Michael Gerson: Trump's call with Zelenskiy did present a corrupt quid pro quo
COMMENTARY

Michael Gerson: Trump's call with Zelenskiy did present a corrupt quid pro quo

{{featured_button_text}}

WASHINGTON — The impeachment of President Trump has reached an early point of absurdity.

Just about everyone in Washington believes that a quid pro quo — in which Trump used American clout to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy into an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden — would be impeachable (or at least, as South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham recently put it, "very disturbing"). And just about everyone in Washington believes that Trump used American clout to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy into an investigation of Joe and Hunter Biden. Which Republicans such as Graham deny was a quid pro quo.

It is a nakedly deceitful position.

No one disputes that Trump froze hundreds of millions of dollars in military aid to Ukraine shortly before his call to Zelenskiy. No one can dispute that this created massive leverage with a beleaguered client country. No one disputes that Trump reminded Zelenskiy of American largess three times in the released version of the call. No one disputes that Zelenskiy assured Trump of Ukrainian reciprocity. No one denies that Trump found this insufficient and asked for further favors: the investigation of a political opponent and his son, as well as of a crackpot theory that Ukraine was behind the hacking of Democratic National Committee emails. No one can dispute that the fulfillment of those favors would have been regarded as politically advantageous by the president.

At least this far, the facts are generally conceded. But a few questions remain.

First, was this a corrupt quid pro quo? This seems to be what Mick Mulvaney denied in his press conference last week. He claimed that it is the ordinary course of diplomacy for a president to use aid as leverage. "We do that all the time with foreign policy," he said. "We were holding up money at the same time for, what was it, the Northern Triangle countries ... so that they would change their policies on immigration." In the Ukrainian situation, Mulvaney argued, the president was (among other things) pressuring Zelenskiy to fight corruption.

It is an argument Trump has tweeted as well: "As President of the United States, I have an absolute right, perhaps even a duty, to investigate, or have investigated, CORRUPTION, and that would include asking, or suggesting, other Countries to help us out!"

But this, of course, is not an "absolute" right. The president should not target investigations for selfish or corrupt purposes. For example, it is perfectly legitimate for the IRS to broadly enforce tax laws; it is an abuse of power for a president to order the IRS to investigate a list of his political enemies. In the case of Ukraine, the president was not urging a fight against corruption for the benefit of the Ukrainian people. He was asking for the investigation of two people for his own benefit. Trump has managed, with typical ethical creativity, to use the fight against corruption as cover for his own corruption.

A second question: Was Trump involved in a provable quid pro quo? It is the emerging Republican contention that the legal demonstration of a quid pro quo should require an explicit blackmail threat from the president. The goal is to set a standard so high that it is practically unreachable — like demanding that the judge personally witness a murder before a conviction can occur. Some Republicans are essentially contending that a real quid pro quo requires chanting the Latin words during the deed. They may eventually insist on a signed document stamped with the words quid pro quo by the White House counsel's office.

Whatever strategy Republicans adopt, the smoking gun has already been revealed. It is the rough transcript of the Ukraine conversation that the White House initially parked in a classified computer system but released after the call was exposed by a whistleblower. A common-sense reading of that text reveals a president of the United States involved in a politically motivated shakedown of a foreign leader.

This is a quid pro quo. It is a corrupt quid pro quo. It is a proven quid pro quo. In the end, there is only one question: Does it rise to the level of "high crimes and misdemeanors"?

Here is where well-intentioned Republican legislators will struggle. They know that foreign powers such as Russia have influenced American elections by subterfuge. They will determine if an American president can encourage foreign influence on American elections without consequence.

Michael Gerson is a columnist for The Washington Post. His email address is michaelgerson@washpost.com.

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

In today's information age, the average person can empower himself or herself with knowledge like never before. But there is one notable exception: Most Americans have no idea what a health care service costs before they get it. If we expect to lower health care costs, that must change. Companies in every other industry compete for consumers on the basis of cost and quality. Decisions made by ...

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 ...

"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 ...

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 ...

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