Trump's Ukraine Call: Legal Or Illegal?

In July 2019, Donald Trump was accused of breaking the law by pressuring Ukraine's leader, Volodymyr Zelensky, to dig up damaging information on his political rival, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter Biden. This was illegal as it constituted soliciting foreign electoral intervention in the 2020 US presidential election.

Trump was impeached in December 2019 on charges of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. However, he was acquitted by the Senate and cleared of both charges.

Abuse of power

On July 25, 2019, US President Donald Trump had a phone call with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy. In the call, Trump pressured Zelenskyy to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter Biden. Trump also requested an investigation into a conspiracy theory involving a Democratic National Committee server.

Trump's request was an attempt to coerce Ukraine into investigating Biden and thus potentially damaging his campaign for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination. Trump enlisted the help of surrogates, including personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr, to pressure Ukraine and legitimize the bogus Biden-Ukraine conspiracy theory.

The phone call was the tipping point for Democrats to open an impeachment inquiry into Trump. Trump was impeached on charges of abusing the power of his office and obstructing Congress. However, he was later acquitted by the Senate.

Trump's phone call with Zelenskyy is a clear example of abuse of power. Here are some ways in which Trump abused his power during this incident:

• Coercion and Pressure: Trump used his position as US President to coerce and pressure Zelenskyy into investigating his political rival, Joe Biden. This was an attempt to damage Biden's campaign for the 2020 Democratic Party presidential nomination.
• Withholding of Military Aid: Trump blocked the release of congressionally-mandated military aid to Ukraine worth 400 million. This was done as a bargaining chip to pressure Ukraine into conducting the investigations.
• Conditioning Aid on Investigations: A senior official testified that Trump made the release of military aid conditional on Biden being investigated. This was a quid pro quo arrangement, where Trump demanded something of value (investigations into his political rival) in exchange for providing aid to Ukraine.
• Involvement of Surrogates: Trump enlisted the help of surrogates, including his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William Barr, to pressure Ukraine into conducting the investigations and legitimizing the conspiracy theory.
• Bypassing Official Channels: Trump circumvented official government channels by instructing State Department officials to work with Giuliani instead. Giuliani was acting as a private citizen and was not an official representative of the US government.
• Endangering National Security: By pressuring Ukraine to investigate his political rival, Trump endangered national security and betrayed his oath of office. This was a serious abuse of power as it put personal political gain above the interests of the nation.
• Cover-up and Obstruction: After the phone call, White House aides attempted to "lock down" records of the call and restrict access to them. This indicates that they understood the gravity of what had transpired and tried to cover it up.
• Disregard for Rules and Laws: Trump disregarded established rules and laws by soliciting foreign interference in a US election. This is against the law and is a serious abuse of power.
• Undermining Democracy: Trump's actions undermined the integrity of the US electoral process and democracy. By pressuring a foreign leader to investigate his political rival, Trump showed a disregard for fair and transparent elections.
• Misuse of Office: Trump misused the power of his office for personal gain. He attempted to use Ukraine as a tool to smear his political rival and gain an advantage in the upcoming election.

In conclusion, Trump's phone call with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy was a clear example of abuse of power. Trump pressured Ukraine to investigate his political rival, used military aid as a bargaining chip, involved surrogates to pressure Ukraine, and attempted to cover up the incident. These actions endangered national security, undermined democracy, and were a blatant misuse of the power of his office.

Obstruction of Congress

Donald Trump was impeached on two charges: abuse of power and the obstruction of Congress. The obstruction of Congress charge relates to Trump's alleged attempts to block the investigation into his conduct during the Ukraine scandal.

The impeachment process began in September 2019, when the House of Representatives started a formal inquiry into Trump's conduct. During the inquiry, Trump was accused of withholding evidence and obstructing witnesses.

In October 2019, the House of Representatives voted to approve guidelines for the next phase of impeachment. Trump's former acting chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, was subpoenaed to testify, but he refused to appear. The White House also blocked key witnesses from testifying, including John Bolton, the former national security advisor.

In addition, the White House refused to comply with subpoenas for documents, including those issued to Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.

In December 2019, the House Intelligence Committee published a report detailing Trump's solicitation of foreign interference in the 2020 U.S. election and his attempts to obstruct the investigation. The report included phone records and text messages that had been acquired via subpoenas.

Despite these alleged obstruction attempts, the impeachment inquiry proceeded, and Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives on December 18, 2019.

Trump was eventually acquitted on both charges by the Senate in February 2020. However, the obstruction of Congress charge highlights his administration's efforts to hinder the investigation and prevent key information from being revealed.

Bribery

While it is unclear whether Trump broke any laws during his phone call with Ukraine's President Volodymyr Zelenskyy, there has been much discussion about whether he committed bribery.

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 maximum sentence for bribery is 15 years.

Some of Trump's defenders argue that there was a quid pro quo but that Trump did not act "corruptly". However, there is evidence of personal gain, no objective evidence of legitimate public purpose, months of furtiveness, secrecy, and consciousness of guilt. Only a handful of political appointees and the President's personal attorney were in on what was happening. Why was the memo of the Trump-Zelenskyy call placed on a hyper-secure "code-word" server? Why were Vindman's corrections to the memo never incorporated? Why was Vindman instructed not to discuss the call? Why does Trump keep falsely insisting that the call memo was "an exact word-for-word transcript...taken by very talented stenographers?"

There is also an easier-to-prove misdemeanour that doesn't require proof of "corrupt" intent. This misdemeanour, often referred to as the "gratuities" provision, includes any official who demands or seeks "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. Justice Anthony Kennedy wrote 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."

Courts have repeatedly found that "intangible" benefits can count as "anything of value". "Thing of value" for the bribery statute is construed very broadly and can include intangibles such as offers of employment, promises of future contracts, sexual favours, and personal services.

Was Trump's conduct bribery?

There is a solid basis for the DOJ to investigate these actions as potential bribery violations. However, this would probably require the appointment of a new special counsel, and it is questionable whether this will happen with Bill Barr as Attorney General.

Stuart Gerson, a former acting United States Attorney General, believes in the institution and the quality of the career people in the DOJ. He disagrees with the department's interpretation of the campaign finance law in this case and took issue with Barr's characterisation of the Mueller report.

The DOJ's silence in the face of mounting evidence of Presidential criminality does raise the possibility that the department has quietly decided that a sitting President is not merely immune from prosecution during their term but also immune from all criminal investigation. This contention has been widely criticised as radically at odds with the nation's history and constitutional consensus.

Campaign finance laws

While it was determined that no laws were broken during the phone call between Donald Trump and Volodymyr Zelensky, campaign finance lawyers and members of Congress believed that Trump's request to investigate Joe Biden and his family broke campaign finance laws.

The Department of Justice (DOJ) and the Federal Election Commission (FEC) disagreed, concluding that there was no campaign finance violation. The DOJ's criminal division determined that the information gathered did not amount to a criminal violation of campaign finance law because nothing "`thing of value`" was clearly promised or exchanged as a result of the call.

However, Brendan Fischer, an attorney with the Campaign Legal Center, disagreed with the DOJ's conclusion. Fischer stated that there is a long list of examples where the FEC has found that "intangible items like opposition research can constitute a thing of value for purposes of campaign finance law." Ellen Weintraub, the chair of the FEC, also tweeted that the Commission has recognised the "broad scope" of the foreign national contribution prohibition, and that even when the value of a good or service "may be nominal or difficult to ascertain," such contributions are banned.

The question of whether intangibles such as opposition research constitute a "thing of value" is considered by former FEC senior counsel Dan Weiner to be "fairly well-settled." He emphasised the importance of getting the FEC involved in interpreting and administering federal campaign finance law. However, the FEC lacked a quorum at the time and could not take up any new investigations.

Despite the DOJ's determination, some still believed that Trump's conduct raised larger issues beyond potential campaign finance violations. Fischer and Weiner agreed that the fact that the president appeared to use the power of his office for personal political gain was a matter of immense concern, regardless of whether campaign finance laws were implicated. They argued that the president's actions could be seen as an extraordinary abuse of power, warranting investigation by Congress.

Soliciting foreign electoral intervention

During a phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy on July 25, 2019, President Donald Trump solicited foreign electoral intervention by asking Zelenskyy to investigate his political rival, Joe Biden, and his son, Hunter Biden. Trump also requested an investigation into a conspiracy theory involving a Democratic National Committee server.

The call record revealed that Trump had asked a foreign government to investigate his political opponent, which is prohibited by federal law. This request was particularly alarming to the whistleblower, who filed an official complaint, risking their personal safety and career.

Trump's solicitation of Zelenskyy constituted an abuse of power and likely a crime. It was not an isolated incident, as Trump had previously asked Russia to find Hillary Clinton's "missing" emails during the 2016 election. Despite the Mueller Report and statements from the chair of the Federal Election Commission clarifying that accepting or soliciting foreign interference in elections is illegal, Trump continued to solicit foreign interference.

Trump's actions towards Ukraine constitute "high crimes and misdemeanors," one of the grounds for impeachment under the Constitution. While the Ukraine call may not have broken any specific laws, it revealed an impeachable abuse of power and violation of his oath of office.

Trump's defenders argued that his actions did not warrant impeachment or removal from office. However, his use of presidential power to persuade a foreign government to investigate a political rival is an impeachable abuse of office.

Frequently asked questions