Thread by @burtlikko

To me, the abuse of power charge need only be based on the admitted evidence of the readout. All the rest of the evidence, and Trump hiding more of it, just cements the plain text of the wrongful ask.

I can't imagine denying the obstruction of Congress article in good faith.

https://twitter.com/NPR/status/1204456250148294656

Here are the articles of impeachment under proposal, which I think we all fully expect to get reported out of committee and then adopted by the House, on a more or less straight party line vote.

Below, I shall assume that you have actually read them.

npr.org/2019/12/10/786…

The first article, which impeaches Trump for abuse of power, generally describes a scheme. Note that by itself "scheme" is a morally neutral word, meaning a series of actions and statements organized towards a common goal. We all "scheme" at things in that way.

The proposed article would impeach Trump for his scheme to leverage the power of the Presidency in dealing with Ukraine for domestic political advantage by way of producing an announcement of a Ukrainian criminal investigation that would cause embarrassment to Joe Biden.

The initial objection will likely be that this article hinges upon Trump's *intent* in doing the various things that are part of the scheme. "We can't really know someone's intent," we're going to hear.

Well, that's just not true.

People intend for the reasonably-expected results of their actions to be achieved.

When you press on the gas pedal, you intend for the car to move.

When you turn on the air conditioner, you intend for the room to get cooler.

Yes, this is "inference." But we do it all the time.

Section (1) of the first proposed article indicates what Trump wanted Ukraine to do. Trump has admitted from the very start that he wanted Ukraine to announce an investigation into Burisma, and into purported Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election.

As a side note, there are going to be people for whom the notion of Ukrainian interference in the 2016 U.S. election is not a discredited theory because lunatics like Alex Jones and the President keep on talking about it like it was a thing.

It's fiction.
npr.org/2019/12/10/786…

Section 2 of the proposed first article then identifies two things that Trump threatened to withhold unless he received the political concessions described in section 1: $391,000,000 in military aid already appropriated and authorized by Congress, and a state visit for Zelenskyy.

As Zelenskyy reminded the world earlier this week, Ukraine is at war with Russia, or at least was at the time all of this was going on. Even the recently-announced cease fire does not resolve the territorial contest still underway for the disputed strategic territory of Crimea.

As to Trump's intent, the objection is likely to be that the benefits to Ukraine were a) only held up for routine, non-corrupt reasons, and b) not conditioned upon the political concessions Trump wanted, which c) were not aimed at Biden in particular but at corruption generally.

I expressly invite Trump defenders to correct or supplement me if I've articulated those defense theories incorrectly or incompletely.

I want to describe these theories honestly, accurately, and completely--even though I disagree that these are truthful interpretations of fact.

Section 3 of the first proposed article then sets forth that the reason the military aid was eventually released was that Trump's scheme was revealed. Nevertheless, Trump has persisted in demanding concessions from Zelenskyy's government. There has as of yet been no state visit.

What the President did isn't really in dispute.

If you were a neutral juror voting on these questions, you'd have to ask yourself, "Why did the President do these things? What was his motive? What was his intent?"

Like I said before, an inquiry into Trump's motives doesn't require some sort of magical telepathic scrying into his brain. It involves a comparison of his actions and the sorts of things one would reasonably expect to happen were those actions successfully completed.

Most damning, IMO, is the readout of the July 25 call between Trump and Zelenskyy. Trump first waxes loquacious on how military aid is imminently forthcoming and it's proof that Trump is a true friend in need to the new wartime leader of Ukraine.

"I have this thing you need."

Zelenskyy acknowledges that he needs and wants this military aid. Trump then said "But there's something I'd like you to do for me." Actually hearing a recording might help understand his tone, but Trump has not released that raw recording (more on that in a moment).

Some of Trump's defenders have already relied on the claim that this is a standalone sentence, indicating that the thing Trump requests - the investigation into Burisma - is not a condition of anything, that it is not a bargaining chit.

That's willful blindness to its context.

The proximity in time and position in the conversation makes it clear, as if beginning the sentence with the conjunction "but" did not, that these things are linked in Trump's mind, and he's conveying that linkage to Zelenskyy.

100% if I were a prosecutor I'd indict on that.

That's enough right there. But there's more.

Not for nothing did this conversation trigger all the red flags and whistleblowers.

Much of the fact witness testimony during the impeachment inquiry hearings was to search for any contradictory or supporting signals from the President.

In my mind, the most important witness on this point was Gordon Sondland. This is a rich guy who tried to be a team player but flipped, because he wound up not wanting any more of the shit hitting the fan to spatter on him than had already happened.

It was crystal clear in Sondland's mind that there was a linkage between the political concessions and the official duties. He conveyed that directly to the Ukrainian government. He says he got that directly from conversations with the President.

George Kent testified that he had been advised of a direct conversation between Trump and Sondland linking the concession and the aid, that Zelenskyy would have done anything Trump requested.

William Taylor, similarly, testified that Sondland spoke, through a vulnerable cell phone, with Trump in which Trump was eagerly inquiring about "the investigations."

Kent and Taylor were both disappointed in Trump's attitude, because they are involved in actual anti-corruption efforts in Ukraine and maintain great hope for the future of that country and so were unhappy at Trump's insincerity in that respect.

While it's not directly relevant to discerning Trump's intent from his actions, it's worth noting that there was a very casual attitude about communications security. This should tell Trump defenders something about Trump's sincerity in criticizing Hillary Clinton's past actions.

Marie Yovanovich also testified to the linkage, and to communication's with Trump's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, pushing hard for an announcement into Burisma investigations.

Trump personally took to Twitter during Yovanovich's testimony to attack her.

Yovanovich also testified to receiving threats of retaliation from Giuliani for interfering with his actions with respect to Ukriane.

It's hard for me to credit this testimony and reach any conclusion other than that Trump assigned a very high value to a public announcement by Ukraine that it was investigating the things that Trump had demanded as his concessions.

If actions are reliable indicators of intent, Trump also did not actually care much about the success of those proposed investigations. Announcing such investigations before a substantial amount of incriminating evidence has already been gathered is deeply inconsistent with that.

Even if Trump did not have substantial personal experience of how investigations work (having been investigated many times in his life both by the government and in private litigation) he would have had advisors who were experts to tell him how to go after corruption.

In fact, some of those very people to whom he could have turned would have been people like Kent, Taylor, and Yovanovich. These are civil servants who performed these same jobs in prior Republican and Democratic administrations. They'd have advised Trump, competently, if asked.

If actions are the basis from which to infer intent, Trump's intent was inconsistent with competently and successfully investigating and eliminating Burisma's corruption.

Trump didn't care if the investigation was successful. He cared that the investigation was PUBLICIZED.

Alexander Vindman testified that prior political favors to Zelenskyy had been withheld by Trump. Vindmann made clear the impropriety of the July 25 call, in which Trump linked concessions and favors, and described fruitless efforts to address the issue and fearing retaliation.

Jennifer Williams, Mike Pence's European security advisor, also testified about a promise for Pence to have attended Zelenskyy's inauguration reneged upon direct instructions from Trump personally. This was before the damning July 25 call, but it offers an important background.

Specifically, Williams demonstrates that Trump was "cracking the whip" on Zelenskyy. Pence's attendance at the inauguration would have been of political value to Zelenskyy; it would have made him look stronger and better-allied with the US.

Inference of intent from action? Vindmann's testimony shows that Trump would punish resistance to his efforts to extract concessions from Zelenskyy. William's testimony shows that Trump found a way to communicate to Zelenskyy directly that there was going to be an ask coming.

Kurt Volker and Tim Morrison both testified to a direct quid pro quo linkage between the political concessions and the performance of official U.S. duties. Volker had to recant prior testimony to do it. Morrison's testimony was based on information he got from Sondland.

Deputy Assistant Secretary of Defense for the region Laura Cooper, contradicted the claim that Ukraine had no idea the military aid had been withheld during the July 25 call; she said that yes, that information was known to the Ukrainian government on that day.

Cooper's testimony is, I think, most important in understanding Zelenskyy's motives and actions. He needed those weapons to fight Russian insurgents and keep alive the hopes of Ukraine recapturing its lost territory in Crimea. Cooper shows he knew Trump was holding that up.

Think about that in light of Sondland and Taylor reporting Zelenskyy's willingness to "do anything Trump asked," and Williams' testimony about Trump having previously found a way to offer and then withhold political values from Zelenskyy.
Trump wanted to make Zelenskyy his bitch.

David Hale, Undersecretary of State for Political Affairs, learned from an OMB official (that's someone working for Mike Mulvaney, remember) that the aid to Ukraine was not tied up for bureaucratic reasons, but rather on the direct orders of President Trump.

Intent inferable from action here? Trump was personally involving himself to withhold performance of an official duty towards Ukraine - he was legally obligated to release those funds, remember--until something else happened. And the thing he was asking for was the announcement.

So, to circle round back to the first article of impeachment, based upon Trump acting with a "corrupt intent" to link a concession of domestic political value to himself with performance of an official duty of his office, his actions are strongly consistent with that intent.

Are his actions consistent with any other intent to a roughly similar or higher degree of satisfaction? His actions aren't consistent with actually fighting corruption in Ukraine, that's for sure.

Again, I invite Trump defenders to offer their own perspective on this. On the merits, Trump's actions appear indefensible. True, I don't like Trump for a lot of other reasons, but I hate the notion of a President acting this corruptly, even one I dislike.

Please convince me.

Because the icing on the cake is what gets us to the second proposed article of impeachment: obstruction of Congress' investigation.

My pinned tweet at the moment states that when a witness makes evidence unobtainable, a finder of fact is entitled to infer that the evidence is incriminating. This is hardly a novel proposition.

People hide evidence that they don't want found.

A President whose actions really were all above board would not have issued blanket instructions to not cooperate with oversight of those actions.

Had Trump's deeds been beyond any reasonable reproach, he ought to have been eager to have made them known by the committee.

Instead, he issued instructions that numerous of his aides and agents not testify, that thousands of pages of requested documents not be produced, and has threatened retaliation against the still-anonymous whistleblower.

This is inconsistent with a belief of his own innocence.

It's beyond dispute that Mulvaney, Blair, Eisenberg, Ellis, Griffith, Vought, Duffey, McCormack, and Brechbul's testimony was not before the investigation committee. And that this happened because Trump ordered it to be so.

It's beyond dispute that the State Department, OMB, DoE, and DoD refused to comply with the Congressional subpoenas and produce any documents in response to the inquiry. And that this happened because Trump ordered it to be so.

If the reason for withholding all of this testimony and evidence was that the material involved was sensitive from a security perspective, a President seeking to cooperate with Congress' exercise of its powers of investigation and oversight could have done two things.

First, the evidence could have been produced in the secure setting of the Intelligence Committee in closed session (that is, when grandstanding Republican Congressmen weren't breaching the secured environment of those proceedings). All the Members on that committee are cleared.

Second, the evidence in question could have been produced in a redacted format, protecting the sensitive information while permitting as much public inquiry as possible into the rest.

None of this was done. If intent can be inferred from action, there was no intent to balance disclosure to Congress with security of information, because no one in the Executive branch appears to have even tried to make that happen.

The intent was to stonewall.

Action reveals intent. Trump intended to condition performance of official acts upon receipt of a matter of political value to himself. Trump intended to stonewall Congress.

The facts alleged the articles of impeachment are true on their face. Including those of Trump's intent.

The abuse of office described in the first article is a felony under 52 USC 30121(a)(2): the announcement of an investigation politically embarassing to his likeliest 2020 campaign opponent is a thing of political value to Trump, and Trump PERSONALLY solicited it from Zelenskyy.

If commission of a felony within the discharge of a public office is not a "High Crime," then there is no such thing as a High Crime.

If refusing to respond to a subpoena for the sole purpose of concealing incriminating evidence is not obstruction of Congress, then nothing is obstruction of Congress.

On the merits, Trump is guilty as charged and should be removed from office.

My conclusion has nothing to do with the fact that I don't like Trump. I'd have to reach that conclusion for Obama, or for Clinton, some other theoretical President I liked better than either of them.

Barring a response to some comment made by someone else, I think that's what I have to say at this point about the merits of the Articles of Impeachment. So, /fin.

@threadreaderapp please unroll this thread