I've been a little surprised at the hostility to Trump I have seen among people I have known for a while. Their level of outrage seems out of proportion to what is actually going on. I took out some time in December to draft some detailed answers to a friend's questions. Maybe you can use my answers with your friends too?
I don’t have a lot of time. So please pardon the limits of
my response. The most important thing to state is that the U.S. Department of
Justice has determined that Trump committed no crime.
Regarding you’re
particular legal theory, I would only point out that it assumes a level of
repression which would violate the First Amendment’s protection of freedom of
speech.
Regarding you questions over Trump’s motivations, it looks
to me like you are following Democrat party talking points and may not be
familiar with the full story. I do not think that things are as bad or as black
and white as you imagine. In many cases, the assumptions behind your questions
have already been debunked. I’ll try to go through them all quickly.
Why did Trump not follow the protocols outlined in the Legal
Assistance Treaty with Ukraine?
I think you are assuming that this treaty controls a
president’s actions. This is just not true. There is nothing in the treaty
which limits a president’s Article II powers.
Why did Trump never mention corruption in either of his
phone calls with Zelensky?
I’m assuming your concern here is based on your
belief that the Biden family was not involved in corruption. As I have stated
earlier, Biden violated the Hobbs Act. Burisma was clearly a corrupt company
and Hunter Biden was on its board.
Why did he wait until Biden had become a front runner to
bring up his concerns about the former vice president?
I don’t think you have
the timeline right here. As I understand it there were concerns about the Biden
family’s corruption long before the phone call with Zelenski.
Why did he only mention the Bidens when there are other
Americans involved in potentially more nefarious activities in Ukraine (Paul
Manafort, Igor Buzyukov to mention just two)?
I double checked. I couldn’t find
anything regarding corruption and these two individuals. Manafort was a
political consultant and Buzyukov was involved in money laundering. I don’t
think this question gets you anywhere.
Why did Trump ignore the DOD report that certified that
Ukraine was adequately addressing corruption and was therefore eligible to
receive the military aid that had been funded by Congress?
Again, you seem to
assume this report was controlling. That was not the case. The report itself
asserted that more investigations into corruption in Ukraine were still needed.
Why did Trump not go through the DOJ, but instead used his
personal lawyer, and even directed Zelensky to talk to him?
My understanding is
that representatives from the government of Ukraine sought out Rudy Guliani
because they felt they were being stonewalled by U.S. and Ukrainian
bureaucrats. It is actually pretty normal for presidents to use alternative
forms of communication and investigation. Historically, there is nothing
nefarious about this element of the story.
Why did Sondland, a big Trump donor, believe that this was a
quid pro quo, and that everyone was in the loop?
Sondland’s testimony was not a
clear cut nor as decisive as you think. At best, it was one man’s opinion. In
other parts of his testimony Sondland makes it clear that Trump did not want a
quid pro quo.
Why did Mulvaney also state that this was a quid pro quo?
As
I recall, Mulvaney walked back that statement indicating it was an error on his
part.
Why ask Zelensky to make a public statement about opening an
investigation into the Bidens?
I don’t understand this either. I don’t recall
Trump asking for this. Trump released the transcripts of the conversation. At
best, this looks like a second-hand report.
Why did Trump wait until after the whistleblower was known
to him and an investigation was imminent to unfreeze the military aid?
This
question has already been debunked. It appears that the release of the funds
was caused by the passage of the budget in the Congress which made delays in
the military aid perfunctory. Trump signed that budget. The decision had
nothing to do with the whistleblower.
Why did Trump fire Ambassador Yovanovitch when she was
highly regarded in addressing corruption in Ukraine?
As I understand it, Yovanovitch
was seen as being too close to George Soros. Her values and behavior were
inconsistent with Trump administration policies. Finally, all ambassadors serve
at the pleasure of the president.
Why does Trump still refuse to release documents?
Trump’s
actions here are pretty standard. Most presidents are reluctant to do this and
seek to preserve their independence from the Congress through exercise of
executive privilege.
Why does Trump still keep people from testifying?
Again,
there is nothing nefarious here either. Defense of executive privilege is a
long-standing tradition. Normally, the Congress would appeal to the courts to
resolve this issue. Congressional Democrats declined to challenge Trump on this
in the courts, most likely because they know the Supreme Court would defend the
president’s prerogatives. For better or
worse, allowing Congress unfettered powers in this arena would undermine the
balance of power between the Congress and the president.
Once again, I am surprised to see the degree to which you
are making a mountain out of a molehill. There was no crime committed. As far
as I can tell, most of your questions are based in what is best referred to as
fake news. They have been debunked by later investigations as was your earlier assertion
that the investigation into Burisma was winding down prior to Joe Biden’s
explicit quid pro quo demand.
John C. Drew, Ph.D. is an award-winning political scientist.
