January 30, 2020
More than likely the impeachment trial of President Trump will be over shortly. President Trump’s attorneys made many compelling arguments for why he should be acquitted.
The President’s Counsels’ Most Compelling Argument
One of the most persuasive points made by Trump’s legal team is their rebuttal to the Democrat House Managers’ claim that Trump should be impeached for Abuse of Power. Trump’s attorneys have countered, that using Abuse of Power as a reason for impeachment is so vague and so malleable, it is a substitute for disputing a policy difference. In other words if we don’t like your policy we attribute to you a corrupt motive, and accuse you of Abuse of Power. This would set a dangerous precedent for every future president presiding with a Congress of the opposing party.
Moreover, if Abuse of Power was the standard almost every past president would have been impeached, even George Washington and Abraham Lincoln, who both were accused of abusing their power during their tenures as president.
“Nearly any controversial act by a chief executive could be considered an Abuse of Power.”- Alan Dershowitz
If this was the standard when our last president was in office, Barack Obama could have been impeached many times over. Obama indisputably abused his power to advantage his re-election campaign. In 2012 at a Nuclear Security Summit President Obama was caught on a hot mic telling then Russian President Dimitri Medvedev that it would be better for his presidential campaign if he dealt with missile defense issues after the presidential election, stating, “This is my last election. After my election I have more flexibility.”
Mixed Motive
Alan Dershowitz explained the difference between “motive” and intent”. Clearly, it was President Trump’s intent to briefly pause aid to Ukraine. It is his “motive” that is in dispute -Democrat House Managers claim that Trump’s motive was corrupt.
At the core of the Democrats’ impeachment case is their claim that Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine to force President Zelensky, the President of Ukraine, to look into Ukranian interference in the 2016 presidential election; and to “dig up dirt” on his political opponent, former Vice President Joe Biden to advantage his 2020 re-election.
One problem with the Democrats’ claim is that Trump did not ask Zelensky to conduct an open-ended fishing expedition into Joe Biden. He asked Zelensky to look into the possible corruption of then Vice President Biden regarding his threat to withhold a billion dollars in U.S. loan guarantees to Ukraine if they did not fire Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor investigating his son, Hunter Biden’s employer- Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings. Both Burisma and its founder oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky have been flanked with numerous accusations of tax evasion and money laundering.
According to a July 2019 article in the Washington Post Shokin believed that his ouster was a result of his interest with Burisma. Further, he claimed that if he had remained in his position he would have questioned Hunter Biden.
It is undeniable that Hunter Biden was hired and paid millions by Burisma ONLY because his father, the then Vice President of the United States was point man, under the Obama administration, to Ukraine. Hunter Biden had no experience in the energy sector, nor did he speak the language. Yet, he was asked to join the board of Burisma shortly after his father was appointed to make decisions regarding Ukraine on behalf of the U.S. In an interview with Good Morning America Hunter Biden even admitted that he probably would not have been asked to sit on the board of Burisma if his father was not the Vice President of the United States.
Was Burisma buying Joe Biden’s influence through his son? According to Devin Nunes (R-CA) ranking member of the House Intelligence Committee, Joe Biden called then Ukrainian President Poroshenko at least three times in February 2016 right after the president of Burisma’s home was raided by the Ukrainian state prosecutor’s office.
What did Hunter do to earn $83,000 a month? During the five years that he was employed by Burisma he attended one board meeting in Monaco, and went on a fishing trip in Norway. How does this sound legitimate to anyone?
The stepson to John Kerry, (then Secretary of State), Chris Heinz, who was a business associate of Hunter’s, was so concerned when Hunter and another associate, Devon Archer joined the Burisma board he emailed a senior State Department official, with the subject “Ukraine” -warning about Hunter Biden. Heinz wrote “Apparently Hunter and Devon joined the board of Burisma..I cant speak to why they wanted to…” Heinz added that he subsequently terminated his business relationship with Archer and Biden because “working with Burisma is unacceptable and showed a lack of judgment.”
Obama’s State Department also knew there was a potential problem with Hunter Biden and Ukraine. When the former ambassador to Ukraine, Marie Yovanovitch, was preparing for her confirmation, State Department officials prepared her to answer questions about the Bidens and Burisma. Further, then State Department official Amos Hochstein raised the issue of a potential conflict of interest to Joe Biden, as did George Kent- Deputy Assistant for European Affairs.
Obama’s State Department officials, Deputy Assistant for European Affairs, the U.K. Serious Fraud office, Ukrainian law enforcement officials, former business associate Chris Heinz, along with numerous media outlets, all raised concerns about the Bidens’ affairs in Ukraine.
No investigations have ever been conducted into the Bidens and what occurred in Ukraine. Contrary to the House Managers, there is a legitimate public interest in both of the matters that Trump raised on the July 25th phone call -the Biden Burisma dealings and Ukrainian interference in the 2016 presidential election. This fact destroys the House Democrats’ claim that Trump had a corrupt motive when he asked Ukraine to investigate the Bidens’ role with Burisma. It’s irrelevant that it may also have benefited his re-election campaign. Further no honest person can deny that every president operates with mixed motives and concern for his next election.
Further, short of reading the president’s mind there is no way to know if Trump wouldn’t have made this same request of Zelensky if Biden wasn’t his political rival.
Trump’s Actions were Legal and Constitutional
No one disputes that a president has the legal and constitutional authority to both pause aid to a foreign country and to request an investigation into corruption. The issue in contention is whether President Trump did so, in the words of Democrat House Mangers, for “corrupt purposes”.
This standard would allow someone to take any conduct, that on its face is permissible, but because of a disagreement with that conduct, to attribute a bad motive. This would be a very dangerous standard which would require reading a president’s mind and psychoanalyzing his motives.
“With their theory you can take action that on its face is objectively permissible under the powers of the president, and determine that it’s going be treated as impeachable and impermissible solely on an inquiry with subjective motive. This is infinitely malleable.”
Patrick Philbin, Counsel for President Trump
