Trump Impeachment is unethical

There is a central problem with all the breathless charges levied against the President in the Senate impeachment trial. None of the allegations, pompously delivered by hyperventilating politicians and pundits, amounts to a crime. In fact, in an odd twist, if Trump failed to act in response to Joe Biden’s prior actions, he could have been accused of negligence.

As a young law student decades ago, I took part in an exercise mandatory for all in that branch of academia: breaking down a case into its basic elements. A performance of that same rigorous mental endeavor breaks down in a fascinating manner.

Burisma Holdings is a Ukrainian gas company widely considered to be corrupt. It employed former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, while Biden served as the point man for the Obama Administration to that nation. Hunter has no known expertise in the gas business. (He is an attorney who has been a cocaine abuser and was dismissed from the Navy.) The matter is similar to Hunter’s activities in China. Hunter flew along with his father on Air Force two to China on Biden’s official mission, and returned with an over one billion dollar financial deal in his pocket, on a business area he also knew little or nothing about.

Based on that objective analysis, there was nothing unlawful or unethical about President Trump’s actions in seeking to prosecute this obvious misuse of a federal office. Indeed, a failure to do what his Administration did could well have been considered negligent.

It is readily apparent that Joe and Hunter’s actions are deeply questionable, and should have been investigated thoroughly. That is precisely what the Trump Administration did. Some have quibbled about whether it was necessary to delay by three months lethal aid to Ukraine while the matter was being reviewed; others point out that it was necessary to encourage Kyiv’s cooperation. Ironically, those complaining about the several months delay in aid (aid which, by the way, was clearly given after that time period without any quid pro quo) supported the complete and total denial of that lethal aid by the Obama Administration.

A rigorous legal analysis of the charges against President Trump thoroughly indicates that his administration acted correctly, and, once again, failing to have acted as it did would have been negligent.

The second of the two charges against the President is that he obstructed Congress.

Since before he was even inaugurated, his opponents have sought to eliminate his ability to govern. I was in Washington, D.C. hours before Trump’s inauguration. His opponents, who refused to accept the election results, were marching around the Capital holding signs demanding that he be impeached! Shortly thereafter, a charge of Russian collusion was levied at him, which was thoroughly investigated and found not only to be completely false, but the product of a smear effort by his campaign opponent.

Dogs are susceptible to cancer, arthritis, spinal disc disease, digestive cialis online purchase disorders, and other pain and dysfunction. The high flow blood run purchase tadalafil india in gentile area and make the erection of male penis possible. There cheap viagra australia are number of recognized universities that offer MCA distance learning institute in Delhi that prepare graduate students for productive careers in software industry. However, it can also deal with Get More Info professional viagra online damage that has been already done, using the tool for wrong ends.

Any opposition to the various smear campaigns has been labelled “obstruction.” Any attempt to restrict the harassment of presidential appointees, a rather overt move to cripple the ability of Trump’s Administration to govern, has been labelled “obstruction.”

Failing to come up with any legal basis to overturn the 2016 election, the opposition has resorted to attempts to divert the White House’s attention away from fulfilling its campaign promises by forcing it to defend against various unfounded charges. Absent any real basis, hyperbole is employed. Every baseless allegation is nonsensically labelled “devastating news against the President.”

The fiery language and the extreme opposition currently observed in the Senate trial are the result of two key Democratic Party concerns.

The first is their fear that they will not be able to defeat him in a fair election. Rep. Adam Schiff, a key figure in the impeachment, has already said that a Trump re-election would be “invalid.”

The second is more subtle, and includes greedy politicians of both parties.

Americans have always wondered about the shocking ability of federal elected officials of relatively modest means to become astoundingly wealthy after taking office. Trump’s threats to stop that, to, as he puts it, “drain the swamp” is a direct threat to them. This is particularly true in terms of financial relations between members of Congress and foreign governments. The President is not alone in this endeavor. Louisiana Senator John Kennedy has called for a ban on financial dealings by elected officials with Ukraine.

This impeachment, as a fair legal analysis would reveal, is a textbook exercise in what lawyers call “Abuse of Process,” a foul practice arising when a plaintiff misuses or perverts legal proceedings not justified by the underlying legal action, for the purpose of intimidating or harassing an opponent.

Photo: Pixabay

Quick Analysis

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.