Dana Milbank: Trump's violation of the law is as clear as if he shot somebody on Fifth Avenue
COMMENTARY

Dana Milbank: Trump's violation of the law is as clear as if he shot somebody on Fifth Avenue

{{featured_button_text}}
Dana Milbank July 2019

Dana Milbank

(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make -

(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election ...

(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) ... of paragraph (1) from a foreign national."

— 52 U.S. Code 30121

"There's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the attorney general would be great. … I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General [William] Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out."

— President Trump, soliciting a "thing of value" for his reelection from Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky on July 25

WASHINGTON — During his 2016 campaign, Donald Trump famously said he could "stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody, and I wouldn't lose any voters."

Now, based on a common-sense reading of the White House's own rough transcript, Trump has fired the campaign-law equivalent of a Fifth Avenue gunshot. Will he lose any Republican lawmakers?

Let's step back.

Forget, for the moment, whether there was an implicit or explicit quid pro quo in Trump suspending and dangling aid to Ukraine just before he asked Ukraine's president for help dishing dirt on his likeliest 2020 opponent.

Forget, too, whether there was "pressure" applied.

Forget the whistleblower's (well-supported) allegations that the White House attempted a cover-up after the conversation, or that Trump's lieutenants followed-up extensively with Ukraine.

Forget Rudy Giuliani's back-channel diplomacy and the ouster of the U.S. ambassador to Ukraine.

Forget that the White House and the Justice Department attempted to quash the whistleblower complaint.

Forget that Trump essentially confirmed the veracity of the complaint by calling those who provided information for it "spies" and suggesting they committed the capital offense of "treason."

And forget the umpteen other instances of Trump's lawbreaking, abuse of power and obstruction of justice, 17 of which I outlined last week.

Even setting all of that aside, what the White House put out this last week was enough: The president broke the law when he solicited political help from Ukraine. In doing so, he put his political interests above the national interest. How can Republicans defend the indefensible?

Well, they claim that there was "no quid pro quo" (Sen. Lindsey Graham, South Carolina), that it's a "he said, she said" case (Rep. Chuck Fleischmann, Tennessee), that the whistleblower had "zero first-hand knowledge" (House Minority Whip Steve Scalise, Louisiana) or "political bias" (Rep. Devin Nunes and House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy, both California), that "these attacks are lies" (Rep. Jeff Duncan, South Carolina) or, contrary to the evidence, that the real villain is Joe Biden.

Nunes, the ranking Republican on the House Intelligence Committee, unfurled all manner of diversion at Thursday's hearing with the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire: "information warfare operation … Russia collusion hoax … hearsay … cabal of leakers … Fake news. (Nunes demonstrated his seriousness earlier this year when he sued a fictitious cow that mocked him on Twitter.)

A paltry few — among them Sen. Ron Johnson (Wisconsin), Sen. Patrick J. Toomey (Pennsylvania), Sen. Mitt Romney (Utah), Sen. Marco Rubio (Florida), Rep. Will Hurd (Texas), Rep. Adam Kinzinger (Illinois), and Rep. Michael R. Turner (Ohio) — have expressed at least some squeamishness over Trump's actions.

But we're not hearing Republicans defend Trump's illegal behavior — because there is no defense.

McCarthy simply pretended it didn't happen. "Let's be very clear: The president did not ask to investigate Joe Biden," he told reporters. (Which part of "look into it," "get to the bottom of it" and "figure it out" did McCarthy not understand?)

Pressed on whether Trump did "anything wrong," McCarthy said it was "the question that Democrats are not asking: Did he do something wrong? They have raised this to impeachment."

McCarthy, though he struggles with spoken English, stumbled onto inadvertent honesty: Trump may have done wrong, but McCarthy thinks the transgression isn't impeachment-worthy. Fair enough. But Trump's violation of the law is as clear as if he shot somebody on Fifth Avenue. Trump's partisans are free to choose their president over the law, but make no mistake: This is the choice they face.

Dana Milbank is a columnist for The Washington Post. Follow him on Twitter, @Milbank.

0
0
0
0
0

Be the first to know

* I understand and agree that registration on or use of this site constitutes agreement to its user agreement and privacy policy.

Related to this story

Most Popular

"Thank you for your service." Our troops hear that often from their fellow Americans, and not just during the holiday season. Well, our gratitude can go even deeper. We can also be thankful that they are not fighting "endless wars." Calls for "no more endless wars" may be catchy, but they're a bumper-stick excuse for a serious foreign policy. Sure, there are many intractable conflicts around ...

Republicans and Democrats disagree on just about every point being made during the impeachment inquiry triggered by President Trump's July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy. Yet on the central facts of the case, there is essentially no dispute. That's why the process is hurtling forward at a velocity that seems remarkable to George Washington University law professor ...

It bears repeating: Donald Trump was not only press-ganging Volodymyr Zelenskiy in an illegal scheme for partisan gain. He was rewriting the history of 2016 in order to wound enemies (Democrats) and help friends (Vladimir Putin) - as well as to give Kremlin operatives room to strike again. It is in no way overstating the case to say the president of the United States is the head of an ...

Since September, the last thing a caller to the National Suicide Prevention Lifeline hears before being connected to a counselor is this: "Your call may be monitored or recorded for quality assurance purposes." As a Lifeline counselor, this alarms me. Suicide is the 10th-leading cause of death in the U.S., and rates have increased in nearly every state from 1999 through 2016, according to the ...

It looks like a "witch hunt" has found another witch. U.S. Rep. Duncan Hunter (R-Calif.), embattled over allegations of misusing campaign funds to pay for family trips, personal clothes (allegedly masked as a donation to a veterans group) and trysts with at least five women, appeared in federal court in San Diego on Tuesday to change his not guilty plea. Hunter pled guilty to a single count of ...

Get up-to-the-minute news sent straight to your device.

Topics

News Alert

Breaking News