Columns, Constitutional Law, Criminal law, Politics

You Want Impeachment? Find A Quid To Go With The Pro Quo

Below is my column in the Hill newspaper on the implications of the still developing Ukraine story. The testimony yesterday and release of the information on the complaint still lacks the critical nexus needed for a public corruption crime. If you establish the basis for such a crime, then the use of the separate server becomes a serious problem as covering up a crime. But you still need a crime. Otherwise, Trump can argue that he had been the victim of leaks about diplomatic calls and they took the step to better control access to such information. So, if you want impeachment, find the quid.

Here is the column:

The transcript of the call from President Trump to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky is enough to make Edwin Edwards blush. The infamous Louisiana governor once bragged, “The only way I can lose this election is if I’m caught in bed with either a dead girl or live boy.”

Even after the July appearance of Robert Mueller before Congress to discuss his findings as the special counsel, Trump apparently felt no qualms about calling Zelensky the following day to press him about investigating his main political opponent, Joe Biden, and son Hunter Biden. It is breathtaking to read Trump trying to convince Zelensky to do him a “favor” by going after the Bidens and suggesting meetings with Attorney General William Barr and his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani.

Yet for those hoping to find a dead promise or a live Russian in the transcript, they will be disappointed again. The transcript lacks a critical element needed for impeachment, which is evidence of a quid pro quo. Trump never connects the investigation with the roughly $400 million in military aid. While he discusses the aid, he never suggests he will not send it. That does not mean a case for impeachment or criminal prosecution cannot be made. Unlike the prior impeachable offenses suggested by Democrats, this allegation of self-dealing could be both an impeachable offense and a federal crime, though neither would be easy to prove.

Past suggested impeachable offenses either have been facially ridiculous, like the comments Trump made about Charlottesville or his criticism of national anthem protest kneelers, or legally flawed, like the Russia intervention or obstruction theories. The closest viable claims are his payments to alleged former mistresses that are in the criminal plea agreement of his former personal lawyer Michael Cohen.

This is different. If a quid pro quo was proven, it would be self-dealing and an abuse of public office, and that can be a crime. Just ask disgraced former Illinois Governor Rod Blagojevich. He was convicted after calling other political figures to leverage the appointment of a new United States senator, to replace the newly elected President Obama, for his own political gain. While some of us were highly critical of that prosecution, because politicians routinely use such decisions to their own benefit, Blagojevich was found guilty and his conviction was later upheld.

Yet such cases have a mixed record. Former Virginia Governor Robert McDonnell was convicted of using his office to benefit a businessman who gave him and his wife various gifts. I was also critical of that prosecution, and it was later overturned by the Supreme Court. Then there was the prosecution of Senator Robert Menendez, who helped a wealthy doctor and donor with various government problems. The doctor in turn spent lavishly on Menendez, who actually pressured officials in cases benefiting the doctor, and helped him secure visas, yet Menendez was acquitted.

So what would Congress need to establish a strong case in light of this transcript? Some have argued that it does not matter if Trump never raised the military funding as leverage with Zelensky, but it does matter. There is nothing illegal in a president complaining about the lack of an investigation into corruption, even by a political opponent. The transcript does not show Trump demanding a political charge but an investigation.

The transcript has material that will help Trump, who has maintained that he held back the aid to try to get other countries to pony up in support of Ukraine. In the call, Trump tells Zelensky, “We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing, and they should be helping you more than they are.” He speaks at length about the need for those countries to contribute, and Zelensky agrees.

Trump further asks for access to a computer server and references Crowdstrike, a cybersecurity company related to the Russia hacking investigation. Former FBI director James Comey referenced Crowdstrike as one of the critical elements in the investigation, and that investigation is being reviewed by United States Attorney John Durham. A computer server and other information connected to the Russia hacking evidence would likely assist Durham in his investigation. The references to Barr in the transcript could be defended on that basis.

The quid may still be out there, but it will not be found in this transcript. The most obvious place to look is with witnesses who may have heard Trump make the linkage. The most intriguing of those possibilities would be former national security adviser John Bolton, who Trump recently fired and then maligned. Bolton reportedly was irate over the freezing of Ukrainian military aid, and he could have the knowledge and motivation to supply information. It also is reasonable for Congress to say that, with a half billion dollars on the table, it is hardly necessary to state the connection. Yet presidents often have such leverage over countries.

The references to Barr can be defended, but they are still a matter of legitimate concern for Congress. Trump repeatedly says he will have Giuliani and Barr call Zelensky, and Zelensky says a new prosecutor is set to look into the matter. Yet the problem for potential prosecution is that nothing came from those referrals. The Ukrainians never contacted Barr, and Barr never had anything to do with the Biden controversy. Barr was also unaware of the call and of Trump making references to him.

Trump is a recidivist in the law of attempt. He often proposes ridiculous actions, like firing a special counsel, but what follows is nothing. Advisers like Barr and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo have become masters of listening to his tirades and then going about their business. The chances that Barr would work with Ukrainians to hunt down the Bidens is about as likely as Trump suggesting he would be a shoo in for the Nobel Peace Prize “for a lot of things” if the system was not rigged against him.

As shown by McDonnell and Menendez, these types of cases are difficult to prove, even when actions are taken. This would be an attempt to perform an act that is itself a controversial basis for a criminal charge. Zelensky says the Ukrainians were already looking at all such matters, and Barr was never told, let alone enlisted, to help out. It would be like the McDonnell case in which the Supreme Court rejected the notion that the governor took “official acts” in calling Virginia officials on behalf of the business except, in this instance, the calls to Barr never took place.

Absent a clear quid pro quo, a Senate impeachment trial could be a grotesque scene. The Trump team would certainly point out that the Obama administration directly used a secret court to investigate his political opponents on claims that were based in part on opposition research paid for by the Clinton campaign. The trial would highlight the dubious money given to Hunter Biden by Chinese and Ukrainian interests while his father negotiated financial and political agreements.

While many in the media have chosen to focus on the narrow question of whether Joe Biden pressured Ukraine to fire its corruption prosecutor to protect his son, there is a more important question of whether the family profiteered during his term in the White House. Few people believe the Chinese and Ukrainians searched the world for a financial or energy genius and came up with Hunter Biden. He happened to be the son of the vice president, who reminded the Ukrainians that he would decide whether they received over a billion dollars in loans and support. Hunter Biden has contradicted his father denying he had no knowledge of and never spoke to him about the Ukraine dealings. That would be a painful Senate trial, culminated by Menendez voting as one of the jurors.

Despite efforts of critics to downplay the underlying allegations, the Biden affair would be relevant to the merits of such a trial. If Trump simply picked up the phone and asked a foreign leader to investigate Elizabeth Warren without any outstanding allegations of corruption, it would be impossible to defend. The problem here is that the Biden contracts do appear to involve corruption, precisely the type that Biden lambasted when he bragged about getting the Ukrainian prosecutor fired.

If one agrees that the windfall contracts secured by Hunter Biden were obvious influence peddling, then Trump pushing for an investigation into that possible crime becomes more defensible. It does not, however, make it right. Trump clearly tripped another wire for possible impeachment, immediately after the special counsel made his final report on prior controversies. Congress is justified in investigating, and the transcript is not the entirety of the evidence that might show the intent or act or corruption. All this is why House Democrats still need to find the quid.

Jonathan Turley is the Shapiro Professor of Public Interest Law at George Washington University. He also served as the last lead counsel in a Senate impeachment trial and testified as a constitutional expert in the Clinton impeachment hearings. You can follow him on Twitter @JonathanTurley.

363 thoughts on “You Want Impeachment? Find A Quid To Go With The Pro Quo”

  1. A quid used to be a paper British pound note. Now that pounds are coins I don’t know if the expression is still used.

  5. Brought to you by the same people who brought you Russian collusion. Nothing burgers must be the in thing with Democrats.

  6. Omg mayor if you want you can find something wrong with anything. If you have pencil neck whiff the Schiff reading a statement that is supposed to be excatly verbatim, and PELOSI and Schiff sister married to the Son of Donkey Kong George Soros billionaire and world order president promoter of no borders and law AMERICANEROS ……Not your country anymore….sending messages of the wannabe shadow president Soros daddyinlaw …lollipop and Lollapalooza LOLITA lips…TRUMP DESERVES THE HIGHEST AWARD OF HONOR FOR THE BEST DAMN PRESIDENT EVER #TRUMPCARDCALLING THE #BLONDEATOMICTORNADO THE #GREATESTDETECTIVEALIVE THROUGH SPACE AND TIME MEDAL OF FREEDOM…

  8. The Left had just conjured up the perfect storm. Let the House begin the show that will remove their best candidate (strange but true), and only the far left will show up on election day.

    1. I like Trump, but I didn’t like him enough to vote for him in a primary election in 2016. If the Democrats had given me ANYONE, even standard-gauge political hacks like Martin O’Malley who weren’t evident, prima facie unconvicted felons like Hillary Clinton or screaming chiliasts like Bernie Sanders, I’d have have had to give that candidate my support.

      Instead, the national Democratic party is giving the entire nation divisive ideologues who are still less desirable as presidential candidates than Donald Trump, as embarassing as his Tweets sometimes are.

      I don’t recall a single Trump Tweet which offers to give trillions of dollars away in forgiven student loan debt and free tuition, or enslave physicians and other health care workers in a British-style single-payer national healthcare program that can only provide less expensive health care by chiseling on the salaries of health care providers or the health services the Federal government contracted to provide the retired and disabled who get Medicare. The only difference between the Democratic front-runners on that score is how many trillions of dollars the Treasury must print or borrow from China to finance such schemes.

      Trumo made no calls to local district attorneys to bail errant nephews out of jail for deliriously incompetent frauds of police reports evidently intended to cause racial unrest, as Kamala Harris did. He is not closely connected to abortionists whose homes were raided to yield two thousand ghoulish trophies – bottles full of aborted fetuses, as Pete Buttigieg is.

      When Trump asked if he could have certainl politiical enemies prosecuted (such as Hillary Clinton, one of the few US Secretaries of State to become wealthy in an Imelda Marcos-like “family charity” that just doesn’t show a lot of work for its billion-dollar endowment of gifts from those who wanted to influence US diplomacy), he seems to have taken “no” as an answer and not chiseled around legal and professional objections with executive orders which violated Federal law as Obama did.

      All Donald Trump has to win in 2020 is not break Federal; law as his predecessor did, and not be as careless of law and morality as any of the leading primary candidates in the 2020 race for the Presidential nomination by the Democratic Party. .

  9. Is it at all fishy that the rules for who can legitimately file a complaint protected by the WPA were changed just before submittal to allow for hearsay as the primary evidence?

    Is it further fishy that Rep. Schiff has had this complaint letter for a month?

  10. From the WaPo today:

    President Trump told two senior Russian officials in a 2017 Oval Office meeting that he was unconcerned about Moscow’s interference in the 2016 U.S. presidential election because the United States did the same in other countries, an assertion that prompted alarmed White House officials to limit access to the remarks to an unusually small number of people, according to three former officials with knowledge of the matter.

    The comments, which have not been previously reported, were part of a now-infamous meeting with Russian Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov and Russian Ambassador Sergey Kislyak, in which Trump revealed highly classified information that exposed a source of intelligence on the Islamic State. He also said during the meeting that firing FBI Director James B. Comey the previous day had relieved “great pressure” on him.

    1. Just what was Victoria Nuland doing for the Obama administration in the Ukraine, but interfering in their electoral politics?

  11. https://legalinsurrection.com/2019/09/the-trump-impeachment-conundrum-democrats-dont-want-to-talk-about/

    A cogent interpretation of the motor of all of this. Note, what the Democrats have been doing with escalating frequency is play Calvinball. Well, you rip up the rule book, other people get to play without rules as well. You continue to aggressively attack people just getting through life, that will induce a response too. They haven’t a clue. This will not end well.

  12. You really want Quid pro quo? Here’s a video by Tim Pool (love the guy btw, he doesn’t pull punches left or right)

    https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jHFZh-3hLIY

    that directly links Biden with pressure on Ukraine to NOT investigate his son or lose a billion and a half US $$$$. How’s that for corruption? Biden’s son got $50k a month for daddy’s influence…that’s just about as corrupt as it gets. This pretty much finishes Biden’s presidential run…for the 3rd time…

  13. Trump told Russian officials in 2017 he wasn’t concerned about Moscow’s interference in U.S. election

    https://www.washingtonpost.com/national-security/trump-told-russian-officials-in-2017-he-wasnt-concerned-about-moscows-interference-in-us-election/2019/09/27/b20a8bc8-e159-11e9-b199-f638bf2c340f_story.html

    1. A truck of TVs is hijacked.

    2. Your son meets with the hijackers.

    3. Your campaign manager shares route information with them.

    4. You are recorded on video saying, “I love truck hijacking.”

    5. The TVs are in your house.

    Happy No Collusion Day.

    1. Take note how the President is not quoted so the statement could be that he was not concerned with 2016 because nothing could be done but if they interfere with 2020 he will have Adam Schiff emigrate to Russia. That changes the whole context of the statement, but what do you care about context or truth?

      1. Allan – could we have the whole Socialist wing of the DNC emigrate to Venezuela?

        1. Paul, that is a great idea. They could pass legislation there starting with 0 fossile fuel.

      2. its from the Wash Poo….no credibility

        just like US House Dimocrats

        ….

        https://community.aarp.org/t5/Politics-Current-Events/Congressional-Democrats-Have-No-Credibility-On-Impeachment/td-p/2186087

        Congressional Democrats Have No Credibility On Impeachment

        Whatever your opinion of Trump, congressional Democrats have squandered the confidence of the American people, and can’t be trusted with impeachment.

        The problem with the Democrats’ impeachment gambit—aside from the fact that it appears to rest largely on a complaint riddled with inaccuracies, falsehoods, and hearsay—is that the American people don’t trust Congress and will likely have little confidence in any impeachment process undertaken by Democratic congressional leaders.

        And no wonder. Ever since President Trump won the presidency in 2016, Democrats have been grasping for some pretext to invalidate the results of that election.

        1. HRT, thank you. We know the Washington Post has zero credibility but it is our job to educate people like Anon that are slow to figure it out.

      3. Trump was correct. From what we’ve seen since 2016 is the greatest threat to our democratic process isn’t the Russians. It’s the alphabet soup of agencies, the DNC and their media allies.

        1. Olly, the actions of the left IMO demonstrate that they are admitting defeat in 2020 and recognize that the only way for them to succeed in a power grab is to lie to the American public, promise the American public everything and then take power and do as they wish revamping government so that the rights of the people will only exist on paper. They wish to transfer the rights of the people to themselves.

    2. The low spark of high heeled boys……and Trump stooges. My ball peen hammer is sharper than these slugs.

      1. Anon1 – now that we are talking about hammers and their sharpness, my sledgehammer is sharper than you are and makes better metaphors.

  14. Hard to take you seriously when you start with a misrepresentation. There were something like 500 words between Trump asking for a “favor” and his mention of the Bidens. The favor had to do with 2016 interference, not Joe Biden.

  15. “If one agrees that the windfall contracts secured by Hunter Biden were obvious influence peddling, then Trump pushing for an investigation into that possible crime becomes more defensible. It does not, however, make it right.”

    So having Dad run for President insulates both Dad and son from all accountability, even when there is strong potential evidence of criminal behavior?

    So I guess every American should announce that they’re undertaking a permanent run for the presidency of the United States.

    By Mr. Turley’s logic, from now on, federal law enforcement can’t touch anyone, and the current president cannot even inquire into what anyone is doing, even if potential criminality is evident.

  16. Pingback: Impeachment | Transterrestrial Musings

  18. Can you miss the forest for a sapling? Turley seems to be having that moment. Clinton Derangement Syndrome can make otherwise sane people do crazy things – e.g. tortuously putting up legal minutiae to defend an imbecilic, vulgar moron (other than occasionally posting Seth Rich conspiracy stories). You wonder why an Ukranian company sucked up to Beau Biden? Why of course – for access. But as someone else somewhere said – if having boob of a son or sons was a problem, we wouldn’t be in the current problem to begin with. I know why the Trump-loving loonies drop by here – they just want some validation, some support, any support – they can find from the mainstream professionals they have been taught not to trust. It is sad to see a true professional though catering to them.

    3. Turley is truly a jackass and still a horrible American. His column is scatter-brained, all over the joint with irrational sympathies extended to a wannabe mafioso dictator who got caught pulling a Russia 2.0 with Ukraine. We read the transcript. Tony Soprano could have read those lines and not miss a beat.

      Jonathan, Trump will never hire you ok? And your only audience is on FOX. Do you hear laughing? Yeah, that’s your colleagues. Good luck w/ your career after the impeachment. You deserve it.

        1. Darrin Rychlak on January 29, 2018 at 7:10 AM
          Yeah, boy her language is salty. So dirty. Such an affront to the privileged, delicate, effete ears of Jonathan Turley. Turley, you weep like an oozing pustule.

          We have a conman president who relishes in calling others names. Shall we list some of the egregious insults? I think we should: rapists, crooked, sonsabitches, and don’t forget the dog whistle bigotry of the president of the US: his black guy, the Jerry Lewis impression of Asians, the Mexican taco bowl comment, the unretracted ‘animals’ comment on falsely accused black kids and of course Sh&thole.

          Turely is a hypocrite. That much is clear. Stop hiding behind your legal credentials bc people who pay attention know your values: $$$$$$$.

          I got a C note in my pocket. Dance for me Turley and it’s all yours.

          Darren Smith on January 29, 2018 at 8:08 AM
          “I got a C note in my pocket. Dance for me Turley and it’s all yours.”
          ~+~
          I think Professor Turley is the wrong man to ask. You might be better served by a gay strip club since you seek a man pulling money out of your pocket while dancing for you. If this blog doesn’t fit your needs then I suggest backpage.com

          **************************************
          Michael,
          I thought the name sounded familiar, so I checked back on a previous visit from Mr. Rychlak.
          Memorable putdown, worth posting again.

    5. hutom, you think it’s ok for the vp to be involved in a country, ordering them what to do – or else, and above all, starting the color revolution (again) there which would never have happened without USG involvement, causing thousands of innocent people, especially civilians to die in the former eastern part of ukraine (now 2 independent republics, just like the 13 colonies invoked their independence because of the British Crown)?
      May God’s judgment come down upon those guilty parties, including anybody who tries to support the USG’s evil acts.

    1. Intriguing article, especially the two grifter Russians with no visible means of support throwing money around and feeding Giuiani.

      …”Sessions was among GOP politicians and a Trump-affiliated political action committee who received campaign donations in 2018 from Soviet-born business partners, Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman. The Texas congressman received $5,400 of the nearly $500,000 given by the men, and met with one of them. They have been working with Giuliani on his investigation of the son of former Vice President Joe Biden, who served on the board of an energy company in Ukraine.

      Ukrainian media have reported that the business partners arranged a January meeting in New York between Giuliani and Ukraine’s former prosecutor general, Yuri Lutsenko….”

      More about these clowns here:

      https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics/courts_law/for-ukraine-help-giuliani-turned-to-unlikely-florida-fixers/2019/09/27/cd9e9276-e163-11e9-be7f-4cc85017c36f_story.html

      1. WASHINGTON — When President Donald Trump wanted Ukrainian authorities to investigate his Democratic rival Joe Biden, Rudy Giuliani turned to an unlikely pair of fixers: two Soviet-born business partners from Florida.

        Documents show Lev Parnas and Igor Fruman made hundreds of thousands of dollars in political donations to Republicans while facing lawsuits from disgruntled investors over unpaid debts.

        The pair used wire transfers from a company they controlled to make a $325,000 donation to a Trump-allied political action committee in 2018. That was on top of $100,000 in earlier donations to Trump and GOP candidates that helped the relatively unknown entrepreneurs quickly gain access to the highest levels of the Republican Party — including face-to-face meetings with the president at the White House and Mar-a-Lago…..

        Campaign finance watchdogs first raised concerns about the source of the $325,000 donation to America First Action, a political action committee supporting Trump’s re-election, shortly after it was first disclosed last year.

        The May 2018, donation, among the largest the committee received that quarter, was reported to have been made by Global Energy Producers LCC. Other campaign finance disclosures list Parnas as the CEO of the company and Fruman as president.

        But there is little public evidence that Global Energy Producers was ever a thriving enterprise that could generate the income to account for its outsized political giving. The company has no listed office address or phone number, no announced deals or contracts, and a bare bones one-page website that features only a countdown clock that long ago ticked down to zeros…..

        The Campaign Legal Center, a non-partisan campaign finance watchdog based in Washington, filed a complaint with the Federal Elections Commission in July 2018, alleging that Global Energy Producers was essentially a shell company used to make political donations, the funds for which originated from unknown sources. The center last summer amended its complaint to include the wire transfers showing the movement of the funds from Aaron Investments I to the Trump-allied PAC….”

Comments are closed.