My friends, It is my fervent wish that this helps you to understand and be able to articulate why Trump is guilty of at least three impeachable offenses: (1) Abuse of Power (2) Bribery and (3) Obstruction of Justice and why the defenses of Trump that have been offered do not work and do not absolve him of anything nor do they establish any doubt of his guilt. I hope that the resources here prove helpful and that you are able to come back to this again and again. Thank you for taking the time to read this diary.
There exists only two defenses that Donald Trump and the Republicans have offered : (1) All the evidence is hearsay which is not sufficient to support impeachment and (2) the President was within his rights because he was only asking to stomp out corruption because Joseph and Hunter Biden committed a crime. First, we will look at why the hearsay defense fails. Then, we will look at why neither Joseph Biden nor Hunter Biden committed a crime or acted unethically. We will see, then, that President Trump singled out and targeted innocent people, especially Vice President Biden. Since Vice President Biden was clearly his most dangerous political opponent and was innocent, then President Trump did not target him due to any crime he had committed.
Moreover, the transcript and the evidence and the timeline all show that his motive for targeting Vice President Biden was to damage his most likely 2020 political opponent. Congress had already appropriated the foreign aid for Ukraine and they had already verified that Ukraine met the qualifications for receiving the foreign aid. Since Vice President Biden was innocent, then President Trump had no valid reason for withholding the foreign aid until his political aid was publicly investigated. This was an abuse of his power as president. It was an act of bribery. I, President Trump, will give you, Ukrainian President, the foreign aid Congress already appropriated for you only after you do me a political favor and help damage my 2020 political opponent by announcing a public investigation of him. If you do not do that, then you will not receive the foreign aid even though Congress already verified that you qualified for it. Thus, it was an act of bribery. Third, he obstructed justice. Since the US Constitution explicitly gave Congress the right and the responsibility to investigate and impeach and possibly remove the president, then Congress does not to go to the courts to get their subpoenas enforced. If that were required, then Congress would not be able to hold the president accountable through investigating, impeaching and removing him which are powers that the US Constitution explicitly gives Congress. When President Trump refused to comply and refused to allow any of his staff to comply with the Constitutionally backed subpoenas issued by Congress, President Trump Obstructed Justice. Thus, the third article of impeachment will be that President Trump obstructed justice.
.
Let’s first examine why the hearsay defense fails then.
.
1. Two staffers destroyed it .
Yesterday, however, William Taylor testified that a member of his staff heard Sondland, in Kiev on a cell phone, speaking with President Trump, and that Trump asked about Ukraine opening “investigations.” After the call, Sondland told the staffer, David Holmes, that Trump’s highest priority in Ukraine was securing an investigation of the Bidens. Today, the Associated Press reports a second staffer, Suriya Jayanti, also heard the call. “The President doesn’t care about Ukraine,” said Sondland, according to CNN, which obtained Holmes’s testimony, “He only cares about the big stuff – the big stuff that benefits him. You know, like investigating the Bidens.”
But it is not “hearsay” when officials are following expressly communicated orders through a chain of command. And it’s certainly not hearsay when somebody literally hears the boss say the order.
2. Lt Col Vindman blows a hole through it .
Republicans has been to harp on the claim that witnesses to Trump's extortion scheme against Ukraine were all "second-hand" or "third-hand." This has always been confounding, as the official summary readout of the famous phone call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky shows Trump clearly conditioning military aid and U.S. support on Zelensky giving a public boost to Trump's conspiracy theories about former Vice President Joe Biden and other Democratic leaders. The witnesses so far have simply affirmed what the written record demonstrates amply.
But just in case there was any doubt, Democrats brought in two witnesses on Tuesday who listened in on the call where Trump did the threatening: Jennifer Williams, an aide to Vice President Mike Pence, and Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a Ukraine specialist on the National Security Council..
Republicans, as usual, offered no affirmative defense of Trump. Instead, GOP members of the committee focused on throwing out conspiracy theories and distractions, with a clear eye towards giving Fox News some clips to run and stuff to talk about besides Trump's long list of alleged crimes and the large amount of supporting evidence
.
3. Gordon Sondland killed the hearsay defense.
For days, House Republicans criticized the House impeachment inquiry as mere “hearsay,” clamoring for a witness who spoke directly with President Donald Trump and could testify about what he did and said. That changed after the testimony of Ambassador Gordon Sondland on Wednesday.
The Republican hearsay argument was always disingenuous. After all, important witnesses like acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo refused to testify, leaving Democrats with a slew of witnesses with less access to the president.Sondland’s testimony quickly rendered that line of defense obsolete. He demonstrated his direct access to the president throughout his testimony, at one point even bragging about his expletive-laden exchanges with Trump.
Was there a quid pro quo that conditioned a White House visit for President Volodymyr Zelensky and the release of $400 million in military aid on a public announcement of those investigations, Sondland asked rhetorically. “The answer is yes.”
During that conversation, Sondland claims a “cranky” Trump told him, “I want nothing. I want no quid pro quo.” Though this was in effect a repetition of Sondland’s previously released text to Taylor, the effect of his saying out loud that Trump told him that directly was immediate.
Republicans deftly seized on Sondland’s account, claiming that Trump’s words during this conversation exonerated the president. The hearsay defense went out the window, replaced with a defense that the key witness with first-hand knowledge testified that Trump told him there was “no quid pro quo.” Trump himself quickly turned it into black Sharpie talking points on the White House lawn.
CONGRESS IS NOT COURT
To begin with, Congress is not a court. It's a legislative body, and it's not bound by the centuries of common law that built up around the admissibility of hearsay evidence.
"The rules of evidence don't apply in Congress. It's a foolish analysis," said Edward MacMahon, a criminal defense lawyer from Middleburg, Virginia, who has handled numerous high-profile cases. "The common law rules of evidence were not designed to deal with political hearings."
David Laufman, who has worked as a federal prosecutor and is now a defense attorney with Wiggin and Dana in Washington, has also worked on Capitol Hill for congressional committees. He said committees are free to set up rules governing testimony as they see fit. He said congressional committees invariably choose to allow hearsay.
"That would be the anomaly if hearsay testimony was barred," said Laufman.
5. Debunked .
If you read the transcript released by the White House, the elements of bribery are made clear. Zelensky asks for various “official acts” on the part of President Trump. He wants military aid for his country; this aid was authorized by Congress. He wants a meeting with the president of the United States—not a meeting with a reality television star but with “the president,” who is a public official of the United States government. That president says, “I would like you to do us a favor though.” That favor is a proverbial thing of value: an investigation into Trump’s political rivals. The investigation is not to further the interests of the United States government, but to further the interests of Donald Trump’s reelection campaign. That is the solicitation of a bribe. It couldn’t be more clear from the transcript of the document Trump wants you to read.
In this case, Donald Trump is not (yet) on trial. He is being investigated. Investigations are not subject to the Hearsay rule, because refusing to listen to all the evidence of a crime when you are trying to investigate that crime is ridiculous. The people who are testifying in this investigation are testifying to their recollections, and the credibility of those recollections can be assessed by the investigators, in this case Congress. Most important, there are no witnesses who are truly “unavailable”; rather, Donald Trump has made witnesses unavailable by refusing to let them submit to lawful subpoenas from Congress. To allow Trump to benefit from illegally making witnesses to his misconduct unavailable would be the equivalent of allowing a kingpin to benefit from killing his henchmen before trial.
There’s the “co-conspirator” exception for when statements are made “during the course and in furtherance of the conspiracy.” There’s the exception that allows people to testify to another’s state of mind. And there’s the “catch-all” exception that allows Hearsay testimony if witnesses are available and have been notified in advance that their statements will be offered at trial.
The House Intelligence Committee released two new transcripts on Saturday from first-hand witnesses who were on the line for President Donald Trup’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The transcripts are from the depositions of Deputy Assistant to the President Timothy Morrison and Vice President Pence’s special adviser on Europe and Russia, Jennifer Williams.
The chairs of the Intelligence, Foreign Affairs, and Oversight committees released a joint statement on the testimony.
“The testimony released today shows that President Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky immediately set off alarm bells throughout the White House. Both witnesses provided the Committees with first-hand accounts after personally listening to the call in the White House Situation Room,” the chairs said.
7. Trump chose to make first hand witnesses unavailable
Trump made himself and the other first hand witnesses unavailable. If he refuses to make himself available and he refuses to allow other first hand witnesses to be available, then he cannot very well complain that there are no first hand witnesses since he himself is the reason why there are not first hand witnesses.
After the hearsay defense is rejected, then there is little left. However, one argument is that Hunter Biden committed a crime. Therefore, Ukraine was corrupt and President Trump was right to demand that Ukraine investigate the Bidens and expose their crimes before giving Ukraine their foreign aid. So, let’s investigate whether or not either Hunter Biden or Joe Biden committed a crime. We shall see that neither of them did. Since both of them are legally innocent, then there is no valid reason for insisting upon a public investigation of them. Thus, Trump’s motives were corrupt, to benefit himself politically by damaging his most dangerous political opponent in the upcoming 2020 elections. So, let’s look at the evidence that shows that neither Hunter Biden nor Joseph Biden committed a crime.
Hunter Biden’s work:
- True: Beginning in 2014, Hunter Biden served on the board of a Ukrainian energy company, Burisma, that faced allegations of corruption. He was paid "as much as $50,000 per month," per the NYT.
- False: His work for Burisma was being investigated by a Ukrainian prosecutor.
Joe Biden’s intervention:
- True: Joe Biden was the Obama administration's point man on Ukraine while his son was working for Burisma, visiting the country several times from 2014 to 2016.
- True: The then-vice president did tell Ukrainian leaders they had to fire Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin to get $1 billion in U.S. aid, according to a version of the story Biden himself told in 2018.
- False: Biden pushed for Shokin's ouster to protect his son.
- European countries and international bodies had accused Shokin of failing to pursue corruption, including in the Burisma case, and wanted him fired.
- Biden was also not freelancing for personal reasons — he was pursuing the Obama administration's policy
By Dareh Gregorian
A former Ukrainian prosecutor who investigated a gas company tied to Hunter Biden said Thursday that there was no evidence the former vice president's son engaged in illegal activity.
"From the perspective of Ukrainian legislation, he did not violate anything,” Yuriy Lutsenko told The Washington Post.
…..…...
“Hunter Biden cannot be responsible for violations of the management of Burisma that took place two years before his arrival,” Lutsenko told the Post.
Burisma was under scrutiny for possible abuse of power and unlawful enrichment before Hunter Biden was involved in the company, and he has never been accused of any wrongdoing in the investigation. Regardless, President Trump’s personal attorney Rudy Giuliani has alleged that the former vice president’s son was involved in corruption during his nearly five years at Burisma, but has not provided any evidence to support those claims.
Even if it is alleged to immoral or unethical, they still
did not commit a crime.
Hunter Biden has a better background than many have imagined.
In 1992, he graduated from Georgetown University with a bachelor's degree in history.[8] During the year after he graduated from college, he served as a Jesuit volunteer at a church in Portland, Oregon, where he met Kathleen Buhle, whom he married in 1993.[8] After attending Georgetown University Law Center for one year, he transferred to Yale Law School, graduating in 1996.[8]
After graduating from law school, Biden took a position at MBNA America, a major bank holding company which was also a major contributor to his father's political campaigns.[8] By 1998, he had risen to the rank of executive vice president.[8][13] From 1998 to 2001, he served in the United States Department of Commerce, focusing on ecommerce policy.[14]Biden became a lobbyist in 2001, co-founding the firm of Oldaker, Biden & Belair.[15] According to Adam Entous of The New Yorker, Biden and his father established a relationship in which "Biden wouldn't ask Hunter about his lobbying clients, and Hunter wouldn't tell his father about them."[8]
That same year he was appointed by President George W. Bush to a five year term on the board of directors of Amtrak.[16] He was a board member from July 2006 until he resigned in February 2009[17] and the board's vice chairman from July 2006 to January 2009,[18] leaving both roles shortly after his father became vice president. He had realized during his father's vice presidential campaign that it was time for his lobbying activities to end.[8]
In May 2013, Biden's application for a limited duty position in the U.S. Navy Reserve was approved.
Here is what happened.
In the aftermath of the 2014 Ukrainian revolution, Mykola Zlochevsky faced a money laundering investigation,[27][28] and his company Burisma Holdings, the largest natural gas producer in Ukraine,[8] assembled a "high-profile international board" in response.[29][28] Biden, then an attorney with Boies Schiller Flexner, was hired to help Burisma with corporate governance best practices, and a consulting firm in which Biden is a partner was also retained by Burisma.[30][31][32] Chris Heinz, John Kerry's stepson, opposed his partners Devon Archer and Hunter Biden joining the board in 2014 due to the reputational risk.[28] Among those who joined the board of directors in April 2014 were Biden, Archer and former Polish president Aleksander Kwaśniewski.[33] Biden served on the board of Burisma until his term expired in April 2019,[34] receiving compensation of up to $50,000 per month in some months.[15][35][36] Because Vice President Biden played a major role in U.S. policy towards Ukraine, some Ukrainian anti-corruption advocates[37][38] and Obama administrationofficials expressed concern that Hunter Biden's having joined the board could create the appearance of a conflict of interest and undermine Vice President Biden's anti-corruption work in Ukraine.[8][28] While serving as vice president, Joe Biden joined other Western leaders in encouraging the government of Ukraine to fire the country's top prosecutor, Viktor Shokin,[39][40] who was widely criticized for blocking corruption investigations.[41][42] The Ukrainian parliament voted to remove Shokin in March 2016.[43][44]
In 2019, President Donald Trump and his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, claimed that Vice President Biden had actually sought the dismissal of Shokin in order to protect his son and Burisma Holdings,[45][37] however, there is no evidence that this was what happened.[39][46] There has also been no evidence produced of wrongdoing done by Hunter Biden in Ukraine.[47] The Ukrainian anti-corruption investigation agency stated in September 2019 that the current investigation of Burisma was restricted solely to investigating the period of 2010 to 2012, before Hunter Biden joined Burisma in 2014
So, there is the appearance of a conflict of interest even though Hunter Biden and Vice President Biden never talked about their work. Nor is it as obvious a case of nepotism as some have alleged. Hunter Biden graduated from Georgetown and then Yale Law, served in the US Navy Reserves and worked as a corporate attorney. Corporate governance best practices does not require expertise in the energy sector. Moreover, once again, Hunter Biden and Joe Biden never talked about their work. The prosecutor for Ukraine said that Hunter Biden had not violated a single law and that the investigation was into events that occurred prior to the hire of Hunter Biden. Many European leaders pushed for the ouster of the Ukranian prosecutor , not just Joe Biden and he never did push for it in order to protect Hunter Biden who was never in any legal jeopardy.
All of this means that there was no crime and no guilt associated with either Joe Biden or with Hunter Biden. Therefore, pushing for them to be publicly investigated is wrong and without any support. Since there was no corruption, then basing giving the foreign aid upon a public investigation is inappropriate. Furthermore, Congress had already appropriated the foreign aid for Ukraine and Congress confirmed that Ukraine was eligible for the foreign aid in July. A legitimate investigation would not have asked for the investigation to be made public and would have emphasized that the goal was a legitimate, thorough investigation no matter what the results of the investigation were. Furthermore, it would not have been mentioned immediately after the foreign aid was brought up. Nor would the president have said, “First I want you to do me a favor ! “ .First indicates priority and temporal location. This must occur before that. First this, then that. The clear implication is that if you do not do the first thing, then the next thing will not occur. And since there had been no crime and the foreign aid had already been approved and confirmed that Ukraine qualified in July, then this has nothing to do with a legitimate investigation in order to determine whether or not a crime had been committed. Notice too that the president invokes Joe Biden’s name and that he wants him investigated, not Burisma nor anything else.
As soon as the Ukranian President brings up the foreign aid and needing to buy military parts and equipment to defend themselves, President Trump says he wants the Ukranian President to do him a favor. And the context makes this so
damning !
As CREW’s Noah Bookbinder pointed out when it was first released, the reconstructed “memorandum of telephone conversation” that Trump refers to as a transcript, does not come close to vindicating his conduct. In fact, it shows how in response to being asked about “next steps” and a desire to buy more weapons from the United States, Trump sought multiple favors from the leader of a foerign government for his own personal gain, including an investigation into Biden, one of his 2020 political rivals.
There is an even bigger problem, though: Trump’s call with Zelensky did not happen in a vacuum. The evidence gathered to date by House investigators demonstrates that Trump, with the assistance of Giuliani and senior U.S. officials, engaged in a protracted campaign to pressure Zelensky to pursue investigations that would benefit Trump. The pressure campaign had many components and the July 25 call was just one of them:
- Prior to the July 25 call, Trump directed U.S. officials advocating for a White House meeting with Zelensky to work with Giuliani and satisfy his concerns before a meeting.
- On multiple occasions, Giuliani and U.S. officials communicated that those concerns were the need for Ukraine to pursue investigations that would benefit Trump, namely investigations of alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 election and of Joe Biden, his son Hunter Biden, and/or Burisma, a Ukrainian company who’s board Hunter Biden served on.
- Multiple officials testified that at a July 10 meeting in the White House a top U.S. diplomat told Ukrainian officials the acting White House Chief of Staff had blessed an agreement that a White House meeting would occur if Ukraine pursued specific investigations.
- At least a week prior to the July 25 phone call, Trump ordered that the White House Office of Management and Budget (OMB) place a hold on congressionally approved security assistance to Ukraine.
- Giuliani and administration officials advocated for a phone call between Trump and Zelensky as a means to obtaining a meeting and suggested ways that Zelensky could satisfy Trump on the call by committing to pursue investigations Trump wanted.
- Because the July 25 call apparently did not adequately appease Trump, Giuliani and Trump administration officials later pressed for Zelensky to publicly commit to investigating “Burisma” and “2016”
- By early September, U.S. officials also communicated that security assistance, in addition to the White House meeting, would be withheld until Zelensky made this commitment.
- Only intervening events in the United States—public reporting of a whistleblower complaint relating to the Trump administration’s pressure campaign and the Trump administration’s belated release of security assistance—prevented Zelensky from following through.
The story is not complicated, even though we describe it in even greater detail below. President Trump’s call with Zelensky was not “perfect.” It was part of a protracted effort by the President, his personal attorney, and administration officials to use the power and prestige of the United States government to get Ukraine to pursue investigations for Trump’s personal and political advantage.
TRUMP CONDITIONED WHITE HOUSE MEETING ON SATISFYING GIULIANI
In early May 2019, the New York Times reported that Giuliani planned to travel to Kyiv in hopes of meeting with Zelensky, who had just won office, to encourage him and his government to pursue investigations related to alleged interference in the 2016 U.S. election as well as an Ukrainian gas company that employed Biden’s son on its board.
………………
He stopped the foreign aid from getting to Ukraine. He knew that Ukraine needed the foreign aid to protect themselves from Russia. And as soon as the Ukranian President said that he needed the foreign aid, then he asked for an investigation into Biden. We’ll move on from the fact that he praised a prosecutor who was universally viewed as corrupt and lazy. He named Biden and went into great detail about Biden. He asked for a public announcement of an investigation into his likely political opponent. Furthermore, as the timing and the events and even the Ukranian prosecutor said, neither Hunter Biden nor Joe Biden did anything illegal or anything corrupt.
Pushing for an investigation into an innocent political opponent after withholding foreign aid that was already approved by Congress and that Congress had already verified that Ukraine met the qualifications needed to receive it shows that Trump was bribing a foreign president with foreign aid already approved of and that they had already qualified for in order to damage his most difficult opponent. That is abuse of power and bribery. Even the corrupt transcript issued by the White Houses shows this. It was overheard by two witnesses. A whistleblower confirmed it as did people who directly worked for Mr. Trump in order to make this happen.
More first hand witnesses would have been available, but Mr. Trump stopped them from testifying. When he is the reason why there are not more first hand witnesses, then he cannot complain about the lack of first hand witnesses. Congress has the authority and responsibility to hold the president accountable according to the Constitution.
Congress could not do that if they had to get approval from judges and justices that the president appointed. Their subpoenas are lawful and must be respected and obeyed or Congress does not have the power to do what the US Constitution says is its responsibility. Thus, these subpoenas do not need to be approved by any court in order to demand enforcement. Refusing to obey the subpoenas and demands for witnesses and evidence is by itself, even according to Fox news Judge Andrew Napolitano, is obstruction of justice itself. For, this would be the president not allowing the Congress to hold him accountable in the way that the US Constitution says that it must. This means that the president is putting himself above the law. No president is above the law. Thus, at the very minimum there will be impeachment articles for (1) abuse of power (2) bribery and (3) obstruction of justice.
I hope that this was helpful for presenting resources, showing why the defenses of Trump by the Republicans do not work and why Trump is guilty and should be impeached and removed based upon three articles of impeachment: 1. Abuse of Power 2. Bribery 3. Obstruction of Justice.