Campaigns may not solicit or accept contributions from foreign nationals. Federal law prohibits contributions, donations, expenditures and disbursements solicited, directed,
received or made directly or indirectly by or from foreign nationals in
connection with any election — federal, state or local.
President Donald Trump tried to bully the president of Ukraine into publicly announcing that his government would begin an investigation into corruption that would implicate -- by name, but without any evidence of criminal wrong-doing -- Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden, thereby providing a personal political benefit to Trump. Actually conducting such an investigation was not important to Trump; he wanted only the announcement. The evidence presented to the House of Representatives impeachment investigation has made this clear.
The evidence is bipartisan -- some of the most convincing came from Trump's own political appointee, the ambassador to the European Union -- as well as professional and non-partisan, having been provided by career State Department officers. The White House transcript of the key phone call between Trump and Ukraine president Zelensky that prompted the whistle-blower's complaint establishes Trump's intent in the conversation to be as venal as that of a mob boss intent on the shakedown of a hapless target.
The introductory text that appears above my writing is provided by the Federal Election Commission. Since foreign time, money and effort would be needed to make the public announcement, Trump's demand for such an undertaking was a solicitation for "contribution, donations, expenditures and disbursements" on his personal political behalf.
Any other candidate for an elected office in the United States would be indicted for breaking the law. (If Joe Biden, or other Democratic candidate for president had done something to violate the Federal elections code, that person would no longer be a candidate; the Democratic Party would not accept such a candidacy. If you don't believe me, go ask.) Since the Justice Department is now maintaining that a sitting president cannot be indicted, the only remedy left is impeachment.
And, yes, impeachment is political. The Constitution sets forth impeachment in sparse wording. Gerald Ford described it this way: "Grounds for impeachment are whatever the House decides they are."
The Constitution's authors needed the use of only a few words to describe impeachment because they were already familiar with it. England's Parliament created impeachment in the 1370s, more than four hundred years prior to the writing of the Constitution. (The Constitution's authors were Englishmen before they were Americans; they knew much about English governance.) Parliament had used impeachment multiple times during the ensuing centuries; one was underway at the time of the constitutional convention.
Impeachment was originally intended for misdeeds in international affairs and for actions that compromised the national interest in pursuit of personal gain. This is how it had been used in England; it was with this knowledge that impeachment was included in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution's phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not an American invention; it was first used by Parliament in 1386 for the intent described above. That was the context in which it was included in the Constitution.
In the current case, what U.S. national interest would be served by Trump's shakedown of Ukraine's president? Since no evidence of criminal activity on the part of Joe Biden or his son Hunter has ever been presented, then the answer to that question has to be -- None.
Then, who would benefit? Aside from Trump, connecting the dots leads in only one direction: To Russia and its president Vladimir Putin.
Russia covets Ukraine for economic, geopolitical and historical reasons. Putin covets the wealth and power that comes from maintaining his grip on the Kremlin. A weakened Ukrainian leadership is unable to offer much resistance to Putin's no longer concealed support and encouragement for the armed insurrection in the part of that nation that borders Russia. As the results of that insurrection appear to draw those areas closer to Russia, Putin's popularity within Russia will be supported.
Add to this the fact that Putin has declared Russia's hostility to the United States, and to our American values of democracy, equal civil rights, the market-place economy, freedom of expression and independence of thought and belief, and we are left with a sum total of a huge amount of benefit for Vladimir Putin and for Russia's national interests.
(We are also left with the tantalizing and unanswered question: What is behind Trump's apparent fondness for Putin?)
On the other hand, the U.S. is left with reduced influence caused by international mistrust of American intentions because of Trump's suborning of foreign policy to his personal interests. In other words, if Trump's actions are allowed to go unchecked at this time, might they not be repeated in the future, if not by Trump then by a future president?
Trump's attempt to extort election help from Ukraine's president and government clearly is qualified as law-breaking and governing malpractice for which impeachment is the remedy.
The evidence is bipartisan -- some of the most convincing came from Trump's own political appointee, the ambassador to the European Union -- as well as professional and non-partisan, having been provided by career State Department officers. The White House transcript of the key phone call between Trump and Ukraine president Zelensky that prompted the whistle-blower's complaint establishes Trump's intent in the conversation to be as venal as that of a mob boss intent on the shakedown of a hapless target.
The introductory text that appears above my writing is provided by the Federal Election Commission. Since foreign time, money and effort would be needed to make the public announcement, Trump's demand for such an undertaking was a solicitation for "contribution, donations, expenditures and disbursements" on his personal political behalf.
Any other candidate for an elected office in the United States would be indicted for breaking the law. (If Joe Biden, or other Democratic candidate for president had done something to violate the Federal elections code, that person would no longer be a candidate; the Democratic Party would not accept such a candidacy. If you don't believe me, go ask.) Since the Justice Department is now maintaining that a sitting president cannot be indicted, the only remedy left is impeachment.
And, yes, impeachment is political. The Constitution sets forth impeachment in sparse wording. Gerald Ford described it this way: "Grounds for impeachment are whatever the House decides they are."
The Constitution's authors needed the use of only a few words to describe impeachment because they were already familiar with it. England's Parliament created impeachment in the 1370s, more than four hundred years prior to the writing of the Constitution. (The Constitution's authors were Englishmen before they were Americans; they knew much about English governance.) Parliament had used impeachment multiple times during the ensuing centuries; one was underway at the time of the constitutional convention.
Impeachment was originally intended for misdeeds in international affairs and for actions that compromised the national interest in pursuit of personal gain. This is how it had been used in England; it was with this knowledge that impeachment was included in the U.S. Constitution. The Constitution's phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is not an American invention; it was first used by Parliament in 1386 for the intent described above. That was the context in which it was included in the Constitution.
In the current case, what U.S. national interest would be served by Trump's shakedown of Ukraine's president? Since no evidence of criminal activity on the part of Joe Biden or his son Hunter has ever been presented, then the answer to that question has to be -- None.
Then, who would benefit? Aside from Trump, connecting the dots leads in only one direction: To Russia and its president Vladimir Putin.
Russia covets Ukraine for economic, geopolitical and historical reasons. Putin covets the wealth and power that comes from maintaining his grip on the Kremlin. A weakened Ukrainian leadership is unable to offer much resistance to Putin's no longer concealed support and encouragement for the armed insurrection in the part of that nation that borders Russia. As the results of that insurrection appear to draw those areas closer to Russia, Putin's popularity within Russia will be supported.
Add to this the fact that Putin has declared Russia's hostility to the United States, and to our American values of democracy, equal civil rights, the market-place economy, freedom of expression and independence of thought and belief, and we are left with a sum total of a huge amount of benefit for Vladimir Putin and for Russia's national interests.
(We are also left with the tantalizing and unanswered question: What is behind Trump's apparent fondness for Putin?)
On the other hand, the U.S. is left with reduced influence caused by international mistrust of American intentions because of Trump's suborning of foreign policy to his personal interests. In other words, if Trump's actions are allowed to go unchecked at this time, might they not be repeated in the future, if not by Trump then by a future president?
Trump's attempt to extort election help from Ukraine's president and government clearly is qualified as law-breaking and governing malpractice for which impeachment is the remedy.
Given what is known about Ukrainegate -- yes, let's call it that -- Republicans and the Republican Party would be expected to show some understanding of the harmful consequences that will be yielded by the dark cloud of suspicion that Trump's actions have caused to hover over current and future U.S. relations with other countries. But, at this point, that is not the case.
So, though I expect that the Democratic-majority House will vote to impeach, I cannot expect that the Republican-majority Senate will vote to remove Trump from office.
And America's claim to world-wide moral authority will suffer.
Should Trump be re-elected in 2020, I think America's international prestige would fall even further.
Recently I have been studying America's involvement in the Second World War. I have been reading on-the-spot accounts reported by journalists via the media of the time. You will probably recognize the names: Edward R. Murrow; Ernie Pyle; William L Shirer; Howard K. Smith; Gertrude Stein; John Steinbeck; C.L. Sulzberger; the media included New York Times, CBS, Life, Scripps Howard, Associated Press; and many other journalists and media companies.
These journalists wrote about the thoughts, feelings and experiences of the soldiers, airmen, sailors, doctors, nurses, mechanics, assembly workers and all sorts of other Americans, both on U.S. soil and abroad. A common thread in the reporting that describes the feelings of the people they came to know -- and in some cases saw perish -- is that the war was being fought to maintain American and allied independence from malign foreign influences.
After all the sacrifice of that time, and all the effort that went into establishing U.S. leadership for such a national value, it would be a great shame if the resulting moral authority were to be squandered by the careless and self-interested actions of an American president.
###
So, though I expect that the Democratic-majority House will vote to impeach, I cannot expect that the Republican-majority Senate will vote to remove Trump from office.
And America's claim to world-wide moral authority will suffer.
Should Trump be re-elected in 2020, I think America's international prestige would fall even further.
Recently I have been studying America's involvement in the Second World War. I have been reading on-the-spot accounts reported by journalists via the media of the time. You will probably recognize the names: Edward R. Murrow; Ernie Pyle; William L Shirer; Howard K. Smith; Gertrude Stein; John Steinbeck; C.L. Sulzberger; the media included New York Times, CBS, Life, Scripps Howard, Associated Press; and many other journalists and media companies.
These journalists wrote about the thoughts, feelings and experiences of the soldiers, airmen, sailors, doctors, nurses, mechanics, assembly workers and all sorts of other Americans, both on U.S. soil and abroad. A common thread in the reporting that describes the feelings of the people they came to know -- and in some cases saw perish -- is that the war was being fought to maintain American and allied independence from malign foreign influences.
After all the sacrifice of that time, and all the effort that went into establishing U.S. leadership for such a national value, it would be a great shame if the resulting moral authority were to be squandered by the careless and self-interested actions of an American president.
###
