Trump's Call To Ukraine: Legal Or Not?

On July 25, 2019, US President Donald Trump called Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The call led to Trump's impeachment on charges of abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress. Trump was accused of breaking the law by pressuring Zelenskyy to dig up damaging information on Joe Biden, a political rival and frontrunner to take on Trump in the 2020 presidential election.

The whistleblower complaint, filed on August 12, 2019, alleged that Trump abused the powers of his office for personal gain and put national security in danger. It also stated that White House officials tried to cover up the call by limiting access to the records.

Trump was impeached by Congress but was later acquitted by the Senate. He denied all wrongdoing and claimed that the call was totally appropriate.

Trump's call with Ukraine's President may have stalled funds apportioned by Congress to support Ukraine's military

On 25 July 2019, US President Donald Trump called Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. The call was made shortly after Trump blocked the release of $391 million in military aid to Ukraine. A senior official later testified that the release of this aid was conditional on an investigation into Joe Biden, a frontrunner to take on Trump in the 2020 election.

The whistleblower complaint, filed on 12 August 2019, alleged that Trump had abused the powers of his office for personal gain and put national security in danger. The complaint also stated that White House officials had tried to limit access to the record of the call.

The rough transcript of the call revealed that Trump had urged Zelenskyy to investigate Biden and his son, Hunter Biden. Trump also requested an investigation into a conspiracy theory involving a Democratic National Committee server.

Trump was impeached on charges of abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress. However, he was acquitted by the Senate.

The controversy surrounding the call raises the question of whether Trump's actions stalled funds apportioned by Congress to support Ukraine's military. While there is no clear law on the matter, Trump's actions may have violated campaign finance laws. If the investigation found that Trump abused his position to gain a competitive advantage over his rival in the election, it would amount to soliciting a valuable contribution to his campaign from a foreign entity, which is prohibited.

The evidence suggests that Trump's call with Zelenskyy may have stalled funds apportioned by Congress to support Ukraine's military. The timing of the call, just after Trump blocked military aid to Ukraine, and the content of the call, including Trump's request for investigations into the Bidens, indicate a possible connection.

Trump's defenders, mostly Republicans, argue that his actions do not warrant impeachment or removal from office. On the other hand, Democrats believe that Trump's use of his office to persuade a foreign government to help him attack a political rival is an impeachable abuse of power.

The interpretation of Trump's actions and the evidence surrounding the call is divided along political lines, with no clear consensus on whether the stalled funds were a direct result of the call.

The call was an attempt to investigate the family of a political rival, former vice president and presidential candidate Joe Biden

The call between former US President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on 25 July 2019 was an attempt to investigate the family of a political rival, former vice president and presidential candidate Joe Biden.

In the call, Trump pressured Zelenskyy to investigate Biden and his son, Hunter Biden, who was working for a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma Holdings. Trump believed that Biden had abused his power to pressure Ukraine to back away from a criminal investigation that could implicate his son. However, these allegations were widely discredited, and there was no evidence that Biden took any action to benefit his son or of any wrongdoing by Hunter Biden.

The call came shortly after Trump blocked the release of military aid to Ukraine, leading to speculation that he was using the aid as a bargaining chip to pressure Zelenskyy into investigating Biden. Trump denied this, stating that the aid was withheld due to corruption in Ukraine and a lack of contributions from other European nations.

The call sparked controversy and led to Trump's impeachment on charges of abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress. However, he was later acquitted by the Senate.

The investigation into the call and the subsequent impeachment proceedings revealed Trump's attempts to enlist surrogates within and outside his administration, including his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr, to pressure Ukraine and other governments to cooperate in legitimizing conspiracy theories about Biden and Ukraine.

The call and its aftermath highlighted the complex dynamics between the two countries and raised questions about the legality and ethics of a president's actions in seeking foreign assistance for their political campaigns.

Trump's actions may amount to soliciting a valuable contribution to his campaign from a foreign entity, which is forbidden by campaign finance laws

In July 2019, Trump called the newly elected Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelenskyy, and urged him to investigate Joe Biden, a frontrunner for the Democratic nomination in the 2020 election, as well as Biden's son, Hunter. This was an attempt to coerce Ukraine into investigating his political rival and potentially damaging Biden's campaign.

Trump's request for a "favor" from Zelenskyy and his offer to have Zelenskyy work with his personal lawyer and the US Attorney General to investigate Biden can be seen as a direct solicitation of valuable assistance for his reelection efforts. The investigation of a political opponent by a foreign government would be considered a "thing of value" in the campaign finance world, as it could provide damaging information that would be beneficial to Trump's campaign.

The Federal Election Commission (FEC) has held that intangible items like opposition research can be considered things of value. Additionally, the Special Counsel Mueller noted that:

> "A foreign entity that engaged in such research and provided resulting information to a campaign could exert a greater effect on an election, and a greater tendency to ingratiate the donor to the candidate, than a gift of money or tangible things of value."

Trump's actions may also fall under the category of "high crimes and misdemeanors," which is one of the reasons for Congress to impeach a president. While this category is independent of criminal law, it is still a valid reason for impeachment if there is enough political will and sufficient votes in the House and Senate.

The interpretation of Trump's actions and whether they broke campaign finance laws is a matter of debate and will depend on how lawmakers interpret the term "value" in this context.

Trump's actions were an abuse of presidential power for personal and campaign use

In July 2019, Trump urged Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy to investigate Joe Biden, a frontrunner in the 2020 presidential election, and his son, Hunter Biden. This was an attempt to coerce Ukraine into investigating his political rival and thus potentially damage Biden's campaign. Trump's actions were not only an abuse of power but also illegal, as it is against the law to ask foreign entities for help in winning a US election.

Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and Attorney General William Barr were enlisted to pressure Ukraine and other governments to cooperate in supporting and legitimizing the bogus Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory and other conspiracy theories concerning US politics. Trump blocked the payment of a congressionally-mandated $400 million military aid package to Ukraine, in an attempt to obtain quid pro quo cooperation from President Zelenskyy.

Trump's actions were also an abuse of power because he was acting outside the internal executive guidelines. The ordinary way is to go through the Department of Justice, but in this case, Trump authorized a private individual, Rudy Giuliani, to run a private or personal investigation outside any government accountability.

Trump's actions constituted an impeachable abuse of office, and he was impeached on charges of abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress. However, he was acquitted by the Senate.

Trump's actions were an impeachable abuse of office

The US Constitution allows for three reasons for Congress to impeach the president: treason, bribery, and high crimes and misdemeanours. While the first two are self-explanatory, the third is more ambiguous, and it is under this category that Trump's actions fall.

Trump enlisted the help of another country in his campaign for a second term. There is plenty of evidence for this: investigators have records of the phone call, Trump's own admission, and the admission of his private attorney, Rudy Giuliani.

Trump pressured the Ukrainian president to investigate the family of a political rival, former vice president and current presidential candidate Joe Biden. The president may have even stalled funds apportioned by Congress to support Ukraine's military to increase that pressure. This is forbidden by campaign finance laws. In order to be a criminal violation, a contribution needs to be more than $2,000. But for it to be a civil violation, any amount will do.

Trump's actions were an abuse of presidential power for personal and campaign use. He used military aid in his negotiation, leveraging not his personal fortune, but taxpayer money as a bargaining chip to pressure Ukraine's president. Since the American government had voted to give the money to Ukraine, Trump withholding it to solicit information that would benefit himself strengthens the argument of the abuse of power, adding another layer of misconduct.

Trump's defenders, nearly all Republicans, don't deny his actions. Instead, they argue that the offense is not offensive enough to warrant impeachment or removal from office. Democrats are united on the other side, believing that Trump using his office to persuade a foreign government to help him attack a political rival is an impeachable abuse of office.

The whole process would be a lot easier on Democrats if they didn't have to rely on perceptions of wrongdoing but instead on the letter of the law. But there is no clear law on the matter. The answer to whether or not Trump broke a law will come down to how lawmakers interpret campaign finance laws. If they don't think a law was broken, Trump could still be impeached. But only if lawmakers think the offense rises to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanours".

Frequently asked questions