Trump did nothing wrong

Skip to content
Primary Menu
National Review
Search National Review
Search Text
Search
Sep. 30, 2019
SUBSCRIBE

LOGIN
WHITE HOUSE
Why I Think Trump Did Nothing Wrong in His Phone Call with Zelensky
By LUKE THOMPSON
September 29, 2019 6:30 AM

Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky meets with President Donald Trump during the 74th session of the United Nations General Assembly in New York City, September 25, 2019. (Jonathan Ernst/Reuters)
Opponents of the president have elevated his person above his position.
I  had a great discussion on The Editors Thursday about my view that President Trump did nothing wrong in his July 25 phone call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky. My view seems to be the minority position, so it makes sense to lay it out as clearly as possible.

Much of the confusion around this case stems from the entanglement of two groups specializing in bamboozlement: lawyers and spies. Espionage and the law have specialized argots that hide fabrication and skulduggery. Nonetheless, critical analysis reveals that the call was in bounds and that objections to it reduce to absurdity.

My argument relies on an assertion, a distinction, and showing the absurdity of the other side of the argument taken to its logical conclusions.

First, the assertion: The United States government has a compelling interest in knowing if its private citizens are involved in corruption abroad, either alone or in concert with current, former, or future public officials. This is not a controversial claim, yet when applied to what we know about how Joe Biden conducted his vice presidency in relation to his son Hunter Biden’s career, it invites unwarranted controversy.

Here are the facts. The decision of Joe Biden, while vice president, to facilitate his son Hunter’s international business dealings presents, minimally, the appearance of a conflict of interest. Indeed, anything that Hunter Biden touched that intersected, however tangentially, with the official doings and responsibilities of his father can be presumed to be a worthy subject of investigation unless and until proven otherwise. The younger Biden’s shady dealings with his uncle dating at least to 2008, his absurd (and absurdly lucrative) board post on the Ukrainian energy firm Burisma, his massive financing rounds in China, and his travel to these countries along with his father, the latter acting in his official capacity — all raise major questions.

NOW WATCH: 'Trump Claims He Had 'Nothing to Do' with Pence's Stay at Irish Trump Resort'

Because Hunter Biden repeatedly profited in countries where his father was conducting official business, despite having no marketable skills or relevant experience, these questions would exist even if he were a paragon of personal virtue. Yet we know that he is not. His fiscal profligacy, repeated battles with addiction, and seeming erotomania, make Billy Carter, Hugh Rodham, and Roger Clinton look like Boy Scouts. Indeed, Hunter Biden is recreationally closer to Hunter Thompson than he is to most ne’er-do-well political relatives. Hunter Biden is clearly a person who should not be anywhere near government.

As a result, in the absence of clear and convincing proof that nothing is amiss in the Biden family business, there is a presumptive case for looking into the Bidens to see if all the smoke surrounding Hunter came from fire. Joe Biden didn’t choose to have a troubled son. But he did choose to integrate his troubled son into his official functions. The burden of proving that the interpenetration of government and family did not enrich the younger Biden falls squarely on the elder Biden. He has not met that burden because, given the facts already known, doing so is probably impossible.

Joe Biden wishes to be president. The American people have a right to know if, as second in line to the presidency, he facilitated his family’s enrichment. Did he do so consciously or through blind irresponsibility? He flew Hunter Biden to China on an official visit: What did Joe think Hunter was doing on that trip? If nothing is amiss, follow the administration’s response to this scandal and open the books. Until that happens, an investigation — whether formal or informal — is justified.

Second, my distinction: Information is not interference. Based on the call transcript, Trump asked Zelensky to get to the bottom of whether Ukraine or Ukrainians interfered in the 2016 election. One may consider Trump’s concerns absurd or silly. Alternatively, one may suspect Ukrainian involvement. I do not know and will not pretend to know, because whether Ukraine was actually involved is irrelevant. The request for information that the Ukrainian president may be uniquely positioned to offer is fair and does not, in and of itself, constitute election interference.

The president is well within his rights to seek information from his counterparts abroad. He can ask Zelensky if the Dodgers will make the World Series, or who Zelensky thinks is the most formidable Democratic candidate. Soliciting information, in the form of facts or opinion, does not constitute election interference. It does not constitute having a foreign head of state do opposition research for the Trump campaign. It is not some of in-kind contribution.

Nor is there anything wrong with the president using leverage to get answers to his questions. Ukraine is not in NATO. Ukraine has been an ally of the United States some of the time, but at other times has been a de facto extension of the Russian Federation. And while the United States owes Ukraine certain obligations owing to the Budapest Memorandum, obligations the last administration ignored, Ukraine does not enjoy a constitutional or treaty right to Javelin missiles. Regardless of whether or not Trump asks important questions or stupid ones, by virtue of his office, he has the right to ask what he wants and use the leverage he controls to get answers. Because the national interest is served by those questions, even if they also align with Trump’s perceived political self-interest, a quid pro quo is not a problem.

While the seeking of information does not intrinsically constitute a problem — indeed, it’s exactly the sort of thing we want the president doing in exchanges with foreign heads of state — what Trump chooses to do with the information he receives matters immensely. Were Trump to pass documents to his campaign, that would blend his official powers with his electioneering apparatus, which is against campaign-finance law. Were Trump to tell Zelensky to leak whatever damaging information he might find about Biden, that too would constitute election interference. Obviously, if Trump asked Zelensky to target Biden or his campaign with hacking, it would be a crime. If he asked Zelensky to fabricate information and leak it to the public, this impeachment talk would be completely justified.

Yet Trump did not do these things. He asked for information that might help him serve the national interest in his capacity as president. Whether one trusts Trump to act accordingly or not is not itself impeachable in the absence of action. Similarly, that Trump failed to follow up regarding his invocation of Attorney General Barr is neither a problem nor surprising given his lackluster organizational tendencies.

But what if we were to treat the request for information as tantamount to interference? Let us trace this line of thinking to its absurd conclusion. If Trump cannot ask anyone, foreign or domestic, about the obviously dubious behavior of a political rival, then we have created a de facto immunity for anybody running for president, an immunity that extends to their family if they mix family with previous public-office holding. So long as American officials and private citizens misbehave abroad and then run for president, they cannot be investigated legitimately, so this line of thinking goes.

As a historical matter, this would mean that the Benghazi and Clinton Foundation investigations undertaken by Congress were illegitimate the day they began because they had political consequences for presumptive Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton. They would similarly mean that the Russiagate investigation was wrong the day it began. And while many people can justifiably point to misbehavior by Russiagate investigators, it cannot reasonably be said that Donald Trump’s words, deeds, and associates made that investigation unreasonable from the get-go. Indeed, we can go still further back.

Going back further still, if targeting a political opponent for investigation is illegitimate under any circumstances, then FDR was wrong to direct the FBI to work with friendly European governments to investigate Charles Lindbergh and the German American Bund.

Clearly, creating an effective blanket immunity for those powerful enough to run for president is truly the stuff of banana republics. Indeed, if it achieved anything, it would only encourage well-heeled rascals to run for office while simultaneously encouraging the politically connected to engage in international graft. I, for one, think America has enough of both already.

Finally, I would like to close with two observations. Neither is logically necessary to my argument, but both are sociologically and constitutionally worth examining. Many people are uncomfortable with the president leveraging America’s superior power to extract concessions from an inferior. I question this instinct. Power involves coercion and brokering. It can look and feel gross. It can be smutty. We have two and a half millennia of political philosophy in large part because goodness and political effectiveness have a complicated relationship. People can be bad and ineffective, yes. The good guys sometimes win too. But politics at the highest level has long been recognized as sitting in an awkward relationship to morality.

As a result, politics isn’t for everybody. Though we misattribute the idiom to Bismarck, Americans have long understood that people prefer to eat sausage rather than see it get made. The Framers of the Constitution, who expected to be the weaker party — to be in Zelensky’s position rather than Trump’s — understood this. That’s why Article II, Section 2 gives the president the power to negotiate treaties. Those treaties come into effect only when ratified by the Senate, so the conclusion of a deal is subject to popular review. However, the back-and-forth required to get that deal is and should remain a solely presidential power. If anything, the White House was too quick to disclose the transcript of Trump’s call with Zelensky.

None of this guarantees that wrongdoing has not transpired. If President Trump overstepped in the ways outlined above, I will happily revisit my opposition to impeachment. The president is entitled to designate a special representative to serve as his proxy in negotiations or fact-finding, including a personal attorney with whom he enjoys attorney–client privilege over and above traditional executive privilege. However, these powers stop the minute the president directs his subordinate to go beyond information-gathering and to engage in campaigning. And if a subordinate does so of his own volition, that subordinate ought to be punished. However, nothing we have seen to date crosses these lines. Instead, opponents of the president have elevated his person above his position, deciding that the practice of executive power itself is illegitimate because of who has been elected to wield it. That is the very kind of institutional nihilism many of these same people claim to fear most about this presidency.

159

LUKE THOMPSON — Mr. Thompson is a Republican political consultant. @ltthompso
MORE IN WHITE HOUSE
How about a Bipartisan Treaty against the Criminalization of Elections?
Trump Did It, but Should He Be Impeached?
Prince Don
Rudy Giuliani’s Harebrained Scheme
RECOMMENDED ARTICLES
The Resistance Failed
CONRAD BLACK
Joe Biden vs. the Democratic Economy Truthers
JOHN HIRSCHAUER
One Last Grift for Bernie Sanders
KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON
Man of Steel
MONA CHAREN
SPONSORED CONTENT
Hate Shaving? Check out This Beauty Find You Can Get at Your Local Drugstore
Hate Shaving? Check out This Beauty…
ELLE.com
Help defenseless animals for 63¢ a…
ASPCA
[Photos] Locals See Wolf Approaching Dog In Park, Then The Unexpected Happens
[Photos] Locals See Wolf Approaching…
PostFun
If You Have an Android, This Star Trek Game is Highly Addictive
If You Have an Android, This Star…
Download Star Trek Fleet Command
Cartoons of the Day: September 26, 2019
Cartoons of the Day: September 26, 2019
Cartoons of the Day: September 26, 2019
The worst places to vacation in America (Stay far away from No. 8)
The worst places to vacation in America (Stay far away from No. 8)
ALOT Travel
Refi your student loans before rates go up.
Refi your student loans before rates go up.
NerdWallet
Does Trump Understand Corruption?
Does Trump Understand Corruption?
Does Trump Understand Corruption?
Tattoo Fails: Try Not To Laugh Hard
Tattoo Fails: Try Not To Laugh Hard
Offbeat
The War-Time Diaries of Miksa Fenyő: A Little-Known Masterpiece
The War-Time Diaries of Miksa Fenyő: A Little-Known Masterpiece
The War-Time Diaries of Miksa Fenyő: A Little-Known Masterpiece
On Shooting a Wild Hog: An Uneasy Hunter Brings Home the Bacon
On Shooting a Wild Hog: An Uneasy Hunter Brings Home the Bacon
On Shooting a Wild Hog: An Uneasy Hunter Brings Home the Bacon
Here's What New Dental Implants Should Cost in 2019
Here's What New Dental Implants Should Cost in 2019
realtimeclk.com
Notes from the Class of 1987
Notes from the Class of 1987
Notes from the Class of 1987
Help defenseless animals for 63¢ a day.
ASPCA
PROMOTED POSTS

Johns Hopkins Professor On Child Transgender Trend: ‘Many Regret'
thecollegefix.com

Oberlin College Could Have Paid $1 Instead Of $25 Million In Suit
thecollegefix.com

Student Leaders Fight ‘Heteronormativity’ At Notre Dame
thecollegefix.com

Birds Of Prey Reshoots To Remove Lewd Storyline
boundingintocomics.com
MOST POPULAR

LAW & THE COURTS
Once Again, Progressive Anti-Christian Bigotry Carries a Steep Legal Cost
By DAVID FRENCH

CULTURE
On Shooting a Wild Hog: An Uneasy Hunter Brings Home the Bacon
By JORDAN SILLARS

VIDEO
Five Cops Were Arrested in Relation to Stormy Daniels’ Arrest

WHITE HOUSE
Trump Did It, but Should He Be Impeached?
By JONAH GOLDBERG

WHITE HOUSE
Why the Impeachment Frenzy May Only Strengthen Trump
By VICTOR DAVIS HANSON

WHITE HOUSE
Prince Don
By KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON

WHITE HOUSE
The Impeachment Train
By YUVAL LEVIN

U.S.
The Radicalism Arms Race
By KEVIN D. WILLIAMSON

WORLD
Double Standards on Ukraine
By ANDREW C. MCCARTHY

WHITE HOUSE
Plurality of Americans Support Impeaching Trump
By ALEXANDRA DESANCTIS

VIEW MORE
LOGIN
DONATE
SUBSCRIBE
Sections
The Corner
Bench Memos
The Morning Jolt
The G-File
News
Books, Arts & Manners
All Articles
All Authors
Podcasts
Photos
Games
Videos
Topics
Politics & Policy
Culture
White House
Film & TV
PC Culture
U.S.
World
Immigration
Economy & Business
Elections
Magazine
Latest Issue
Archive
Subscribe
Gve NR as a Gift
Customer Care
NRPLUS
Magazine FAQ
NRPLUS FAQ
About
Frequently Asked Questions
The Masthead
Contact Us
Careers
Privacy Policy
Terms of Service
NR Institute
More
Advertise
Donate
Search
E-mails & Alerts
Newsletters

Morning Jolt (M-F)
NR Daily (M-Sa)
Breaking News (M-Su)
Email
© 2019 National Review