Reply to Rep. Byrne

This is a reply to Rep. Byrne's article The Facts About Ukraine. This reply is, in part, in the form of questions for Rep. Byrne.

1. Trump's actual motive and its relevance 

There is a range for what Trump's actual motive might have been.

At one end of the range, Trump possibly had no general interest in Ukraine taking action against Ukranian corruption, and, if the 2016 Crowdstrike theory and the Bidens were not available for Trump to target, Trump would not have put, or tried to put, any conditions on providing the Ukranian security assistance and a White House meeting with Zelenski. Under this scenario of Trump's possible actual motive, Trump's only motive for putting conditions on providing the Ukranian security assistance and a Zelinski White House meeting  was to help himself politically. (In this discussion, such a motive will be sometimes referred to as a "bad" or "corrupt" motive.)

At the other end of the range of possible Trump motive, Trump possibly had a special interest in Ukraine taking action against Ukranian corruption, and Trump's seeking to have Zelenski investigate Crowdstrike and the Bidens was to advance that special interest of Trump and was not at all motivated to help himself politically. (In this discussion, such a motive will be sometimes referred to as a "good" motive.)

Actual motive of one person is hard for other persons to determine with certainty.

It may be that Rep. Byrne's position is that Trump's actual motive is irrelevant in the impeachment proceeding.

This may be because Rep.Byrne thinks, no matter what Trump's motive was, Trump had the right and power to do what he did, thus what Trump did was not wrong, and Trump's actual motive (whether a "good" motive or a "bad" motive) cannot be any basis for impeachment.

Alternatively, Rep. Byrne may think Trump's actual motive is not relevant because it is impossible for anyone other than Trump to know with certainty what Trump's motive was, and therefore Trump's actual motive cannot and should not be made a basis for impeachment.

If Rep. Byrne believes Trump's actual motive is not relevant in the impeachment proceeding, Rep. Byrne should expressly say so.

If Rep. Byrne does not say that Trump's actual motive is irrelevant in the impeachment proceeding, that means Trump's actual motive needs to be delved into, and ultimately the U.S. Senate, as the jury, needs to make a determination of what it believes Trump's actual motive was.

2. Determining Trump's actual motive

Many facts and circumstances are possibly relevant for the United States Senate, as jury, to decide what Trump's actual motive was for Trump's seeking to have Zelenski investigate Crowdstrike and the Bidens.

Further, as the jury, it is up to the United States Senate to consider the possibly relevant facts and circumstances and to evaluate the evidence as establishing, or not establishing, the facts and circumstances that the United States Senate thinks are relevant to take into account in reaching its determination about Trump's actual motive.

Much has been brought forth in the three days of public impeachment hearings that the United States Senate could find relevant for determining Trump's actual motive.

A great deal of additional information is potentially relevant for the United States Senate to determine Trump's actual motive.

3. Hunter Biden

In determining Trump's actual motive, Hunter Biden needs to be considered in an historical context of how much candidate Trump said he would take on governmental corruption and "drain the swamp" and whether Trump was dishonest and has been dishonest with the American people about "draining the swamp."

For this purpose, the United States Senate, as jury in the impeachment trial which must decide Trump's actual motive, could consider the following:

In the first Republican debate in August 2015, candidate Trump touted how much he gave to politicians and that "when I need them, they are there for me." (Here's video.)

In the 2016 election candidate Trump crucified Hillary Clinton, Bill Clinton and the Clinton Foundation for conflicts of interest, pay to play and attendant corruption.

At the same time, questions were raised about a Trump Foundation contribution to Florida attorney general Pam Bondi, allegedly to shut down an investigation of Trump University. Since candidate Trump had publicly said he gave to politicians to get them do what he wants, it was reasonable to be suspicious of Trump and Bondi's denials of anything untoward happening. (Here's video.)

Candidate Trump campaigned hard at the close of his campaign that he would "drain the swamp" in Washington DC.

Shortly before Election Day candidate Trump put out a Contract with the American Voter, In this contract, Trump committed to embark immediately on a plan for restoring honesty and accountability, and bringing change to Washington. The Contract proposed six measures to clean up the corruption and special interest collusion in Washington, DC. These were:
★ FIRST, propose a constitutional amendment to impose term limits on all members of Congress.
★ SECOND, a hiring freeze on all federal employees to reduce the federal workforce through attrition (exempting military, public safety, and public health).
★ THIRD, a requirement that for every new federal regulation, two existing regulations must be eliminated.
★ FOURTH, a five-year ban on White House and Congressional officials becoming lobbyists after they leave government service.
★ FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.
★ SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

Trump had a large business empire, and, and after he was elected there was an obvious question of whether Trump's conflicts of interest  would lead Trump to being corrupt, as he had accused the Clintons of having been corrupt.

After Trump won the election, Trump decided that the investigation of Hillary Clinton should not continue. While the United States does not want to be a "banana republic" in which the winners of elections seek to jail their political opponents, Trump could have embarked on a "heart to heart" with the American people related to the charges Trump had leveled against Hillary Clinton and could have launched a significant initiative for new rules for dealing with conflicts of interest to lessen corruption, including better vetting procedures regarding conflicts of interest (perhaps citing inadequate Congressional vetting of the Hillary Clinton and Clinton Foundation situation). 

Such an initiative by Trump concerning conflicts of interest might have exposed for public consideration the then relatively recent events of the withholding of loans to the Ukraine while Joe Biden was Vice President and Hunter Biden was on the board of directors or doing consulting for a Ukranian corporation.

All things considered, it was reasonable to think Trump chose not to undertake a serious initiative about conflicts of interest and corruption in Washington DC because Trump had his own conflicts of interest and corruption that he was going to pursue as President and he did not want any interference with that.

When Trump announced in February 2017 how he was going to handle his conflicts of interest, it was immediately recognized that the same was not adequate (see Wall Street Journal op/ed piece A Real Fix for Trump’s Conflicts of Interest), and that, over time, the problem of Trump's conflicts of interest and of his putting his own personal interests over the country's interests, would grow.

This problem was abetted by Republicans in Congress controlling the House at the start of Trump's presidency and not conducting proper Congressional oversight.

The record of the past 2-1/2 years presents a case that Trump has egregiously put his personal interests over the country's interest. See Trump Team’s Conflicts and Scandals: An Interactive Guide.

Candidate Trump's FIFTH and SIXTH commitments in his Contract with the American voter were:

★ FIFTH, a lifetime ban on White House officials lobbying on behalf of a foreign government.
★ SIXTH, a complete ban on foreign lobbyists raising money for American elections.

Under President Trump, the country has been living in an excruciating three year mess of trying to learn about and combat foreign interference in American elections, which included the conviction of several Trump associates for crimes involving or related to foreign governments and corruption. This Trump record has belied Trump purporting to have genuine anti-corruption motivations.

The above historical context is something the United States Senate could consider in determining what Trump's actual motive was regarding Ukraine and could contribute to their determining that Trump had a "bad" motive and not a "good" motive for his actions regarding Ukraine.

4. Was it Russia or was it Ukraine?

There are several lines of attack insofar as Trump's defense is that he had a good motive in seeking for the Ukranians to investigate the Crowdstrike allegations of Ukranian interference in the 2016 elections.

The Crowdstrike allegations have been around since 2016 It needs to be explained why it is in 2019 that Trump would seek to withhold security assistance and a White House meeting unless Ukraine undertook, or publicly announced that it would underta,e an investigation of the Crowdstrike allegations.

Consider the history of the investigations into Russian interference in the 2016 elections.

INVESTIGATIONS INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN 2016 ELECTIONS

House intelligence committee investigation of Russia  (See Ballotpedia  House Intelligence Committee investigation on Russian activity in 2016 presidential election)

From January 2017 to January 2019, the Republicans were in control of the House of Representatives and the House intelligence committee.

On January 25, 2017, the House Intelligence Committee announced that it was investigating Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election, including possible links between Russia and any political campaigns. The committee further refined the scope of the investigation on March 1, 2017. It sought to answer the following questions:

What Russian active measures, including hacking, were directed against the U.S. and its allies?
Did those active measures include links between Russia and any political campaigns?
How did the U.S. government respond to Russian active measures? How can the U.S. protect itself in the future?
Were there leaks of classified information related to the intelligence community report on Russian activity?

After President Donald Trump released a series of four tweets on March 4, 2017, alleging that former President Barack Obama had his phones and Trump Tower, the headquarters of the Trump Organization, wiretapped during the 2016 presidential election, the investigation was expanded.

The White House requested on March 5, 2017, that the congressional intelligence committees determine whether the executive branch abused its power in 2016 as part of their investigation into Russian activity during the presidential election.

On the same day, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.), the chair of the House Intelligence Committee, indicated the committee would include Trump's wiretapping allegations in the scope of its Russian investigation. "One of the focus points of the House Intelligence Committee's investigation is the U.S. government's response to actions taken by Russian intelligence agents during the presidential campaign. As such, the Committee will make inquiries into whether the government was conducting surveillance activities on any political party’s campaign officials or surrogates, and we will continue to investigate this issue if the evidence warrants it," Nunes said in a statement.

The Muller investigation of Russia

The United States has gone through the  2 year Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election and possible coordination between Russia and the Trump campaign The length of the Mueller report was 448 pages, 34 people and 3 companies were indicted, convicted or plead guilty. Mueller had 19 lawyers, assisted by about 40 FBI agents, intelligence analysts, forensic accountants and other professional staff. More than 2,800 subpoenas were issued, and close to 500 search warrants were executed There were   230 orders for communication records,  50 orders authorizing use of pen registers to monitor electronic communications, and 13 requests to foreign governments for evidence. The special counsel interviewed approximately 500 witnesses. https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/mueller-investigation-numbers-days-witnesses


WHY NOW UKRAINE AND INVESTIGATION OF CROWDSTRIKE NOW

Given how the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives from January 2017 to January 2019, and given how Trump was able, in March 2017, to get the House intelligence committee investigation expanded to include investigating whether his campaign was spied on, it needs to be explained why Trump did not get an investigation of Crowdstrike allegations initiated in 2017 or 2018 while the Republicans controlled the House of Representatives.

If the United States Senate is to determine whether Trump had a good motive in seeking Ukraine to do an investigation of Crowdstrike, a DOJ/FBI/Special Counsel investigation of the merits of the Crowdstrike allegations would be needed at this time. That would be very protracted.