability. All toll, the evidence in favor of Trump's impeachment is mounting, and cannot be ignored.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Despite assertions by key Republican figures that the memorandum of the telephone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky revealed no "quid pro quo," the whistleblower detailed how Trump and his allies had been placing pressure on Ukrainian officials to cooperate with Trump's desire to smear his political rivals for several months.
On Wednesday, before the complaint was released, Trump was desperate to show that the telephone call did not reveal any impeachable offense. To that end, Trump and his Republican apologists attempted to constrain the analysis to the four corners of the memorandum of the telephone call, claiming that language used showed no pressure or quid pro quo. The goal was to distract the public rom the fact that no quid pro quo was even necessary to show an abuse of office, as the solicitation of information to be used against an opponent from a foreign source is itself sufficient for there to be a criminal violation of federal campaign finance law.
Trump, therefore, attempted to dispel allegations that he put pressure on Zelensky by parading the visibly nervous Ukrainian President in front of the television cameras at the United Nations on Wednesday. Not surprisingly, Zelensky responded in the negative when Trump pointedly asked if he felt pressure from the July telephone call. However, the whistleblower cited President Zelensky's website, on which was posted the first acknowledgment of telephone call on July 25, 2019. This post included a statement that Trump hoped Ukraine would "complete the investigation of corruption cases that have held back cooperation between Ukraine and the United States." From the memorandum of the telephone call, the only case of alleged corruption mentioned by Trump was the investigation into Joe Biden and his son Hunter. Clearly, Ukrainian officials understood that cooperation with Trump and his allies over providing information on Biden was a condition to renewed U.S. assistance. Given the timing of the call, which took place after Trump had suspended military aid to Ukraine, Trump's reminder to Zelensky that while the United States had provided assistance to Ukraine in the past the cooperation between the two countries had not been reciprocal, and the fact that Trump requested a favor from Zelensky immediately after Zelensky indicated a desire to purchase more Javelin missiles, it is easy to see how Zelensky viewed future cooperation with the Trump Administration would be contingent on providing the information on Biden that Trump requested.
Moreover, the whistleblower detailed how Trump and his allies placed pressure on Ukraine to investigate both the hacking of the Democratic National Committee's email server and the Bidens months before Zelensky won the presidential election. The scheme centered around a Ukrainian Prosecutor General, over whom Trump and his allies believed they had influence. Trump believed that his efforts to manipulate that prosecutor has been frustrated by official U.S. foreign policy channels.
In the July telephone call, for example, Trump refers to a "prosecutor who was very good" whom Trump believed was "shut down." Trump described this situation as "really unfair" and involving "very bad people," including "[t]he former ambassador from the United States, the woman . . . ."
Up until the release of the whistleblower complaint, many had assumed Trump was talking about Viktor Shokin. Shokin was the Prosecutor General that the Obama Administration, as well as most of Western Europe, opposed as being soft on corruption. This was the prosecutor whom Obama wanted Biden to pressure the Ukainian President to remove in 2016. However, the whistleblower discussed a more recent Ukrainian Prosecutor General, Yury Lutsenko, who served under Zelensky's predecessor, Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko.
The whistleblower noted that Trump's private attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, met with Lutsenko once in New York in January of 2019, and again in February of 2019 in Warsaw. In March of 2019, Lutsenko and his allies claimed that Ukraine had evidence that the Head of the National Anticorruption Bureau of Ukraine, Artem Stynyk, and a member of the Ukrainian Parliament, Serhiy Leshchenko, worked with the DNC and the U.S. Embassy in Kiev to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. They also claimed that U.S. Ambassador Marie Yovanovich obstructed Ukrainian corruption investigations by providing a "do not prosecute" list and by preventing Ukrainian prosecutors from traveling to the United States. Further, Lutsenko and his friends claimed that Biden pressured Poroshenko to fire Shokin to stop an investigation of Burisma, the Ukrainian oil and gas company that employed Biden's son, Hunter. Lutsenko stated his desire to discuss these matters with U.S. Attorney General William Barr.
The timing of Lutsenko's allegations, after Lutsenko had met with Giuliani, raise the very serious question of whether Giuliani planted these ideas in Lutsenko's head, and urged him to investigate the matters. Bearing in mind that Trump still refuses to accept the conclusions of the U.S. intelligence community, the FBI and Robert Mueller's investigation that Russia interfered in the 2016 election, and that Trump regularly engages in the tactic of deflection when evidence of his wrongdoing surfaces, it is clear to see how Lutsenko's statements about the DNC would politically benefit Trump. To detract from proof of Russian interference, Trump has claimed that it was the Democrats who actually solicited foreign interference in the 2016 election from Ukraine to support Hilary Clinton's candidacy. By publicly claiming to have evidence of a DNC scheme, Lutsenko would appear to corroborate Trump's conspiracy theory.
Additionally, Ambassador Yovanovich, who was appointed by President Obama, had voiced her criticism that Lutsenko was himself soft on corruption. In April of 2019, Lutsenko walked about from the March allegation, admitting that Yovanovich never provided a "do not prosecute" list, and that it was Lutsenko who had actually requested such a list. Yovanovich was therefore acting in opposition to Trump's scheme, as implemented by Giuliani. In fact, as an Obama appointee, Yovanovich was independent of President Trump, and in a position to thwart Giuliani's attempts to solicit political help from the Ukrainian Government.
Yovanovich was recalled to Washington in March, and removed as the Ambassador in April, after Zelensky's election as President. Giuliani this was "because she was part of the efforts against the President."
Moreover, in May, Lutsenko acknowledged that there were no investigations targeting Biden or his son, Hunter, and that Ukraine had no evidence of any wrong doing of either Biden.
Nonetheless, Lutsenko had proven to be receptive to Giuliani's urgings that he investigate alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election on behalf of the Democrats, and the claim that Biden had pressured Poroshenko to remove Shokin to protect Hunter Biden. When Poroshenko lost the Ukrainian presidential election, Trump viewed it as in his personal interests to have Zelensky permit Lutsenko to continue as the Prosecutor General. This is what Trump appears to be implying in the July telephone conversation.
In furtherance of the pressure Trump and his allies were already placing on Ukraine, the President instructed Vice President Michael Pence to cancel his trip to attend Zelensky's inauguration as Ukrainian President on May 20. According to the whistleblower, it was "made clear" to Ukrainian officials that Trump did not want to meet with Zelensky until Trump saw how Zelensky "chose to act." Specifically, a meeting or telephone call between Trump and Zelensky would be contingent upon Zelensky's willingness to "play ball" with the allegations of collaboration between Ukraine and the DNC, and that Biden had acted to protect his son from an investigation into corruption.
The whistleblower, therefore, outlined a campaign of pressure on Ukrainian officials, dating back to at least January of 2019, through Trump's private attorney, to find evidence to support Trump's claims that the DNC cooperated with Ukraine to interfere in the 2016 U.S. presidential election, and that Biden had pressured Ukraine to fire its top prosecutor to protect his son. That is, Trump's campaign of corruption concerning Ukraine concerned more than merely one telephone call in July of 2019.
At any rate, the pressure Trump has placed on Ukraine to dig up dirt on his political opponents is but only one troubling aspect of the whistleblower complaint. Equally serious is that Trump has been conducted a sort of rogue foreign policy circumventing the normal governmental avenues of the State Department and the national security apparatus. Instead, Trump is sending his private lawyer, a man with no experience in foreign policy, to pressure Ukrainian officials into doing Trump's bidding. Indeed, Ukraine has been getting two separate set of communications from the United States, one from the official foreign policy channels, and one from Rudy Giuliani. These communications have been in conflict, necessitating U.S. Government officials to advise Zelensky and other Ukrainian political leaders on how to navigate the waters between official U.S. policy and Trump's rogue policy.
Still worse, the whistleblower detailed the extent to which Trump's corruption has been accepted by White House staff as normal. In this regard, the White House has a computer server where transcripts of the President's telephone calls are kept until they can be finalized. The data on this server is available to cabinet members and other executive appointees to allow them to keep up with Trump's communications with world leaders. However, the transcript of this conversation with President Zelensky was pulled off the widely available server, and placed on a server where telephone conversations containing sensitive matters of national security are stored. Access to this server is not widely available, but closely guarded. The Zelensky conversation was placed on the more secure server despite the fact that the conversation did not address sensitive matters of national security. Rather, the whistleblower detailed a practice whereby Trump's telephone calls where he abuses his office for private political gain are routinely taken off the widely available server, and stored on the national security server. Thus it appears that Trump's staff has been complicit in covering up multiple instances where Trump has abused his position for personal gain.
The transcript of the July conversation with President Zelensky was bad enough. But Congress should not constrain itself to considering that conversation alone. While Trump's public admissions and the memorandum of the telephone conversation are themselves enough to establish violations of Trump's constitutional oath and criminal campaign finance laws, the whistleblower's complaint details a much farther reaching scheme. This scheme involves Trump's abuse of his role in foreign relations to seek personal political gain, and a cover-up meant to protect Trump from scrutiny and accountability. All toll, the evidence in favor of Trump's impeachment is mounting, and cannot be ignored.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Wednesday, September 25, 2019
Trump's Telephone Call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky Reveals Why Trump Must be Impeached
On Wednesday morning, the White House released damning evidence which revealed that U.S. President Donald Trump deliberately sought information from a foreign country that Trump hoped would be damaging to a political opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden. Specifically, the White House released a memorandum of a telephone conversation between President Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that took place on July 25, 2019.
The phone call was at the heart of an allegation by an unnamed member of the U.S. intelligence community, who filed a whistleblower complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, Michael Atkinson, on August 12, 2019. Prior to the release of the transcript, all that was known of the complaint was that it concerned an allegation of an inappropriate promise made by Trump to a foreign leader through a telephone call. The complaint was deemed credible and of an urgent concern by Atkinson, who turned over the complaint to acting Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire. Because it had been deemed of urgent concern, federal law required Maguire to turn the complaint over to the intelligence committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate. When Maguire failed to do so in the time proscribed by statute, Akinson alerted Congress to the existence of the complaint.
While the Administration dragged its heels on releasing the text of the complaint, the Wall Street Journal published an article on September 21, 2019, asserting that Trump had pressured Zelensky about eight times in the telephone call to investigate Biden and his son Hunter. Despite initial denials and cries of "fake news," Trump himself acknowledged that he had pressured Zelensky into investigating Biden and his son. Trump's admission, along with his Administration's intransient stance on withholding the text of the complaint, prompted the House Democrats to meet on Tuesday night. As a result of that meeting, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had been opposed to impeachment over the findings of the Mueller Report, announced that the House would now begin a formal impeachment inquiry. Feeling the political pressure on him growing, Trump agreed to the release of the transcript of his telephone call after obtaining consent from the Ukrainian Government.
It should be noted that no real word for word transcript of the telephone conversation exists. Rather, the White House released a memorandum of the telephone call pieced together by government officials whose job included taking notes of such conversations.
Nonetheless, despite Trump's claims that the telephone call was "perfect," and that the transcript would exonerate him, the memorandum instead provides a smoking gun of an abuse of presidential power for personal political gain.
A review of the conversation demonstrates how Trump brazenly ignores his constitutional oath, and seeks to use his office for his own personal benefit.
Specifically, the memorandum confirms that Trump requested that Ukraine cooperate with his private attorney, Rudolph Guiliani, and the Attorney General, William Barr, specifically mentioning Trump's belief that Biden stopped a prosecution in the Ukraine that involved Biden's son, Hunter. After Zelensky agreed to cooperate, Trump stated that he would have both Giuliani and Barr call Zelensky.
Joe Biden, of course, seeks the Democratic nomination for the 2020 presidential election, and currently leads the pack of potential nominees in most polls. Indeed, in head to head polls, Biden leads Trump by wide margins. Receiving information that Biden acted corruptly from Ukraine could potentially help Trump in his bid for reelection.
Trump faces the problem, however, that no evidence exists showing that either of the Bidens did anything wrong. Before Zelensky was elected Ukraine's President, Vitkor Shokin served as Ukraine's top prosecutor. He was supported by Russia, who was interfering in Ukrainian internal politics. As is well known, once Ukraine started to turn more towards the West, Russia supported armed Ukrainian separatists, and even invaded Ukraine, occupying the Crimea and claiming it as Russian territory.
Shokin was viewed by Western European governments and the Obama Administration as being soft on corruption. President Obama sent Biden on a mission to Ukraine to pressure the Ukrainian President to remove Shokin by withholding about $1 billion in U.S. aid. The intention behind the move was to pressure Ukraine to be tougher on corrupt oligarchs through more aggressive investigations.
At the time, Biden's son, Hunter, held a position as a paid member of the board of a Ukrainian oil and gas company, Burisma. While Burisma had been under investigation by the Ukrainian Government, under Shokin, the investigation had stalled. Thus, by insisting on the appointment of a tougher prosecutor, Biden was not only representing official U.S. policy, but risking a renewed investigation of the company that employed Hunter. No evidence exists that Biden was using his office for personal gain, or that Hunter himself had engaged in any sort of corruption. Trump's goal. therefore, was simply to manufacture as much alternative facts as possible to cast dispersions on Biden, and hopefully use that to whittle away at Biden's lead in the polls.
In addition to claiming that his request to the Ukrainian President was appropriate, Trump has also claimed that the memorandum shows that there was no pressure placed on Zelensky, and no quid pro quo (or an exchange for something of value to Ukraine for providing the requested information). Trump's defense again strains credibility.
At the beginning of the telephone conversation, Trump reminds Zelensky that the United States has been Ukraine's biggest supported. Trump denigrates the actions of European allies, such as Germany, for not doing as much as the United States in supporting Ukraine. Zelensky responds by fawning all over Trump, agreeing with his statement "1000%." Most of Zelensky's responses transmit his desire to stay in the good graces of the Trump Administration. Specifically, Zelensky is quoted a saying, "We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next step specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes." A Javelin is a missile used by the U.S. military, and would presumably be used by Ukraine in defending its territory from Russia and Russian backed separatists.
This reference to Javelin purchases must be placed in context. Congress had approved about $250 million in military aid to Ukraine. However, just days before this telephone call, Trump had ordered that the disbursement of this aid be suspended. It should also be noted that Trump's admiration of Russian President Vladimir Putin is well-known globally. In fact, not long after this telephone conversation, Trump publicly stated his support for the readmission of Russia to the G-8, even though Russia had been thrown out because of its invasion of Ukraine. Clearly, Zelensky had reason to believe that Trump's continued support of Ukraine in its struggle against Russia was soft at best, and could be withdrawn if Ukraine did not do as Trump requested.
In that regard, Trump is quoted as stating, "I would like you to do us a favor though," immediately after Zelensky brings up his desire to buy more Javelins. The juxtaposition of this request from Trump immediately after Zelensky's spoken desire to buy more missiles, as well as his use of the word "though," indicates that Trump's willingness to provide additional aid was contingent on Ukraine's cooperation with his request for a favor.
What is interesting, however, is that Trump requests more than one favor. The first one concerned a matter Trump refered to as "Crowdstrike." Crowdstrike is the company that the Democratic National Committee used to investigate the hacking of its email server. The Crowdstrike, the FBI and Robert Mueller's investigative team all concluded that Russia was responsible for that hacking. Yet Trump refused to believe his own Government in reaching that conclusion. One reason for his belief is because Crowdstrike never turned the physical server over to the FBI. Trump believed rumors that Ukraine was in possession of the server. He therefore asked Zelensky for his help in proving that Trump's convoluted conspiracy theory was true.
It is beyond odd that Trump demanded of the Ukraine that it find evidence Trump hoped would exonerate Trump's buddy, Putin, from the conclusion of the U.S. intelligence community, the FBI and the Mueller team that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. It demonstrates Trump's refusal to accept the conclusions of the Mueller and his team, who spent about two years investigating Russia, the Trump Campaign and the Trump Administration. That investigation resulted in numerous criminal indictments, including the indictments of Russian officials.
Indeed, the timing of the telephone call further demonstrates the contempt that Trump held for Robert Mueller and his investigation. Mueller had testified before Congress on the day before this telephone call. Through his investigation, Mueller presented evidence of Russia's interference in the election, that the Trump Campaign had welcomed Russia's interference (although the conduct of campaign officials did not rise to the level of conspiracy), and of numerous instances that could support a conclusion that Trump engaged in obstruction of justice by frustrating the investigation into Russia's interference.
Mueller crafted his report on the investigation with the understanding that a sitting president could not be indicted during his term in office. Thus, Mueller was careful not to make a conclusion that Trump had committed criminal acts. Nonetheless, through his report, Mueller made it clear that his investigated did not exonerate Trump. Rather, he preserved the evidence so that it could be used presumably either by Congress through impeachment or through a criminal prosecution once Trump left office. Trump and his Administration publicly characterized the investigation as finding that there was "no collusion" and "no obstruction," despite the fact that Mueller made neither of those findings.
Trump, of course, repeatedly referred to the Mueller investigation as a "which hunt," confessing his belief that he, his campaign and his administration did nothing wrong. Thus, in an interview aired in June of 2019, Trump answered a question from George Stephanopoulos by stating that he did not think it would not be wrong to accept information about a political opponent in an election from a foreign national. Trump even indicated that if a foreign national provided such information, that he did not believe it was necessary to inform the FBI. This brazen flaunting of the law raised such an uproar, that the Chairwoman of the Federal Elections Commission was prompted to tweet that "it is illegal to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election." A thing of value incudes information that can be used against an opponent.
Trump, of course, never accepted that he did anything wrong. Thus, in the shadow of Mueller's testimony before Congress, Trump went one step further than merely welcoming foreign interference in a U.S. election; he outright solicited such interference from a foreign leader.
The conclusion here is inescapable. The memorandum of the telephone call to Zelensky shows that Trump has violated the public trust. He has violated his oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In fact, Trump himself has violated the Constitution as well as criminal law by soliciting foreign interference in connection with a federal election. In order to protect the constitutional balance, governmental ethics and our treasured democracy, the House of Representatives has no choice now, but to proceed with the impeachment inquiry.
By: Willliam J. Kovatch, Jr.
The phone call was at the heart of an allegation by an unnamed member of the U.S. intelligence community, who filed a whistleblower complaint with the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, Michael Atkinson, on August 12, 2019. Prior to the release of the transcript, all that was known of the complaint was that it concerned an allegation of an inappropriate promise made by Trump to a foreign leader through a telephone call. The complaint was deemed credible and of an urgent concern by Atkinson, who turned over the complaint to acting Director of National Intelligence, Joseph Maguire. Because it had been deemed of urgent concern, federal law required Maguire to turn the complaint over to the intelligence committees of the House of Representatives and the Senate. When Maguire failed to do so in the time proscribed by statute, Akinson alerted Congress to the existence of the complaint.
While the Administration dragged its heels on releasing the text of the complaint, the Wall Street Journal published an article on September 21, 2019, asserting that Trump had pressured Zelensky about eight times in the telephone call to investigate Biden and his son Hunter. Despite initial denials and cries of "fake news," Trump himself acknowledged that he had pressured Zelensky into investigating Biden and his son. Trump's admission, along with his Administration's intransient stance on withholding the text of the complaint, prompted the House Democrats to meet on Tuesday night. As a result of that meeting, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, who had been opposed to impeachment over the findings of the Mueller Report, announced that the House would now begin a formal impeachment inquiry. Feeling the political pressure on him growing, Trump agreed to the release of the transcript of his telephone call after obtaining consent from the Ukrainian Government.
It should be noted that no real word for word transcript of the telephone conversation exists. Rather, the White House released a memorandum of the telephone call pieced together by government officials whose job included taking notes of such conversations.
Nonetheless, despite Trump's claims that the telephone call was "perfect," and that the transcript would exonerate him, the memorandum instead provides a smoking gun of an abuse of presidential power for personal political gain.
A review of the conversation demonstrates how Trump brazenly ignores his constitutional oath, and seeks to use his office for his own personal benefit.
Specifically, the memorandum confirms that Trump requested that Ukraine cooperate with his private attorney, Rudolph Guiliani, and the Attorney General, William Barr, specifically mentioning Trump's belief that Biden stopped a prosecution in the Ukraine that involved Biden's son, Hunter. After Zelensky agreed to cooperate, Trump stated that he would have both Giuliani and Barr call Zelensky.
Joe Biden, of course, seeks the Democratic nomination for the 2020 presidential election, and currently leads the pack of potential nominees in most polls. Indeed, in head to head polls, Biden leads Trump by wide margins. Receiving information that Biden acted corruptly from Ukraine could potentially help Trump in his bid for reelection.
Trump faces the problem, however, that no evidence exists showing that either of the Bidens did anything wrong. Before Zelensky was elected Ukraine's President, Vitkor Shokin served as Ukraine's top prosecutor. He was supported by Russia, who was interfering in Ukrainian internal politics. As is well known, once Ukraine started to turn more towards the West, Russia supported armed Ukrainian separatists, and even invaded Ukraine, occupying the Crimea and claiming it as Russian territory.
Shokin was viewed by Western European governments and the Obama Administration as being soft on corruption. President Obama sent Biden on a mission to Ukraine to pressure the Ukrainian President to remove Shokin by withholding about $1 billion in U.S. aid. The intention behind the move was to pressure Ukraine to be tougher on corrupt oligarchs through more aggressive investigations.
At the time, Biden's son, Hunter, held a position as a paid member of the board of a Ukrainian oil and gas company, Burisma. While Burisma had been under investigation by the Ukrainian Government, under Shokin, the investigation had stalled. Thus, by insisting on the appointment of a tougher prosecutor, Biden was not only representing official U.S. policy, but risking a renewed investigation of the company that employed Hunter. No evidence exists that Biden was using his office for personal gain, or that Hunter himself had engaged in any sort of corruption. Trump's goal. therefore, was simply to manufacture as much alternative facts as possible to cast dispersions on Biden, and hopefully use that to whittle away at Biden's lead in the polls.
In addition to claiming that his request to the Ukrainian President was appropriate, Trump has also claimed that the memorandum shows that there was no pressure placed on Zelensky, and no quid pro quo (or an exchange for something of value to Ukraine for providing the requested information). Trump's defense again strains credibility.
At the beginning of the telephone conversation, Trump reminds Zelensky that the United States has been Ukraine's biggest supported. Trump denigrates the actions of European allies, such as Germany, for not doing as much as the United States in supporting Ukraine. Zelensky responds by fawning all over Trump, agreeing with his statement "1000%." Most of Zelensky's responses transmit his desire to stay in the good graces of the Trump Administration. Specifically, Zelensky is quoted a saying, "We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next step specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes." A Javelin is a missile used by the U.S. military, and would presumably be used by Ukraine in defending its territory from Russia and Russian backed separatists.
This reference to Javelin purchases must be placed in context. Congress had approved about $250 million in military aid to Ukraine. However, just days before this telephone call, Trump had ordered that the disbursement of this aid be suspended. It should also be noted that Trump's admiration of Russian President Vladimir Putin is well-known globally. In fact, not long after this telephone conversation, Trump publicly stated his support for the readmission of Russia to the G-8, even though Russia had been thrown out because of its invasion of Ukraine. Clearly, Zelensky had reason to believe that Trump's continued support of Ukraine in its struggle against Russia was soft at best, and could be withdrawn if Ukraine did not do as Trump requested.
In that regard, Trump is quoted as stating, "I would like you to do us a favor though," immediately after Zelensky brings up his desire to buy more Javelins. The juxtaposition of this request from Trump immediately after Zelensky's spoken desire to buy more missiles, as well as his use of the word "though," indicates that Trump's willingness to provide additional aid was contingent on Ukraine's cooperation with his request for a favor.
What is interesting, however, is that Trump requests more than one favor. The first one concerned a matter Trump refered to as "Crowdstrike." Crowdstrike is the company that the Democratic National Committee used to investigate the hacking of its email server. The Crowdstrike, the FBI and Robert Mueller's investigative team all concluded that Russia was responsible for that hacking. Yet Trump refused to believe his own Government in reaching that conclusion. One reason for his belief is because Crowdstrike never turned the physical server over to the FBI. Trump believed rumors that Ukraine was in possession of the server. He therefore asked Zelensky for his help in proving that Trump's convoluted conspiracy theory was true.
It is beyond odd that Trump demanded of the Ukraine that it find evidence Trump hoped would exonerate Trump's buddy, Putin, from the conclusion of the U.S. intelligence community, the FBI and the Mueller team that Russia interfered in the 2016 U.S. presidential election. It demonstrates Trump's refusal to accept the conclusions of the Mueller and his team, who spent about two years investigating Russia, the Trump Campaign and the Trump Administration. That investigation resulted in numerous criminal indictments, including the indictments of Russian officials.
Indeed, the timing of the telephone call further demonstrates the contempt that Trump held for Robert Mueller and his investigation. Mueller had testified before Congress on the day before this telephone call. Through his investigation, Mueller presented evidence of Russia's interference in the election, that the Trump Campaign had welcomed Russia's interference (although the conduct of campaign officials did not rise to the level of conspiracy), and of numerous instances that could support a conclusion that Trump engaged in obstruction of justice by frustrating the investigation into Russia's interference.
Mueller crafted his report on the investigation with the understanding that a sitting president could not be indicted during his term in office. Thus, Mueller was careful not to make a conclusion that Trump had committed criminal acts. Nonetheless, through his report, Mueller made it clear that his investigated did not exonerate Trump. Rather, he preserved the evidence so that it could be used presumably either by Congress through impeachment or through a criminal prosecution once Trump left office. Trump and his Administration publicly characterized the investigation as finding that there was "no collusion" and "no obstruction," despite the fact that Mueller made neither of those findings.
Trump, of course, repeatedly referred to the Mueller investigation as a "which hunt," confessing his belief that he, his campaign and his administration did nothing wrong. Thus, in an interview aired in June of 2019, Trump answered a question from George Stephanopoulos by stating that he did not think it would not be wrong to accept information about a political opponent in an election from a foreign national. Trump even indicated that if a foreign national provided such information, that he did not believe it was necessary to inform the FBI. This brazen flaunting of the law raised such an uproar, that the Chairwoman of the Federal Elections Commission was prompted to tweet that "it is illegal to solicit, accept, or receive anything of value from a foreign national in connection with a U.S. election." A thing of value incudes information that can be used against an opponent.
Trump, of course, never accepted that he did anything wrong. Thus, in the shadow of Mueller's testimony before Congress, Trump went one step further than merely welcoming foreign interference in a U.S. election; he outright solicited such interference from a foreign leader.
The conclusion here is inescapable. The memorandum of the telephone call to Zelensky shows that Trump has violated the public trust. He has violated his oath to protect and defend the Constitution against all enemies, foreign and domestic. In fact, Trump himself has violated the Constitution as well as criminal law by soliciting foreign interference in connection with a federal election. In order to protect the constitutional balance, governmental ethics and our treasured democracy, the House of Representatives has no choice now, but to proceed with the impeachment inquiry.
By: Willliam J. Kovatch, Jr.
Monday, July 15, 2019
The Far-Right Feel Entitled to Have Trump and His Racism
What the Left in this country don’t get about Trump fans is that they don’t ignore the fact that the President is a lying, cheating, ignorant misogynistic and racist of a bully. Trump fans feel entitled to it.
This goes all the way back to the Clinton Presidency. Clinton was a lying and cheating bully. But he was so talented with interpersonal relations, go often got away with it. That’s why his nickname was “Slick Willie.” When women dared to make allegations of sexual impropriety, the enablers around Slick Willie circled the wagons and defended him. When he was caught red-handed lying under oath, Republicans thought they had their moment of victory. Let’s face it, there was substance to the allegations of perjury and obstruction of justice. Otherwise, he would not have been disbarred.
Perjury and obstruction of justice are valid reasons for impeachment of a president. Feeling justified in their actions, House Republicans impeached Clinton. But again, his enablers rallied around the President, distracted the public from the legal charges against Clinton, and made it about sex, which they called “a personal matter.” Never mind that sex scandals and infidelity had brought down numerous less talented politicians than Clinton.
Republicans were angry that Democrats could rally around such an immoral character as Slick Willie. The so-called “Arkansas Mafia” relentlessly attacked the character of the numerous women who came forward. To the GOP, it looked liked the Democrats had hypocritically attacked these women, while simultaneously complaining about the toxic male behavior that underlies sexual harassment and domestic violence.
Talk show hosts, most notably Rush Limbaugh, ranted day after day about how Republicans are too nice. If there was a sniff of scandal around a Republican candidate, that candidate was dumped. Limbaugh decried that Republicans didn’t rally around a politician who was under attack like the Democrats did. In short, Republican voters, egged on by the likes of Limbaugh, Sean Hannity and Mark Levin, convinced themselves that Democrats got away with playing dirty politics. They wanted their own dirty politician who fight the dirty Democrats, blow by blow.
The party leadership resisted while they could. But honorable men, such as Mitt Romney and John McCain, would win the nomination, only to see the strongest opposition come from their own party voters. Far-Right voters labeled anyone who didn’t tow a hard core conservative line as RINOs, Republicans in name only.
Then along comes Donald Trump. Unapologetic in being a bully. Throwing nasty names out to all opponents, even Republicans. It didn’t matter that he got his facts wrong. It didn’t matter that his insults were steeped in xenophobia, racism and misogyny. It didn’t matter that many women accused him of sexual assault, or even that he took pride in how easy it was for him, a celebrity, to get away with it. The Left had their Bill Clinton. To the Far-Right voter, it was only fitting and fair that they get their bully who could ignore the moral consequences of his actions.
Just confront a Trump fan with his abhorrent behavior. Inevitably, a Trump fan will respond with, “What about Clinton!” To them, it’s not about the deep, irredeemable personality flaws in Trump. He fights. He fights dirty. He is their Bill Clinton.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Sunday, July 14, 2019
Trump Needs to Keep Tweeting
I hear the refrain all the time. “That Trump needs to stop tweeting,” or “someone needs to take Trump’s phone away from him.” It’s because Trump’s tweets make people feel uncomfortable.
And why shouldn’t they feel uncomfortable? Through his tweets, Trump is his most raw self. They are his inner most thoughts. They can be angry, insulting, bullying, vulgar, narcissistic, and above all, ignorant.
Trump’s tweets show that he ignores sources of information that do not fit into his world view. He routinely calls news and polls that don’t flatter him “fake news,” while lauding polls and news that massage his ego, even if the source is objectively unreliable.
Trump attacks his enemies in his tweets, often based on superficial characteristics. He will degrade women often referring to attractiveness or what thinks is their intelligence. He attacks talk show hosts by berating what he thinks is their ratings. But very rarely do you ever see him engage in an intelligent policy debate.
Trump uses his tweets to bully. If he disagrees with a person, that person gets an ugly nickname. He rebukes people for not thanking him. His bullying tweets can go on for days, weeks, months . . . .
Trump tweets most when he’s angry. When he is angry, Twitter becomes his outlet for some of the most vile, vitriolic language he can muster.
In short, Trump’s tweets confess his misogyny, his ignorance, his racism, his lack of intelligence, his lack of understanding of the Constitution, his unstable personality and his narcissism. All in all, Trump’s tweets show that he is more than simply unpresidential; they show that he is a dangerous man to be in the White House.
And that’s the main reason why they make people uncomfortable. People want to go on with their lives, hoping things can just remain normal. But Trump’s tweets are a constant reminder that we elected a totally unqualified, ignorant, horrid excuse for a human being to lead our Government. His tweets make people confront the fact that Trump has strained relationships with our allies, made politics far more combative and ugly than ever, and shown contempt for some of the fundamental principles of our Constitution. His tweets show how no one can continue to ignore politics.
While Trump’s tweets make some people uncomfortable, and anger others, he needs to keep tweeting. He needs to keep showing us just what an appalling person he is. That way, more people can be motivated to get him out of office to restore the prestige of the United States and the Office of the President. Please, Mr. Trump, keep tweeting.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
And why shouldn’t they feel uncomfortable? Through his tweets, Trump is his most raw self. They are his inner most thoughts. They can be angry, insulting, bullying, vulgar, narcissistic, and above all, ignorant.
Trump’s tweets show that he ignores sources of information that do not fit into his world view. He routinely calls news and polls that don’t flatter him “fake news,” while lauding polls and news that massage his ego, even if the source is objectively unreliable.
Trump attacks his enemies in his tweets, often based on superficial characteristics. He will degrade women often referring to attractiveness or what thinks is their intelligence. He attacks talk show hosts by berating what he thinks is their ratings. But very rarely do you ever see him engage in an intelligent policy debate.
Trump uses his tweets to bully. If he disagrees with a person, that person gets an ugly nickname. He rebukes people for not thanking him. His bullying tweets can go on for days, weeks, months . . . .
Trump tweets most when he’s angry. When he is angry, Twitter becomes his outlet for some of the most vile, vitriolic language he can muster.
In short, Trump’s tweets confess his misogyny, his ignorance, his racism, his lack of intelligence, his lack of understanding of the Constitution, his unstable personality and his narcissism. All in all, Trump’s tweets show that he is more than simply unpresidential; they show that he is a dangerous man to be in the White House.
And that’s the main reason why they make people uncomfortable. People want to go on with their lives, hoping things can just remain normal. But Trump’s tweets are a constant reminder that we elected a totally unqualified, ignorant, horrid excuse for a human being to lead our Government. His tweets make people confront the fact that Trump has strained relationships with our allies, made politics far more combative and ugly than ever, and shown contempt for some of the fundamental principles of our Constitution. His tweets show how no one can continue to ignore politics.
While Trump’s tweets make some people uncomfortable, and anger others, he needs to keep tweeting. He needs to keep showing us just what an appalling person he is. That way, more people can be motivated to get him out of office to restore the prestige of the United States and the Office of the President. Please, Mr. Trump, keep tweeting.
By: William J. Kovatch, Jr.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)