The Personal Website of Mark W. Dawson

Impeachment Hearings I - Impeachment of President Trump

As the Impeachment hearings of President Trump is underway, I wish to comment on a point of law in regard to President Trump’s actions. The main point of contention is that President Trump encourage the Ukrainian President to investigate Ukrainian actions in the 2016 Presidential elections and Vice President Biden’s actions regarding Foreign Aid and a Ukrainian prosecutor’s investigation of corruption, and furthermore did this to benefit his 2020 Presidential reelection goals and did this by withholding Congressional approved Foreign Aid to Ukraine.

While it may be true that this would benefit President Trump’s reelection the real question is if President Trump was “Upholding the Rule of Law” or “Violating the Rule of Law”. If his purpose was to further his reelection than he was probably “Violating the Rule of Law”. However, a case can be made that he was actually “Upholding the Rule of Law”.

President Trump took an Oath of Office to faithfully execute the laws of the United States. Part of this execution to ensure all Foreign Treaty commitments were enforced. The United States has a treaty with Ukraine in which part of their mutual commitments is to assist each other in criminal violations regarding citizens of each country violating the laws of each country.

As there is a current Judicial Department investigation regarding the origins and actions of the “Russian Collusion Investigation”, in which questions are raised of Ukrainian involvement in the 2016 Presidential election, it is appropriate, and indeed a responsibility under the treaty, for President Trump to ask for Ukrainian assistance in this investigation.

As to the actions of Vice President Biden during a visit to Ukraine several years earlier, there is a video of him claiming that if the Ukrainian prosecutor who was investigating corruption charges against a Ukraine company in which his son was a Board Member was not fired in six hours Ukraine foreign aid would not be given. This appears to be a Quid Pro Quo, and it may also have been illegal for Vice President Biden to do this. This video is Prima facie (sufficient to establish a fact or raise a presumption unless disproved or rebutted) argument that the Department of Justice should investigate to determine if any crime was committed by Vice President Biden or his son. Vice President Biden and his son have the presumption of innocence, but they do not have any right to not be investigated for credible allegations of wrongdoing.

As to the propriety of President Trump in making this request to the Justice Department, it should be remembered that no one is “Above the Law”. No President, no Vice President, no Cabinet or Executive Office official, no Congressman or Senator, no Judge or Justice, nor any presidential candidate is above the law. When credible, verifiable, or substantiated evidence of wrongdoing occurs the Justice Department should make a determination if legal action is warranted. It matters not where this request originated, only that it be credible, verifiable, or substantiated. Therefore, it is acceptable for a President to request a determination if legal action is merited.

Therefore, there is a reasonable explanation for President Trump’s actions that he was “Upholding the Rule of Law” by asking for Ukrainian assistance in the investigation as agreed too by both the United States and Ukraine in their treaty. In judicial proceedings there is the concept of if two equally reasonable explanations of a defendant’s actions are given, one in favor of the defendant and one detrimental to the defendant, then the favorable explanation must be utilized to determine the guilt or innocence of the defendant, as a prosecutor or plaintiff has a burden to prove the detrimental reason. Without proof of the detrimental reason the defendant’s reasonable explanation must be presumed to be the real reason for their actions.

President Trump’s actions were appropriate because he was requesting that the Ukraine assist in a criminal investigation by the United States and to uphold the criminal laws of the Ukraine. That the results of these criminal investigations impact the past or future elections in the United States is not a factor, as not upholding the law for election purposes is not a valid excuse for not enforcing the law. If the facts are politically disadvantageous to someone then the facts take priority, and the impacts of the facts are simply what they are. To the claim that the facts may interfere with an election I would respond "I certainly hope so!". For facts should always be utilized by voters in elections. Just because they are inconvenient facts does not discount the facts. Let the facts reign supreme and let the "chips fall where they may".

Until the Impeachment Hearings can prove that President Trump was acting with malice, and in an attempt to interfere with the 2020 Presidential elections, they must presume that he was acting appropriately. And to prove malice or interference requires direct evidence (see my Chirp on “Hearsay/Gossip”) and they, therefore, cannot find that he was “Violating the Rule of Law” or committing “Impeachable Offenses”.