Donald J. Trump was impeached by the United States House of
Representatives last month and is facing a trial in the Senate for removal from
the office of President on two Articles of Impeachment, one for Abuse of Power
and the other for Obstruction of Congress.
Trump ought
to be removed from office for extorting an ally in 2019 by denying adequate
diplomatic support and exceeding his executive power to withhold military aid
to an ally, Ukraine, to defend itself against invasion by the Russian Federation,
a power hostile to the U.S., that was appropriated by Congress and signed into
law by himself, for the corrupt purposes of his political and personal benefit
and to the benefit of Russian tyrant Vladimir Putin, who had interfered in the
American presidential election of 2016 on behalf of Trump’s candidacy. He then obstructed the House impeachment
inquiry and even the impeachment process and removal trial by refusing to
comply with any subpoenas and ordering all witnesses not to appear. Both impeachment articles document violations
of the Separation of Powers principle of the Constitution. Trump’s abuse of power also violates the rule
of law and the independence, self-determination and sovereignty of the U.S. As both articles observe, his actions are
part of a pattern of solicitation of and willingness to accept and benefit from
interference by foreign States in American politics and specifically in
elections in which he is a candidate, and of obstruction of lawful
investigations to cover up his misdeeds.
As
documented in the first Article of Impeachment for Abuse of Power, Trump abused
his power by attempting to bribe and extort Ukraine by denying diplomatic
support and withholding military aid needed to defend against Russia in
exchange for announcements by the Ukrainian Government of two different
investigations of political and personal benefit to him, contrary to American
interest and security. Thus, there was a
quid pro quo (this for that) in the corrupt scheme.
The first quo
was a meeting between the new Ukrainian President, who had won election on an
anti-corruption and pro-Western platform and Trump. The meeting, which Trump denied, would have
sent a signal to Russian tyrant Putin of U.S. support for Ukraine. Trump had already ordered the Vice President
not to appear at the new President’s inauguration, which suggested a downgrade
in the importance of the Ukrainian- American relationship.
An even
more significant quo was the withholding of defense aid to Ukraine, an ally of the U.S. to defend it against invasion by Russia, a state hostile to American interests, which
had invaded Ukraine in 2014,
in violation of a treaty recognizing Ukraine’s independence, sovereignty
and territorial integrity. The aid had
been approved with overwhelming bipartisan support in both the Democratic-led
House of Representatives and Republican-majority Senate. Trump signed the aid bill into law in 2019. His own administration had certified that Ukraine had met
the criteria for anti-corruption for receiving the aid after the new Ukrainian
President had taken the necessary steps.
Therefore, by withholding the defense aid, Trump was not implementing
his foreign policy, but going against his own policy, despite his public
boasting, echoed by his Administration and supporters, of being tough on Russia. In fact, he was acting against the U.S. interest of defending an ally that is a
bulwark against Russian aggression against former Soviet Republics,
thereby jeopardizing American security. Russia had invaded Georgia
in 2008, then Ukraine, seizing
the Crimean Peninsula
in 2014 and is currently at war with Ukraine
in support of ethnic Russian separatists in eastern Ukraine. Putin regards the breakup of the Soviet Union in 1991 as the greatest political calamity
of the Twentieth Century and dreams of reconstituting it. Other former Soviet
Republics, including some North
Atlantic Treaty Organization American allies, fear invasion by Russia. The denial of U.S.
defense aid to Ukraine was,
therefore, to the benefit of Putin, who, emboldened by the decrease in American
diplomatic support and delay in sending military aid, stepped up attacks in Ukraine
in the meantime. The aid was delayed for
months until a whistleblower reported it and Republican Senators questioned the
delay.
Furthermore, the denial of the aid
violated the Separation of Powers doctrine of the Constitution. The power of the Legislative Branch, the
Representatives of the people and States, is to make laws and the Executive
Branch, of which the President is Chief Executive, is to carry them out. Trump had no authority to withhold aid, even
if he had had a valid policy motivation, which he did not. By exceeding his constitutional executive
authority, he usurped representative republican government.
In exchange
(the quid) for the presidential meeting and military aid, Trump demanded an announcement
by the Ukrainian President of an investigation into former Vice President
Joseph Biden, who had emerged as the leader in the polls for the Democratic
presidential nomination for 2020. Trump
is a candidate for the Republican 2020 presidential nomination. Biden had carried out U.S. policy of
demanding the replacement of a previous Ukrainian prosecutor who had failed to
prosecute corruption adequately under the previous Ukrainian President. This policy was in accordance with the policy
of the European Union and International Monetary Fund. The lack of adequate prosecution for
corruption had led to the election of the new Ukrainian President. Trump was more interested in an announcement
of an investigation than an actual investigation. His actions were thus an attempt to smear a
private American citizen instead of following the legal protocol for a criminal
referral and the principle of the rule of law, even if there had been a basis
for one, which there was not. Trump was
uninterested in opposing corruption in foreign policy otherwise, unless it
involved his political opponents. The
investigation he sought would have been of political benefit to him versus his
political opponent.
Thus, Trump was corruptly using the
power of his office to solicit interference by a foreign State in the U.S.
presidential election. His motivation
was for his personal benefit, not American security or some other licit purpose. Trump, who initiated his campaign for the
2016 Republican presidential nomination as a marketing ploy for his businesses,
profits off the presidency through the unconstitutional receipt of both foreign
and domestic emoluments and in other ways.
He also argues in various ongoing cases in federal and state courts that
he is immune from prosecution while in office, or even investigation, not only
of him, but also his businesses, family and associates, and not only from
federal investigation, but also state investigations. Therefore, re-election had both pecuniary
and legal benefit to Trump and defeat would cause the loss of both the
pecuniary benefit and the claimed immunity.
Trump had previously declared publicly that he would accept information from foreign governments against his political opponents in the 2020 presidential election. After the revelation of his quid pro quo in regard to Ukraine, he then called also for Communist China to interfere in the election by investigation Biden and another Democratic presidential candidate. Therefore, the continuing danger to American indpendence, sovereignty and self-determination from foreign interference in U.S. presidential elections posed by Trump is a clear and present danger.
Another
investigation Trump sought from Ukraine’s Government in exchange for the
approved military aid was into a conspiracy theory of Ukrainian interference in
the 2016 election, instead of Putin’s interference on behalf of Trump, which
was documented by Special Counsel Robert Mueller, a Republican appointed by the
Trump Administration,
https://www.justice.gov/storage/report.pdf,
and the GOP-led Senate Intelligence Committee:
https://www.intelligence.senate.gov/publications/report-select-committee-intelligence-united-states-senate-russian-active-measures. Because he was concerned that Putin’s election
interference undermines Trump’s legitimacy, he sought to blame
Ukraine for
Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election. Indeed, it is a Kremlin disinformation
operation to blame Ukraine for Putin’s successful support for Trump, just as it
blamed Ukraine for the downing of the Malaysian civilian airliner over Ukraine
in 2014 by Russian forces. Thus, Trump’s
demand for the investigation served not only to minimize or ignore the Russian
tyrant’s interference in American politics and his support for Trump’s campaign
in particular, but served Putin’s propaganda efforts of deflecting blame to his
enemy,
U.S. ally
Ukraine.
The second
Article of Impeachment documents Trump’s obstruction of Congress. In various federal court cases Trump argues
extraordinarily that he is not subject to oversight by the Legislative Branch
and thus he and his staff are immune from subpoenas by Congress. Given his argument that he is immune while in
office from any criminal investigation, only the impeachment inquiry remained
as a congressional tool short of impeachment to investigate Trump’s actions in
order for Congress to inform itself, in contemplation of legislation and to conduct
adequate oversight over the Executive Branch.
But as Trump ignored all congressional subpoenas to produce documents
and ordered all staff to decline to respond to subpoenas to testify,
consideration of impeachment articles by the House was left as the only
constitutional remedy. He similarly
refused to comply with all congressional subpoenas even for impeachment. Trump has obstructed Congress’ constitutional
power without ever invoking executive privilege, but informally by
extraordinarily broad claims of privilege for staff and has disparaged not only
the House’s impeachment, but the constitutional power of impeachment itself as
a check on usurpations by the Chief Executive.
Trump’s obstruction of Congress not only violates the Separation of
Powers, but would render ineffective the deterrent against the commission of
high crimes and misdemeanors by him or any future president, let alone a remedy
for violations of the Constitution or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Both
impeachment articles note the pattern of behavior by Trump, in the first Article
of soliciting interference by foreign governments in support of his election
campaigns and in the second, to cover up the support. As a private citizen and Republican
presidential nominee, Trump publicly solicited and welcomed Russian
interference to his benefit in the U.S. presidential election. The Special Counsel also reported that Trump
and his campaign had coordinated its messaging with the release of information
stolen by the Russian military intelligence agency and released to a
publication that was its cut-out and based its messaging to a significant
degree on the stolen information. The
report also found that Trump had lied about the foreign help and then, as
President, repeatedly engaged in obstruction of justice in various ways against
the Special Counsel’s investigation to conceal his and his campaign’s
involvement. The second Article of
Impeachment documents Trump’s similar pattern of obstructing a lawful inquiry
into his behavior to cover up his corrupt acts.
Because there is a pattern of these
behaviors, the threat of more wrongdoing by Trump would be likely, even if he
had not publicly continued to solicit foreign interference to benefit his
re-election campaign and shown no remorse, but instead continues to insist he
has the right to engage in similar corrupt acts that would violate the
Constitution and the rule of law.
The wrongdoing by Trump found by
the House of Representatives in the two impeachment articles against Trump are
the worst high crimes and misdemeanors ever charged against any President
through the impeachment remedy. A
failure to defend the Constitution and the rule of law would effectively repeal
the essential constitutional framework of checks and balances by making a
president the equivalent of an absolute monarch and usurping the Legislative
Branch by thwarting the role of Congress as the representatives of the people
and States both to legislate and to hold the Executive accountable, which would
be inimical to liberty, while subjecting private American citizens to smear out
of political motivation instead of on the basis of the lawful exercise of
prosecutorial authority. A failure to
defend the American representative republic against the use of the highest
federal office to solicit foreign interference in American politics would
minimize American independence and self-determination and violate U.S.
sovereignty by allowing foreign States, including despots hostile to the U.S.,
effectively to choose the President by interfering the election of presidential
and vice presidential Electors, instead of Americans choosing based upon
American interests.
Because Trump engaged in maladministration
that violated the constitutional principle of the Separation of Powers, as well
as the rule of law, contrary to U.S. interests and in the interest of a hostile
tyrant who had helped Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign, and then
unconstitutionally sought to cover up his misdeeds, Donald J. Trump ought to be
convicted by the Senate of the Articles of Impeachment for Abuse of Power and
Obstruction of Congress and thereby removed from the office of President of the
United States and prohibited from holding any federal office of trust.
