What if?

There’s a lot of chaff being thrown as the trial of President Trump continues in the Senate. A frantic Gish gallop is engaged in across CSPAN at every recess—which certainly . But many of the arguments raised are at their core irrelevant.

Assume, for the sake of argument, that Joe Biden is as guilty of everything that is being alluded to. That every claim, every innuendo, resolves to a man wholly guilty—that he is the very embodiment of corruption.

Even if Biden is guilty, the President needs to be removed from office.

The investigation

The President has stated that Ukraine “is considered a corrupt country”, and his surrogates have claimed that he was concerned about corruption there. But if the President is truly concerned about Ukrainian corruption, he would have no reason to trust the results of a Ukrainian investigation into Joe Biden.

As of October 2019, Trump claimed that he had not asked the Department of Justice to investigate Biden’s son. If the President believed Joe Biden was guilty of something, why did he not ask the DOJ to open an investigation?

If it is improper for a President to ask the DOJ to open an investigation, why is it proper for him to request that a foreign government open an investigation?

The law

Let’s ignore, for now, whether or not the requested investigations, or announcement of investigations, broke campaign finance law.

According to the non-partisan Government Accountability Office, the Trump administration violated the Impoundment Control Act when it withheld funds from Ukraine for policy reasons. Aside from being a clear abuse of power, it is also illegal.

The evidence indicates that withholding these funds (along with a White House visit), were used to pressure Ukraine into initiating an investigation into Joe Biden.

Is it appropriate for the President to break the law to initiate any investigation?

US national security interests

Supporting Ukraine against Russian aggression is vital to the continuation of international norms related to the respect for borders and national sovereignty. It is in the national interest of the United States to support Ukraine for at least the following reasons:

If national borders can be violated at a whim, wars are vastly more likely. Russia will be emboldened to make more wars of choice, putting European security at great risk. China is likely to be similarly emboldened. Given the vast interdependence of national economies, the United States would suffer economically if war spreads.

This is somewhat wonky, I will admit. But it is undeniable. If Europe becomes embroiled in further war, the United States will suffer economically. And these wars might, in future, go beyond a tipping point and drag the United States into another world war.

The administration withheld congressionally mandated funds from an ally at war. The withholding of funds, even if all of it was provided (which it wasn’t), is a useful data point for Russia that indicates that the defence of Ukraine is not something that the US values.

Is it appropriate for the President to put the national security of the United States at risk for the sake of any investigation?

Additionally, as a matter of the character of the nation, the United States should have an interest in supporting fellow democracies against the actions of tyrants.

Conclusion

• The President chose to use his powers to request that a foreign country, that he claims is considered to be corrupt, to investigate a US citizen.
• The President broke the law by withholding aid to that country.
• The President threatened US national security interests by prioritizing an investigation over those security interests.

Trump’s continued presidency represents a continued threat to the Republic, and he should be removed from office.