Gavin Howe
In July 2019, former US President Donald Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, who was a frontrunner to take on Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Trump also urged Zelenskyy to work with his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and Attorney General William Barr, on this.
Trump was accused of breaking the law by pressuring a foreign power to interfere in the 2020 election and of soliciting a valuable contribution to his campaign from a foreign entity, which is forbidden by campaign finance laws. Trump was impeached on charges of abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress but was acquitted by the Senate.
While the Justice Department determined that no campaign finance violation had occurred, legal experts argue that Trump's conduct may have violated federal bribery and gratuities law.
What You'll Learn
Trump's Ukraine call may have been an impeachable offence
Trump's Ukraine Call: An Impeachable Offense?
The Background
On the 25th of July, 2019, US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy had a phone call. A whistleblower complaint was filed in August, expressing concern that Trump had used his office to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 US presidential election.
The Whistleblower Complaint
The whistleblower, reported to be a CIA official, had not directly heard the call but learned of its contents from other officials. The complaint was made on the 12th of August and was eventually released to the House Intelligence Committee on the 25th of September.
The Phone Call
In the call, Trump urged Zelenskyy to investigate Joe Biden, the frontrunner to take on Trump in the 2020 election, as well as Biden's son, Hunter. This came shortly after Trump blocked the release of military aid to Ukraine. A senior official later testified that the release of this aid was conditional on Biden being investigated. The White House denies this.
The Impeachment
Trump was impeached on the 18th of December, 2019, on charges of abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress. He was acquitted by the Senate on the 5th of February, 2020.
Was It an Impeachable Offense?
While Trump's Ukraine call may not have broken any specific laws, it was still an impeachable offense. This is because an impeachable offense need not be an actual crime. Trump's conduct may have violated the federal bribery and gratuities law, which makes it a felony for any federal "public official" to "corruptly" demand or seek "anything of value... in return for being influenced in the performance of any official act".
Trump's actions could also be seen as an "abuse of power", one of the three types of conduct that constitute grounds for impeachment. Furthermore, asking a foreign power for help in winning a US election is against the law.
In conclusion, while Trump's Ukraine call may not have broken any laws, it was still an impeachable offense due to the nature of the conduct and the abuse of power it involved.
DNI's Controversial Move: Did They Break the Law?
You may want to see also
Trump may have broken federal bribery laws
In 2019, US President Donald Trump was accused of breaking the law by pressuring Ukraine's leader, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, to dig up damaging information on his political rival, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter Biden. This was allegedly done to boost Trump's chances of re-election in 2020.
Trump was impeached on charges of abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress but was later acquitted by the Senate. However, there is speculation as to whether Trump may have also broken federal bribery laws.
The Bribery Allegations
Paul Rosenzweig, a former senior counsel in the Whitewater investigation, stated that the facts of the case "sketch out the possibility of a criminal violation of the anti-bribery statute". Rosenzweig added that if Trump were anyone other than the President, this would be enough to open an investigation.
Trump's conduct may have violated the federal bribery and gratuities law: 18 USC Section 201. This law makes it a felony for any federal "public official" to "corruptly" demand or seek "anything of value... in return for being influenced in the performance of any official act". The law also creates an easier-to-prove misdemeanour that doesn't require proof of "corrupt" intent and sweeps up any official who demands or seeks "anything of value personally for or because of any official act".
The Quid Pro Quo
There is evidence to suggest that Trump was conditioning the release of nearly $391 million in military aid to Ukraine upon the country's announcement of a criminal probe into the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, where Hunter Biden was a director. This could be seen as Trump using his position to gain a competitive advantage over his adversary in the election, which would amount to soliciting a valuable contribution to his campaign from a foreign entity, forbidden by campaign finance laws.
The "Thing of Value"
Some have argued that the "thing of value" in this case—an investigation into Biden—cannot be quantified and therefore does not meet the criteria for a campaign finance violation. However, courts have repeatedly found that "intangible" benefits can count as "anything of value". Randall Eliason, a former assistant US attorney, believes that "a promise to investigate a political opponent would qualify" as a "thing of value".
The Justice Department's Response
Despite the mounting evidence, the Department of Justice (DOJ) has not opened a formal criminal inquiry into Trump's conduct. Early on, the DOJ concluded that there was "no campaign finance violation" as they determined that help with a government investigation could not be quantified as a "thing of value".
Stuart Gerson, a former acting US Attorney General, disagreed with this conclusion, stating that "getting dirt on your opponents is something valuable to you and your campaign".
The Way Forward
The absence of a parallel criminal inquiry may be because the DOJ has decided that the pending impeachment inquiry is sufficient to address the allegations. Bribery is an explicit constitutional ground for impeachment, and since the "thing of value" came from Ukraine, it could also be considered a foreign emolument, another basis for impeachment.
However, the DOJ's inaction could also indicate that they have quietly decided that a sitting President is not only immune from prosecution during their term but also immune from all criminal investigation. This contention has been widely criticised as being radically at odds with the nation's history and constitutional consensus.
Trump-Russia Collusion: Any Laws Broken?
You may want to see also
Trump's actions could constitute a criminal violation of the anti-bribery statute
Trump's actions in Ukraine could constitute a criminal violation of the anti-bribery statute. The bribery law makes it a felony for any federal "public official" to "corruptly" demand or seek "anything of value...in return for being influenced in the performance of any official act". The law does not require the "thing of value" to be quantified, and courts have found that "intangible" benefits can count as "anything of value".
Evidence suggests that Trump was conditioning the release of $391 million in military aid to Ukraine on the country's announcement of a criminal probe into the Ukrainian energy company Burisma, which would have cast a pall on Hunter Biden, son of Joe Biden, who was the frontrunner to be Trump's Democratic opponent in the 2020 election. This would have been a personal gain for Trump, and there is no objective evidence of a legitimate public purpose.
Trump's actions also satisfy the easier-to-prove misdemeanour, which does not require proof of "corrupt" intent, but only that a public official demanded or sought "anything of value personally for or because of any official act performed or to be performed".
The Supreme Court has interpreted quid pro quo in a common-sense manner, with Justice Anthony Kennedy writing in a 1992 concurrence that "the official and the payor need not state the quid pro quo in express terms, for otherwise the law's effect could be frustrated by knowing winks and nods".
Trump's actions in Ukraine could also constitute a violation of federal bribery and gratuities law: 18 USC Section 201.
Sanctuary Cities: Breaking Federal Law or Not?
You may want to see also
Trump's actions may have been an abuse of power
Trump's actions in Ukraine may have been an abuse of power.
In July 2019, Trump urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate Joe Biden, one of the frontrunners for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, and his son, Hunter Biden. Trump also blocked the release of military aid to Ukraine, which critics argued was used as a bargaining chip.
Furthermore, Trump authorized a private individual, Rudy Giuliani, to run a personal investigation outside of government accountability. This is outside of due process and shows contempt for established procedures.
While Trump's actions may not have broken any specific laws, they could still be considered an impeachable offense. The impeachment of a President is a constitutional process that need not be based on criminality. It can also be based on abuse of power, violation of oath of office, or bigger constitutional principles.
Trump was impeached on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress but was later acquitted by the Senate.
Amorosa's Recording: Legal or Not?
You may want to see also
Trump's actions may have been a breach of public trust
In July 2019, then-US President Donald Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate Joe Biden, a political rival, and his son, Hunter Biden. Trump also requested an investigation into a conspiracy theory involving a Democratic National Committee server. At the time, Joe Biden was the frontrunner to be the Democratic Party's presidential nominee for the 2020 election.
Trump's request was part of a broader attempt to coerce Ukraine into investigating Biden. This included enlisting surrogates, such as his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and withholding $391 million in military aid to Ukraine.
While Trump's actions may not have broken any specific laws, they could still be considered impeachable. The impeachment process is a political, rather than legal, process, and it is up to Congress to define what constitutes "high crimes and misdemeanors", which are grounds for impeachment.
In this case, Trump's conduct may have violated the federal bribery and gratuities law: 18 USC Section 201. This law makes it a felony for any federal "public official" to "corruptly" demand or seek "anything of value" in return for being influenced in their official acts.
Trump's request to Zelenskyy could be considered a "thing of value" under this law, as courts have interpreted this phrase broadly to include intangible benefits. Additionally, there is evidence of a quid pro quo, as the military aid to Ukraine was withheld at least a week before the phone call with Zelenskyy.
While the Justice Department did not find any campaign finance violation, there is a strong case that Trump's actions may have been a breach of public trust and could be considered impeachable.
Did DeSantis Overstep Legal Boundaries?
You may want to see also
Frequently asked questions
Trump was accused of breaking the law by pressuring Ukraine's leader to dig up damaging information on a political rival. However, he was cleared of two charges by a majority of senators at his trial.
Trump was accused of improperly seeking help from Ukraine to boost his chances of re-election. He urged Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, who was working for a Ukrainian energy company.
Trump was impeached on charges of abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress, but was acquitted by the Senate.
To convict Trump, a two-thirds majority was required in the Senate. Given that Trump's party controlled the chamber, a guilty verdict was always unlikely.
