Here is the big question that President Donald Trump may be impeached. turn: is it ever appropriate for a US president to ask a foreign government to investigate a political rival?
The Democrats seem to assume the answer is "no" that such a request can never be properly given the consequences for our electoral system. The "smoking gun" is what they say about Trump urging Ukraine ̵
The story goes on below  "It's not about politics. It's about corruption, "Trump told reporters outside the White House on Friday.
But the real answer is more complicated. History shows that sometimes the president may be justified in asking a foreign country to investigate a political rival, including the former Vice President, so the very fact of Trump's request to investigate bid for the bid for Budence, without considering the circumstances of the request, is not sufficient to impeach him.
To prove that Trump abused his presidential powers to the point that he no longer so trust in their implementation – the constitutional standard of impeachment – does Congress have to set Trump's intentions in asking for it, was it done in good faith, keeping in mind the US external or internal interests, or in bad faith, just for Trump's personal and political gain? To prove the latter, Congress cannot rely solely on Trump's words; it must show that allegations of corruption against Bidens are groundless, and that Trump's request to Ukraine is part of an unfair demonstration that the nation can no longer tolerate did you act.
Going back to the early days of America, there were occasional occasions where presidents would be excused if they sought foreign investigations of political competitors. In 1804, Aaron Berr contacted the British government, apparently, to take down the plan for the partition of the United States to form a new country in the Western Territory. In response to President Thomas Jefferson, he was prosecuted for treason and found not guilty. It can be argued that Jefferson was excessively involved in the lawsuit for treason. But if he instead simply asked Britain's help to gather more information about Berr's involvement in the plot, it would be appropriate, given the high stakes for the country.
This is true, despite the fact that Jefferson sought re-election to Time and Burr, an invariably ambitious politician may still have wished for the presidency. Berr would hardly be a serious contender for Jefferson's re-election; The Federalist Party, which opposed Jefferson, hated Berr for killing his hero, Alexander Hamilton. But Burr was still politically active and could not be completely destroyed. Whatever the circumstances of the election rivals at the time – and the campaigns of that time were, of course, very different from those of today – Jefferson as president would have acted responsibly if he had asked for UK assistance in investigating Berr.
For a more recent example, look at 1968 when Richard Nixon was a Republican candidate trying to wrest the White House from the Democrats. During the campaign, Nixon went so far as to encourage the emissary, Anna Shenno to interfere in the peace talks of President Lyndon B. Johnson to end the war in Vietnam. At the time, Johnson reneged on the Democratic primary, but his vice-president, Hubert Humphrey, ended up as the party's candidate – turning Nixon into political competition. Nevertheless, it would be perfectly legal for LBJ, who understood what Shenno was doing, to ask the South Vietnamese for information on whether Nixon was directly involved in the plot.
Sometimes there is an inevitable tension between the obligation of the president to defend the nation as commander-in-chief and the role of the president as a candidate for re-election. But presidents, unlike subordinates, cannot relinquish their duties as commander in chief. Rarely, but sometimes, acting in good faith as commander-in-chief, it may be necessary for the incumbent president to seek foreign assistance in investigating a former vice president, such as Berr and Nixon, who opposes the re-election. As long as the president does act in good faith, critics may reasonably question the validity of the president's decisions, but there would be no reason to impeach and eliminate him.
What about Trump's very real inquiries about former Vice President Biden's foreign investigations? Can they be protected from impeachment charges on the grounds that Trump acted in good faith?
Conscientiousness may not be enough defense if Trump violated campaign finance laws by seeking "values" from foreign governments in support of his election campaign. But I deny that some presidential talks with foreign leaders should be considered outside the scope of campaign finance regulation. The exercise of the responsibility of the Commander-in-Chief in the interests of national interests should not be overridden by the interpretation of regulations that are primarily intended to protect US elections from foreign money.
Neither does the quadratic proposal – if this is what Trump did to Ukraine when asked to investigate – is a sure sign of dishonesty. Such a proposal may be considered legitimate if it serves a valid foreign policy goal, as President Barack Obama's ambassador to Russia Michael McFaul recently observed.
These points do not mean that Trump was justified in requesting Biden's foreign inquiry. Rather, they help point to an investigation into where it belongs: a Trump motive. Congress must determine whether the president had a fair basis to believe that Biden was engaged in any falsity, comparable to Nixon or Berr, that could justify the type of Trump's requests to Ukraine and China. Of all the evidence available to date, Trump's defenders say that Trump's defenders say he acts in good faith, but Congress must make a formal decision as part of any formal impeachment trial.
How does Congress find that Trump's motive was dishonest? To begin with, the House of Representatives will need to show that Biden's allegations are so false that they must be made in bad faith. This will open the impeachment investigation to any contradictory evidence that Trump may gather by inevitably making Biden the center of the investigation – something Democrats may prefer to avoid.
Members of Congress will also need to use their assessments of Trump's character and behavior in general. For impeachment House members, as well as potential senators who decide whether to condemn, if Trump is seen as regularly acting in bad faith, then it is easier to exclude any defense of good faith as a justification for his conduct against Ukraine.
Defense attorneys must decide what general evidence they want to use as a formal part of the process. Because impeachment is not a common prosecution, they can count on more of this than allowed in the courtroom. But this will be contrary to the strategy of limiting impeachment proceedings.
This puts the impeachment supporters in a somewhat procedural manner. They may limit their evidence solely to facts that directly relate to the president's request for foreign investigations into allegations, such as recently disclosed text messages to US diplomats working on the issue. This strategy may be sufficient, but it risks leaving room for those in Congress who are inclined to give the president the benefit of the doubt on Ukraine. Conversely, impeachment supporters can expand the range of evidence – pointing to all the ways in which Trump indisputably abused the president's power for personal gain during his time in office – but this approach risks accusing Democrats of simply addressing the issue want to decide for themselves in the ballot box.
The Goldilocks approach to impeachment evidence may focus on facts that demonstrate the specific form of fraudulent activity and why it requires impeachment. This evidence shows not only that Trump acted for reasons of personal electoral superiority in his relations with Ukraine and China, but also that he could never be expected to exercise his presidential powers on behalf of the public. affidavit, in the midst of a re-election campaign when self-interest is threatened Proving his inability to raise the national over his own interest may help convince the public that impeachment is indeed about the future, not the past And, more importantly, that the necessary means of impeachment because the power the voters choose their president without undue interference can not protect otherwise.
Of course, Trump can, in a sense, interfere with himself if he continues to act in ways that can only be seen as dishonesty. And the evidence of US envoys who say things like "I think it's crazy to give up security aid to help with a political campaign" would far not demonstrate that Trump's only motive is (and will continue to be) an inadequate desire to secure an election advantage. Yet, to impose a foreign investigation into Biden, the imminent Trump will demand that his conviction be based not only on his words, but on what was in his heart when he uttered those words. This is a difficult but not impossible lane for Congress to clear.