Why impeachment?

“It’s difficult for me to understand how anyone can view the issue with Ukraine as abuse of power. The transcript was released. Both presidents declared there was no pressure.”

So writes a former Facebook friend on another friend’s post. This is the most common defense of Trump amongst Trumpers and superficially it seems a logical, reasoned rebuttal of the House of Representatives impeachment vote today. But it only works if you ignore the evidence of your own eyes and ignore what you’ve heard from your own ears and reject the testimony of nonpartisan fact witnesses as lies.

I’ve heard lots of vitriol directed at Adam Schiff and the House Intelligence Committee but Chairman Schiff’s role call of witnesses wove a tight narrative under oath that I don’t understand how anybody can ignore. If you didn’t watch or listen to the hearings, you are free to come up with any Jim Jordanesque comic stylings you want. If you did watch the hearings and are inclined to give the expert witnesses who came at risk to their own careers and took oaths to tell the truth, the benefit of the doubt, a clear and troubling narrative emerges.

On April 24, 2019, the president abruptly called back Marie “Masha” Yovanovitch, after a ruthless smear campaign was waged against her by his son and Rudy Giuliani. Mr. Giuliani admits in today’s news that he worked toward this end. If there was any doubt of the hand behind the firing, the president’s witness intimidation tweets during her testimony was pretty powerful evidence that corroborated her narrative.

Bill Taylor accepted the position vacated by the firing of Yovanovitch after being persuaded by Mike Pompeo to come out of retirement. Ambassador Taylor testified that he came to observe an “irregular channel” led by Mr. Giuliani that, over time, began to undermine the official channel of diplomatic relations with Ukraine. Mr. Giuliani would prove to be, as the President’s National Security Advisor Ambassador John Bolton would tell a colleague, a “hand grenade that was going to blow everyone up.”

EU Ambassador Sondland testified that it was not in fact an irregular channel, but that all of the Executive branch political appointees were pushing for the announcement of a Ukrainian investigation of the Bidens. I should point out that to this day, there have been no credible leads or inklings of corruption on the part of either Biden. In fact, last week, the Ukrainian prosecutor general announced that there was no reason for his corruption task force to investigate either Biden.

Hunter Biden is a young man with addiction, paternity and life choice problems. He used his powerful father’s name to get work. Lots of children of famous parents, including the president’s own do this. Joe Biden neither got Hunter his job nor acted in his or his company’s favor once he was in place. Rudy Giuliani promises suitcases full of evidence to the contrary, but without a credible narrative, those suitcases are as empty as his head.

Lt. Col. Vindman testified that he warned President Zelensky to stay out of U.S. domestic politics to avoid jeopardizing the bipartisan support Ukraine enjoyed in Congress. Ukraine has a ravening power-hungry former Soviet state at its eastern border. Russia and Ukraine currently wage a slow, hot war with Russian agents within Ukraine’s border and at the porous occupied Crimean/Russian border.

By July 3, OMB blocked a Congressional notification which would have cleared the way for the release of $141 million in State Department security assistance funds. By July 12, President Trump had placed a hold on all military support funding for Ukraine. On July 18, OMB announced the hold to all of the relevant agencies and indicated that it was directed by the President. No other reason was provided.

During a series of policy meetings Ukraine experts at DOD, the State Department, and the NSC argued that it was in the national security interest of the United States to continue to support Ukraine. As Mr. Morrison testified, “The United States aids Ukraine and her people so that they can fight Russia over there, and we don’t have to fight Russia here.”
Agency officials also expressed concerns about the legality of President Trump’s direction to withhold assistance to Ukraine that Congress had already appropriated for this express purpose. Two OMB career officials, including one of its legal counsels, would resign, in part, over concerns regarding the hold.

By July 25, the date of President Trump’s call with President Zelensky, DOD was also receiving inquiries from Ukrainian officials about the status of the security assistance.

After unsuccessfully trying to dissuade Giuliani, on the morning of July 25, Ambassador Volker sent a text message to President Zelensky’s top aide, Mr. Yermak, less than 30 minutes before the presidential call. He stated: “Heard from White House—assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / ‘get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington. Good luck!” Shortly before the call, Ambassador Sondland spoke directly with President Trump.

President Zelensky followed this advice during his conversation with President Trump. President Zelensky assured that he would pursue the investigations that President Trump had discussed—into the Bidens and 2016 election interference—and, in turn, pressed for the White House meeting that remained outstanding.

Hearing the call as it transpired, several White House staff members became alarmed. Far from giving the “full-throated endorsement of the Ukraine reform agenda” that had been hoped for, the President instead demanded a political investigation into an American—the presidential candidate he evidently feared most, Joe Biden.

Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, an NSC staff member responsible for Ukraine policy who listened to the call, immediately reported his concerns to NSC lawyers. His supervisor, NSC Senior Director for Europe and Russia Timothy Morrison, also reported the call to the lawyers, worrying that the call would be “damaging” if leaked publicly. In response, the lawyers placed the memorandum summarizing the call onto a highly classified server, significantly limiting access to the materials.

On August 28, Politico published a story revealing President Trump’s weeks-long hold on U.S. military assistance to Ukraine. Senior Ukrainian officials expressed grave concern about the practical impact on their efforts to fight Russian aggression, but also about the public message it sent to the Russian government which would happily exploit any real or perceived crack in U.S. resolve toward Ukraine.

On August 29, at the urging of National Security Advisor Bolton, Ambassador Taylor cabled Secretary Pompeo explaining the “folly” of withholding security assistance to Ukraine as it fought a hot war against Russia on its borders. He wrote that he “could not and would not defend such a policy.” Ambassador Taylor stated that Secretary Pompeo may have carried the cable with him to a meeting at the White House. The same day that Ambassador Taylor sent his cable, President Trump cancelled his planned trip to Warsaw for a World War II commemoration event, where he was scheduled to meet with President Zelensky.

By early September, President Zelensky was ready to make a public announcement of the two investigations to secure a White House meeting and the military assistance his country desperately needed. He proceeded to book an interview on CNN during which he could make such an announcement, but other events soon intervened.

On September 9, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committees on Oversight and Reform, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs announced an investigation into the scheme by President Trump and his personal attorney, Mr. Giuliani “to improperly pressure the Ukrainian government to assist the President’s bid for reelection.” The Committees sent document production and preservation requests to the White House and the State Department related to the investigation. NSC staff members believed this investigation might have had “the effect of releasing the hold” on Ukraine military assistance because it would have been “potentially politically challenging” to “justify that hold.”

Later that day, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) sent a letter to Chairman Schiff and Ranking Member Nunes notifying the Committee that a whistleblower had filed a complaint on August 12 that the ICIG had determined to be both an “urgent concern” and “credible.” Nevertheless, the Acting Director of National Intelligence (DNI) took the unprecedented step of withholding the complaint from the Congressional Intelligence Committees, in coordination with the White House and the Department of Justice.

The White House had been aware of the whistleblower complaint for several weeks, and press reports indicate that the President was briefed on it in late August. The ICIG’s notification to Congress of the complaint’s existence, and the announcement of a separate investigation into the same subject matter, telegraphed to the White House that attempts to condition the security assistance on the announcement of the political investigations beneficial to President Trump—and efforts to cover up that misconduct—would not last.

On September 11, in the face of growing public and Congressional scrutiny, President Trump lifted the hold on security assistance to Ukraine. On October 17, at a press briefing in the White House, Acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney confirmed that President Trump withheld the essential military aid for Ukraine as leverage to pressure Ukraine to investigate the conspiracy theory that Ukraine had interfered in the 2016 U.S. election.

As Dr. Fiona Hill made clear in her testimony, this false narrative has been promoted by President Putin to deflect away from Russia’s systemic interference in our election and to drive a wedge between the United States and a key partner.

President Zelenski never got his White House meeting, rather a consolation prize, the two presidents met at the U.N. where both men claimed there was no quid pro quo and no pressure. Both lied and for good reason. One to protect himself and his systematic abuse of his power. The other to protect his country, a small Texas-sized homeland caught between two superpowered existential enemies.

The story of Ukrainian corruption IS the story of Russian corruption and influence. It’s not an alternative narrative of corruption, rather the same contiguous story. Russia’s tools of corruption, disinformation, kompromat and fake news were honed in Ukraine to undermine that country’s fragile democracy before being used here.

If this doesn’t lay out the abuse of power by Trump, you’re not paying attention. You’re remaining willfully ignorant. As to the second article, Obstruction of Congress, it’s far more important than Congressional Republicans would have you believe. Judiciary Committee Chair Nadler explained it to rebut one of the many amendments ethically challenged ranking member Nunes tried to tack on to water the impeachment down.

The Constitution gave the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach. By denying the House records and witnesses, the White House took on itself judgement over the impeachment process. They called it unconstitutional but in fact, it is entirely constitutional. What is unconstitutional is and was the actions of the Executive. The House could have waited and settled these refusals to cooperate in the courts, but nothing in the constitution requires them to do so.

The three branches are co-equal. Obstruction of Congress is just as much a high crime as obstruction of Justice.

I like many people believed that the Mueller report presented compelling evidence tied up with a bow for The House to drop into impeachment articles. Nancy Pelosi demurred at the point prior to “Ukrainegate” but after this narrative was revealed in part by the whistleblower, she had no choice but to announce hearings. And, like many Democrats, I wanted to see Trump punished for the full scope of his high crimes. However, the narrow impeachment serves the wisdom of Solomon. It will be over quickly enough to not interfere but only be a talking point during the election cycle. It is shortly to become a part of the historical record of this country wherein Congress asserts that a president who seeks foreign help to win an election is corrupt and abusing his power and that a president who ignores the lawful, constitutional duties of the House is in fact himself unconstitutional.

There are only two articles. There could be and arguably should be many more. Yet, a historical stand has been taken. The House has done its constitutional duty to preserve the constitutional balance of power. It remains to be seen if the Senate will do its job or whether it will serve as a rubber stamp kangaroo court to benefit the most corrupt, dangerous man to ever sit in the White House. History is watching and will judge. The narrative above is in the Congressional Record, delivered by Americans under oath. Any rebuttal of the facts presented here, comes from people who have not or will not testify. That alone speaks volumes.