Beyond that, on the facts, Trump’s answer presents only a few bare conclusions, pointless irrelevances — and outright misstatements. It tells us, once again, that Trump’s July 25, 2019, call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine was “perfectly legal” and “completely appropriate.” Trump “raised the important issue of Ukrainian corruption,” the answer asserts. Read the transcript, as the president might say.
He did not.
The answer claims Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland and Sen. Ron Johnson (R-Wis.) “actually exonerate” Trump. Why? Because they say Trump said —
after the whistleblower complaint was made — that he would never demand a
quid pro quo. But that’s not proof, just Trump justifying himself. “The security assistance was sent, all without the Ukrainian government announcing any investigations,” the document goes on to say. Yes —
two days after the House announced it
was investigating the Ukraine matter.
As for the law, the answer claims, in the most cursory fashion, that “the first Article” — alleging abuse of power — “fails on its face to state an impeachable offense.” In particular, the answer asserts the abuse of power article “alleges no crimes at all, let alone ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors,’ as required by the Constitution.”
That argument ignores that no statutory crime is required by the Constitution for impeachment and that abuse of power is in fact the essence of impeachability: The English parliamentary history upon which the Framers adopted impeachment makes clear that a public official’s breach of duty to put the public interest first constitutes an impeachable, removable offense.
Even if a statutory crime were required, the House’s charge that Trump tried to solicit a personal benefit (Ukraine’s announcement of an investigation) in exchange for an official act (releasing the security aid) constitutes bribery, both as understood in the Framers’ time and under the federal criminal code today.
You're the first to recognizer her!
