With the Impeachment investigation finally authorized by the House, it seems an appropriate time to take a look at the actual (not the imaginary) law that deals with the subject. So much has been said and written that is just plain WRONG that we need to look at the basics. Two areas are where we will start:
1. When is an investigation by federal law enforcement appropriate?
2. Is there evidence of any criminal action by President Trump?
Investigation -- the rules are rather clear as to when it is appropriate to investigate a claim. There needs to be some evidence of wrongdoing before a full investigation is done. That evidence can consist of physical items or it can be a witness statement, but an investigation only continues for so long as there is clear evidence of wrongdoing.
If there is an explosion in which a car blows up outside a school, there needs to be an investigation. Cars don't normally explode, so there's clear physical evidence that there could have been a bomb planted in the car. If the forensic review finds traces of some sort of bomb materials, then that is enough to continue with the review. On the other hand, if the forensic review finds that the gas tank of the car was punctured by some accidental means, then a criminal investigation need not continue as there is no longer any evidence of a crime.
If a man is found shot to death in the park, then there needs to be a criminal investigation due to the evidence (the body). If a man runs up to a cop in the park and says someone just shot at him, then there needs to be an investigation due to the evidence (the statement). On the other hand, if the same man runs up to the same cop and says that a passerby just shot him and killed him, then there's no need for an investigation because the evidence (the statement) is obviously false.
The point is that a mere charge is not enough for there to be an investigation if there is no evidence or if there is obviously erroneous evidence only to support that charge. It doesn't matter how serious the charge, the basic rules are the same: there has to be valid evidence of some sort to conduct an investigation.
Evidence -- Given that the House has authorized an investigation for possible impeachment, is there any evidence of criminal action by President Trump? Initially, there was the complaint filed by the so called whistle blower. There are all sorts of issues about the sufficiency of what is in that complaint (like political bias of the whistle blower, or his coordination/collaboration with Adam Schiff and the Democrats in compiling the complaint), but that complaint did include a claim that President Trump repeatedly threatened the Ukrainian president with a cut off of US aid unless Ukraine dug up dirt on Joe Biden. That's enough of a basis to start an investigation since the complaint says that the President was asking Ukraine to find a particular result that would hurt Biden. Within a few days of the whole mess surfacing in the media, however, the White House released the transcript of the actual conversation between Trump and the Ukrainian president. The transcript then becomes the best evidence of what was said in the call. Indeed, since the whistle blower never heard the phone call, his testimony cannot contradict the actual official transcript. The transcript shows that Trump did not threaten to cut of US aid to Ukraine. In fact, Trump never mentioned US aid to Ukraine. Also, Trump never asked Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden. He asked Ukraine to help the US investgate the Ukrainian connection, if any, to the hacking of the Democrats computers in 2016 and mentioned Biden in that context. At most, the transcript could be twisted to say that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden, but not that Trump asked Ukraine to come to any particular result (i.e., to dig up dirt on Biden.)
The transcript has been supplemented by statements from the Ukrainian president himself in which he says that he was never threatened, pressured or blackmailed by Trump with regard to Biden or anything else.
At this point, there is no longer any valid evidence of any wrongdoing by Trump in the phone call with the Ukrainian. The transcript disproves the claims made by the whistle blower. The investigation should have ended (or not started).
But some of the proponents of impeachment say that there was a plan at the White House to hold military aid to Ukraine until such time that the Ukrainians announce an investigation of Biden that would help Trump. Even if Trump didn't say anything to the Ukrainians on that phone call, it didn't matter because the Ukrainians understood from the context that this was what Trump wanted. It's what the Democrats called the "mob boss" behavior" by Trump. This thesis also has no valid evidence since there is no evidence of the Ukrainians being told that military aid was being delayed for any reason connected to investigating Biden. We know Trump didn't say that. Even the witnesses called by the Democrats in their secret (and improper) sessions until now haven't said that anyone told the Ukrainians that they had to investigate Biden to get military aid released. On top of this, we know that the aid was released to Ukraine before word of the whistle blower's complaint ever was leaked by the Democrats. It's pretty obvious that there was no plan to hold aid to wait for Ukraine to announce an investigation since it just wasn't done. There's no evidence.
This still leaves one more part to the question. Suppose there was some evidence. Is there anything wrong with the President of the United States asking Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden? The simple answer here too is NO. Remember the context. Joe Biden was the vice president and was put in charge of dealing with Ukraine by then president Obama. Biden is on video proudly announcing how he threatened the then president of Ukraine with withholding all American military aid to Ukraine unless Ukraine fired the State Prosecutor. That's the prosecutor who just happened to be investigating Burisma, the Ukrainian natural gas company on which Joe's son Hunter Biden sat on the board of directors. Think about that for a moment and savor the irony. Biden announces that he has actually threatened the Ukrainians with the withholding of aid unless they fire a prosecutor and the Democrats and media see nothing wrong with that. Trump is shown by the transcript NOT to have threatened the Ukrainians with the withholding of aid (or even told them that aid had been held up) and the Democrats call it a threat to the Constitution. Biden did it; Trump did not, but only Trump is bad according to the Democrats.
But let's go back to the basic question. Would it be wrong for Trump to ask the Ukrainians to investigate what Biden did in threatening to withhold aid in order to get the Burisma prosecutor fired? The answer is clearly no. There are conflicting claims about exactly what the fired prosecutor was doing. He may have been in the middle of investigating Burisma. He may only have told Burisma that an investigation was about to start. Some claim that the prosecutor had already finished his investigation and cleared Burisma. The Ukrainians are the ones who would know that for certain. If Biden used the full force of the US government to force Ukraine to protect his son's company, that is classic and illegal self dealing. On the other hand, if Biden was actually trying to promote fighting corruption in Ukraine, then that is fine. If Biden had a valid governmental purpose for what he did (fighting corruption) then he's in the clear. We have Biden's own words as evidence of what he did; we now need more to know if it was a valid action by the Veep. But this very test insulates Trump from the claims of the Democrats. Trump clearly had a valid purpose even if he had asked Ukraine to investigate Biden. Remember, there is ample evidence (Biden's own statement) that Biden may have engaged in illegal self dealing. The President, as the chief law enforcement officer of the USA has a valid governmental purpose in asking Ukraine to help in that investigation. Note that the transcript makes clear that Trump did not ask for a particular outcome from the investigation. Had Trump asked Ukraine to "dig up dirt" on Biden by finding him guilty of wrongdoing, that would be an improper act by Trump -- but we know that didn't happen.
Given that Trump had a valid governmental purpose for even the actions that the Democrats claim happened, he cannot have committed a crime. That means no basis for impeachment and no reason for an investigation.
A few of the more imaginative Dems are yelling that Trump intended to investigate Biden so that it would help him in 2020's election. That, however, doesn't matter. Trump's actions were either illegal or they weren't. His reasoning is irrelevant. Trump had a valid basis to ask Ukraine to investigate. That's all that matters. Think of it this way: suppose the president nominates someone as ambassador to the UK because that nominee is very important in some state that the president wants to carry in the next election. The president is nominating an ambassador; that's fine, and the fact that the nomination will help him politically doesn't matter.
Simply put, there is no crime by Trump even if all that the Democrats claim actually happened. On top of this, there is controlling evidence that what they claim is wrong; it actually never happened.
Keep this in mind as the impeachment games continue.
1. When is an investigation by federal law enforcement appropriate?
2. Is there evidence of any criminal action by President Trump?
Investigation -- the rules are rather clear as to when it is appropriate to investigate a claim. There needs to be some evidence of wrongdoing before a full investigation is done. That evidence can consist of physical items or it can be a witness statement, but an investigation only continues for so long as there is clear evidence of wrongdoing.
If there is an explosion in which a car blows up outside a school, there needs to be an investigation. Cars don't normally explode, so there's clear physical evidence that there could have been a bomb planted in the car. If the forensic review finds traces of some sort of bomb materials, then that is enough to continue with the review. On the other hand, if the forensic review finds that the gas tank of the car was punctured by some accidental means, then a criminal investigation need not continue as there is no longer any evidence of a crime.
If a man is found shot to death in the park, then there needs to be a criminal investigation due to the evidence (the body). If a man runs up to a cop in the park and says someone just shot at him, then there needs to be an investigation due to the evidence (the statement). On the other hand, if the same man runs up to the same cop and says that a passerby just shot him and killed him, then there's no need for an investigation because the evidence (the statement) is obviously false.
The point is that a mere charge is not enough for there to be an investigation if there is no evidence or if there is obviously erroneous evidence only to support that charge. It doesn't matter how serious the charge, the basic rules are the same: there has to be valid evidence of some sort to conduct an investigation.
Evidence -- Given that the House has authorized an investigation for possible impeachment, is there any evidence of criminal action by President Trump? Initially, there was the complaint filed by the so called whistle blower. There are all sorts of issues about the sufficiency of what is in that complaint (like political bias of the whistle blower, or his coordination/collaboration with Adam Schiff and the Democrats in compiling the complaint), but that complaint did include a claim that President Trump repeatedly threatened the Ukrainian president with a cut off of US aid unless Ukraine dug up dirt on Joe Biden. That's enough of a basis to start an investigation since the complaint says that the President was asking Ukraine to find a particular result that would hurt Biden. Within a few days of the whole mess surfacing in the media, however, the White House released the transcript of the actual conversation between Trump and the Ukrainian president. The transcript then becomes the best evidence of what was said in the call. Indeed, since the whistle blower never heard the phone call, his testimony cannot contradict the actual official transcript. The transcript shows that Trump did not threaten to cut of US aid to Ukraine. In fact, Trump never mentioned US aid to Ukraine. Also, Trump never asked Ukraine to dig up dirt on Biden. He asked Ukraine to help the US investgate the Ukrainian connection, if any, to the hacking of the Democrats computers in 2016 and mentioned Biden in that context. At most, the transcript could be twisted to say that Trump asked Ukraine to investigate Biden, but not that Trump asked Ukraine to come to any particular result (i.e., to dig up dirt on Biden.)
The transcript has been supplemented by statements from the Ukrainian president himself in which he says that he was never threatened, pressured or blackmailed by Trump with regard to Biden or anything else.
At this point, there is no longer any valid evidence of any wrongdoing by Trump in the phone call with the Ukrainian. The transcript disproves the claims made by the whistle blower. The investigation should have ended (or not started).
But some of the proponents of impeachment say that there was a plan at the White House to hold military aid to Ukraine until such time that the Ukrainians announce an investigation of Biden that would help Trump. Even if Trump didn't say anything to the Ukrainians on that phone call, it didn't matter because the Ukrainians understood from the context that this was what Trump wanted. It's what the Democrats called the "mob boss" behavior" by Trump. This thesis also has no valid evidence since there is no evidence of the Ukrainians being told that military aid was being delayed for any reason connected to investigating Biden. We know Trump didn't say that. Even the witnesses called by the Democrats in their secret (and improper) sessions until now haven't said that anyone told the Ukrainians that they had to investigate Biden to get military aid released. On top of this, we know that the aid was released to Ukraine before word of the whistle blower's complaint ever was leaked by the Democrats. It's pretty obvious that there was no plan to hold aid to wait for Ukraine to announce an investigation since it just wasn't done. There's no evidence.
This still leaves one more part to the question. Suppose there was some evidence. Is there anything wrong with the President of the United States asking Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden? The simple answer here too is NO. Remember the context. Joe Biden was the vice president and was put in charge of dealing with Ukraine by then president Obama. Biden is on video proudly announcing how he threatened the then president of Ukraine with withholding all American military aid to Ukraine unless Ukraine fired the State Prosecutor. That's the prosecutor who just happened to be investigating Burisma, the Ukrainian natural gas company on which Joe's son Hunter Biden sat on the board of directors. Think about that for a moment and savor the irony. Biden announces that he has actually threatened the Ukrainians with the withholding of aid unless they fire a prosecutor and the Democrats and media see nothing wrong with that. Trump is shown by the transcript NOT to have threatened the Ukrainians with the withholding of aid (or even told them that aid had been held up) and the Democrats call it a threat to the Constitution. Biden did it; Trump did not, but only Trump is bad according to the Democrats.
But let's go back to the basic question. Would it be wrong for Trump to ask the Ukrainians to investigate what Biden did in threatening to withhold aid in order to get the Burisma prosecutor fired? The answer is clearly no. There are conflicting claims about exactly what the fired prosecutor was doing. He may have been in the middle of investigating Burisma. He may only have told Burisma that an investigation was about to start. Some claim that the prosecutor had already finished his investigation and cleared Burisma. The Ukrainians are the ones who would know that for certain. If Biden used the full force of the US government to force Ukraine to protect his son's company, that is classic and illegal self dealing. On the other hand, if Biden was actually trying to promote fighting corruption in Ukraine, then that is fine. If Biden had a valid governmental purpose for what he did (fighting corruption) then he's in the clear. We have Biden's own words as evidence of what he did; we now need more to know if it was a valid action by the Veep. But this very test insulates Trump from the claims of the Democrats. Trump clearly had a valid purpose even if he had asked Ukraine to investigate Biden. Remember, there is ample evidence (Biden's own statement) that Biden may have engaged in illegal self dealing. The President, as the chief law enforcement officer of the USA has a valid governmental purpose in asking Ukraine to help in that investigation. Note that the transcript makes clear that Trump did not ask for a particular outcome from the investigation. Had Trump asked Ukraine to "dig up dirt" on Biden by finding him guilty of wrongdoing, that would be an improper act by Trump -- but we know that didn't happen.
Given that Trump had a valid governmental purpose for even the actions that the Democrats claim happened, he cannot have committed a crime. That means no basis for impeachment and no reason for an investigation.
A few of the more imaginative Dems are yelling that Trump intended to investigate Biden so that it would help him in 2020's election. That, however, doesn't matter. Trump's actions were either illegal or they weren't. His reasoning is irrelevant. Trump had a valid basis to ask Ukraine to investigate. That's all that matters. Think of it this way: suppose the president nominates someone as ambassador to the UK because that nominee is very important in some state that the president wants to carry in the next election. The president is nominating an ambassador; that's fine, and the fact that the nomination will help him politically doesn't matter.
Simply put, there is no crime by Trump even if all that the Democrats claim actually happened. On top of this, there is controlling evidence that what they claim is wrong; it actually never happened.
Keep this in mind as the impeachment games continue.
No comments:
Post a Comment