There has been so much information gathered regarding Trump’s abuse of power that sometime it’s hard to see the forest for the trees. But it is critically important to keep things simple and clear. Let’s review the facts.
1. The Main Piece of Evidence:
Trump is on record as having said to the Ukraine president, when asked about the promised military aid, “I would like you to do us a favor though” and went on to mention his desire to have the Biden’s investigated. This is not hearsay, this is not surmise, this is from the horse’s mouth.
Republicans say that Trump did not say that the investigations were a condition to getting the aid. How disingenuous. If someone asks you for something, and you respond by asking them for a favor, it is understood that getting what they want is conditional on the favor being granted. Especially in this case since, contrary to the White House’ early assertions, the Ukraine government was aware that the military aid had been put on hold prior to the telephone call.
Republicans further say that the aid was ultimately provided without Ukraine investigating. Yes, but the aid was released after Trump was informed of the whistleblower complaint and in response to bipartisan pressure from Congress. So the fact that the aid was provided without the investigations taking place is not an exculpatory event.
2. The Supporting Evidence:
There is ample evidence, both from career diplomats and from Trump appointees, that it was common knowledge that the Ukraine’s getting the aid and having a meeting with Trump were conditioned on them investigating the Biden’s. Not just investigating them, but publicly stating that they were investigating them for corruption.
3. The Legal Justification:
Even Prof. Jonathan Turley, the Republican-requested expert, stated in his testimony that “the use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense.” It is not surprising then that he also stated that the July 25 call was “anything but perfect” and that Congress has a legitimate reason to scrutinize it.
Thus, given that we have direct evidence in the July 25 call that Trump pushed the Biden investigation and that he positioned it as a favor he was requesting in response to the inquiry regarding the withheld military aid, given all the supporting evidence that it was commonly felt that the aid and the investigations were connected, and given that the legal scholars agreed that, if proven, such abuse of power would constitute an impeachable offense, there is no reason not to proceed with impeachment articles.
Not to be forgotten, however, is Trump’s obstruction of justice. Not only did he attempt to prohibit any Federal employee from testifying before the House Intelligence committee, although a number did so regardless. But there is clear evidence from the Mueller report that he attempted to obstruct the Mueller investigation in numerous ways. The House has unfortunately determined not to go there and limit it’s obstruction charge to obstructing the House in its legitimate investigation.
Last week’s testimony by legal scholars regarding whether the crimes Trump is accused of warrant impeachment and whether sufficient evidence has been gathered left the media at least pondering whether Democrats should wait, should pursue enforcement of subpoenas in the courts, in order to obtain evidence from key players whom Trump has forbidden to testify.
While it would be great to have that testimony, there is no time to pursue a lengthy court process to obtain it given that we are only a year away from the next presidential election. By the time all the appeals would be over, the election would have occurred. And one must remember, the only reason why that testimony has not been available is because Trump has forbidden it. It has in most cases been requested by House Democrats.
Trump has clearly abused the power of his office and for the sake of our democracy must be impeached. That the Senate will acquit is a foregone conclusion, but because it is a foregone conclusion, the fact will have little resonance with the public beyond his fervent base.
