Multiple Trump officials should be impeached over the substance of Ukraine meeting

Nancy Pelosi, House Speaker

Throughout his Presidency, Donald Trump gave the public many examples of his betrayal of the Constitution and denigration of the office of President.  So many of Trump's actions have been attacks on  democracy and our American way that any one of them could be a part of the articles for impeachment.

Nancy Pelosi has focused on one of Trump's recent infractions before she committed to impeaching him.  And that one was a big one.  Big in substance but also big in the number of Trump officials involved.

This recent infraction was the quid, pro quo that Trump asked from the newly elected Ukraine President.  Trump is so driven to find ways to ensure his re-election, he has not only avoided taking precautions against future Russians interference, but has also asked the Ukrainian President to dig up dirt on his Presidential challenger, Joe Biden.  Trump told Ukrainian President Zelensky that he must report on the requested investigation into Joe Biden and his son in a public announcement to be given at a White house visit, or he would not be given military aid that Ukraine so desperately needs to defend against Russia.

Just as Trump and his family asked Russia for dirt on his 2016 challenger, Hillary Clinton, they have now asked Ukraine for dirt on his 2020 opponent, Joe Biden.  It seems when it comes to finding an illegal leg up on the competition, Trump is surprisingly consistent.

And now we find out that this plan was in effect many month's ago, when his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, his EU Ambassador, Gordon Sondland and his Energy Secretary, Rick Perry were sent to discuss related matters with Ukrainian officials.

On July 25, 2019, Trump had the infamous quid, pro, quo call with Zelensky.  Mike Pompeo was present for the call.  Trump instructed Mick Mulvaney to delay the Ukraine military aid related to the quid, pro, quo call.

If by these actions Trump is guilty of impeachable offenses, so are all of the other Trump officials that were involved.  Perry has self-impeached as he recently announced his resignation, but all the others except Giuliani should also be impeached.  Giuliani is not a federal employee but has to answer for other crimes such as not registering as a foreign agent.

As for impeachment, Donald Trump's attorneys have gone to court to have the impeachment deemed illegal since there was no formal impeachment vote in the House.  Last week Lindsey Graham introduced a resolution condemning the impeachment inquiry as illegitimate.  Republican officials  have been stymied by a judge covering the case who has determined that the inquiry being carried out by the House is legitimate and does not need a vote to continue.

However, Nancy Pelosi has announced that Democrats wanted to push back on claims by Trump that the impeachment is not valid and will hold a vote on Thursday, October 31, 2019 to establish the procedure for open hearings, dispositioning transcripts and transfer of evidence to Judiciary as they consider impeachment articles.

The impeachment will happen.  The House of Representatives has the votes for that.  However, the impeachment is not the same as removing Donald Trump from office.  It will take more Americans to register their outrage with Trump in order to convince Republicans in the Senate to vote to remove him from office.  At this point, the GOP is still solidly with Trump.

As public hearings give Americans more insight into the impeachable offenses of the Trump administration, perhaps more GOP Senators will come to their senses and save America, democracy and their own dignity.

Former Gov McDonnell not guilty of violation of Virginia law? Really?

Indicted Former Gov McDonnell (R-VA)
and spouse

Many of the news shows and even former governor McDonnell  have declared or implied that taking "legal gifts and loans" from a donor are not a crime according to Virginia law and that the indictment was purely based on federal law.  Really?

This statement was really puzzling.  Are Virginia laws so loose that they would allow a governor to accept hundreds of thousands of dollars and gifts from a donor when it allegedly was taken in exchange for using his office and position of power to promote a product?  Is the statement just incorrect?  I needed to understand which it was.

Now understand that Virginia has some outdated and unusual laws.  For example, it is illegal for couples to engage in sex with the lights on and only the missionary position are legal (we don't think the McDonnell's are guilty of this); but it seems that government officers should be held to higher standards when it comes to bribery.

A simple query of Virginia laws seems to indicate that the former governor's actions have violated Virginia laws as well.  Below, is the section of Virginia law on "Prohibited conduct".  I have highlighted the areas where the governor has run amuck.

§ 2.2-3103. Prohibited conduct.

No officer or employee of a state or local governmental or advisory agency shall:

1. Solicit or accept money or other thing of value for services performed within the scope of his official duties, except the compensation, expenses or other remuneration paid by the agency of which he is an officer or employee. This prohibition shall not apply to the acceptance of special benefits that may be authorized by law;

2. Offer or accept any money or other thing of value for or in consideration of obtaining employment, appointment, or promotion of any person with any governmental or advisory agency;

3. Offer or accept any money or other thing of value for or in consideration of the use of his public position to obtain a contract for any person or business with any governmental or advisory agency;

4. Use for his own economic benefit or that of another party confidential information that he has acquired by reason of his public position and which is not available to the public;

5. Accept any money, loan, gift, favor, service, or business or professional opportunity that reasonably tends to influence him in the performance of his official duties. This subdivision shall not apply to any political contribution actually used for political campaign or constituent service purposes and reported as required by Chapter 9.3 (§ 24.2-945 et seq.) of Title 24.2;

6. Accept any business or professional opportunity when he knows that there is a reasonable likelihood that the opportunity is being afforded him to influence him in the performance of his official duties;

7. Accept any honoraria for any appearance, speech, or article in which the officer or employee provides expertise or opinions related to the performance of his official duties. The term "honoraria" shall not include any payment for or reimbursement to such person for his actual travel, lodging, or subsistence expenses incurred in connection with such appearance, speech, or article or in the alternative a payment of money or anything of value not in excess of the per diem deduction allowable under § 162 of the Internal Revenue Code, as amended from time to time. The prohibition in this subdivision shall apply only to the Governor, Lieutenant Governor, Attorney General, Governor's Secretaries, and heads of departments of state government;

8. Accept a gift from a person who has interests that may be substantially affected by the performance of the officer's or employee's official duties under circumstances where the timing and nature of the gift would cause a reasonable person to question the officer's or employee's impartiality in the matter affecting the donor. Violations of this subdivision shall not be subject to criminal law penalties; or

9. Accept gifts from sources on a basis so frequent as to raise an appearance of the use of his public office for private gain. Violations of this subdivision shall not be subject to criminal law penalties.

McDonnell's lawyers have said that under the case presented by the federal government against him, any governmental official would be guilty if they did anything to promote a business, so even President Obama would be guilty in his promotion of Dream Works, for example.  This comparison  distorts the real facts in the case and mistakenly removes the illegal aspect of the crimes of the former governor.

How much money did Obama get from Dream Works?  The difference between the President's actions and McDonnell's actions is that there is no personal benefit gained by the President in exchange for his kind words about Dream Works.  In such cases "quid pro quo" is the rule.  "Quid pro quo" means there is intensional exchange of goods or services in return for some personal gain.  A "you scratch my back and I'll scratch yours" situation.

McDonnell was promoting a private company's tobacco based "medical" product known as "Anatabloc" by using the influence of his office in exchange for money, favors and gifts that only benefitted him and his family.

Only after news of these infractions became public did McDonnell pay back all money.  He maintains his innocence and only admits to bad judgement.  Since he paid it back, he now calls the money a loan.

McDonnell and his wife may face decades in jail and up to $250,000 in fines if found guilty.

Even if McDonnell's lawyers somehow manage to get him off, I think America expects more of our political leaders.