Time to Chill - Nothing is as Black and White as You Suppose: Note to a Friend Regarding the Trump Impeachment

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.