A major difficulty in discussions such as the Trump impeachment inquiry is finding a way to describe the allegations in relatively simple ways. I don’t mean bribery, obstruction, and that sort of thing (but, of course, being able to point to specific charges helps). I mean distilling the true essence of why the process is needed in the first place.
I have already attempted to do this in previous posts on the issue of Trump using public resources for private gain (here and here). In the most simple of terms he sought to use resources that belong to the American public in exchange for favors from the Ukrainians that would have been of private use to himself.
My current version is as follows:
Trump tried to trade public resources (aid and a WH meeting) to a foreign government (Ukrainine’s) so that that government would act in a way that would influence a US election (by announcing investigations into the Bidens and the conspiracy theory about the DNC server).
The rest of the post is just breaking that down:
The public resources included millions in security assistance and a visit to the White House for President Zelensky. These are both public goods that do not belong, personally, to Trump.
Government service is supposed to be public service, not a means of private gain. The word we used for when public servants use public resources for their private gain is corruption.
In regards to the aid, his ability to withhold was actually limited by the law. Congress appropriated the funds and independent actors within the US government certified that Ukraine had met the legal threshold for releasing the aid.
In regards to a White House visit, it was was within Trump’s legal rights to determine who visits the White House, this is true. And, really, he doesn’t have to explain himself, per se, when it comes to those visits. Nonetheless, such a visit is ultimately of potentially high value to those who get to visit. The president can certainly reward or punish foreign leaders with such an opportunity (as he weirdly did for Turkey’s Erdogan not that long ago). However, such rewards are supposed to be to further US public policy goals, not to provide private benefits to the president.
I would note that Ambassador Sondland testified that the White House meeting were definitively part of a quid pro quo:
Schiff: Let me get to the top line here, Ambassador Sondland.
Source: Wittes, Benjamin, 2019 “Gordon Sondland Accuses the President of Bribery“Lawfare (November 20)
Sondland: Okay.
Schiff: You’ve testified that the White House meeting that President Zelensky desperately wanted [was] very important to President Zelensky, was it not?
Sondland: Absolutely.
Schiff: You testified that that meeting was conditioned, was a quid pro quo, for what the president wanted, these two investigations. Is that right?
Sondland: Correct.
Schiff: And that everybody knew it.
Sondland: Correct.
Schiff: Now that White House meeting was going to be an official meeting between the two presidents, correct?
Sondland: Presumably.
Schiff: It would be an Oval Office meeting, hopefully?
Sondland: A working meeting, yes.
Schiff: A working meeting. So an official act.
Sondland: Yes.
Schiff: And in order to perform that official act, Donald Trump wanted these two investigations that would help his re-election campaign, correct?
Sondland: I can’t characterize why he wanted them. All I can tell you is this is what we heard from Mr. Giuliani.
Schiff: But he had to get those two investigations if that official act was going to take place, correct?
Sondland: He had to announce the investigations. He didn’t actually have to do them, as I understood it.
Schiff: Okay, President Zelensky had to announce the two investigations the president wanted, make a public announcement, correct?
Sondland: Correct.
Schiff: And those were of great value to the president; he was quite insistent upon them and his attorney was insistent upon them?
Sondland: I don’t want to characterize whether they were valued, not valued. Again, through Mr. Giuliani, we were led to believe that that’s what he wanted.
Schiff: Well, and you said Mr. Giuliani was acting at the president’s demand, correct?
Sondland: Right, when the president says talk to my personal lawyer, Mr. Giuliani, we followed his direction.
Schiff: And so that official act of that meeting was being conditioned on the performance of these things the president wanted as expressed both directly and through his lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. Correct?
Sondland: As expressed through Rudy Giuliani. Correct.
Schiff: And you’ve also testified is that your understanding, it became your clear understanding that the military assistance was also being withheld pending Zelensky announcing these investigations. Correct?
Sondland: That was my presumption, my personal presumption based on the facts at the time. Nothing was moving.
Schiff: And in fact, you had a discussion, communication with the secretary of state in which you said that [the] logjam over aid could be lifted if Zelensky announced these investigations, right?
Sondland: I did not, I don’t recall saying the logjam over aid. I recall saying the logjam.
Schiff: That’s what you meant, right, ambassador?
Sondland: I meant that whatever was holding up the meeting whatever was holding up our deal with Ukraine, I was trying to break. Again, I was presuming.
Schiff: Well, here’s what you said in your testimony a moment ago, page 18: “But my goal at the time was to do what was necessary to get the aid released, to break the logjam.” Okay, that’s still your testimony, right?
Sondland: Yes.
Schiff: So the military aid is also an official act, am I right?
Sondland: Yes
Schiff: This was not President Trump’s personal bank account he’s writing a check from. This is $400 million of U.S. taxpayer money, is it not?
Sondland: Absolutely.
Schiff: There was a logjam in which the president would not write that U.S. check, you believed, until Ukraine announced these two investigations the president wanted.
Sondland: That was my belief.
Trump’s goal, it has to be underscored, was to get help from the Ukrainian government that would be of benefit to him in the 2020 elections.
So, again, this long post (longer than I intended), boils down to this:
Trump tried to trade public resources (aid and a WH meeting) to a foreign government (Ukrainine’s) so that that government would act in a way that would influence a US election (by announcing investigations into the Bidens and the conspiracy theory about the DNC server).
This is an abuse of power that should not be tolerated regardless of whether one is a co-partisan of the president or not.
It is important to understand that an announced investigation into the Bidens would create a media context not unlike the Clinton e-mails. And an announcement into the DNC server would give credence to the “theory” (I use the word advisedly in this case) that the source of 2016 election meddling was Ukraine, not Russia.
Note, as Sondland does, that the main goal was the announcement of investigations, not actual investigations.
I would note, too, that there has not been any substantive challenge to these facts.
