InfoMullet: Evidence of an Impeachable Charge – Abuse of Office

TLDRUpFront: A simple and compelling case for a first charge in the Impeachment inquiries has emerged. That in pursuing a personal agenda through the use of government officials and powers, President Trump violated his oath of office and the ‘great veil’ which establishes that government power can only be used to further legitimate governmental functions. And though the emerging chronology and content of quid pro quo understanding between President Trump and President Zelensky of Ukraine may not be enough to convict, it is enough to charge.

Full Context in the Back: 

This isn’t the only smoking gun, for all we know this may just be the first of a 21-gun salute. Or the volley-firing of an entire battalion. But this incident alone satisfies, if the evidence bears out, the necessary criteria to establish an impeachable charge.

This new evidence clearly demonstrates that the 25 JUL phone call was just the center of an orchestrated effort both prior to, the day of, and after the “call” between President Trump and President Zelensky. And that it didn’t just include Trump’s personal attorney, Rudolph Giuliani, but high-ranking government officials. Text messages released by Congressional Committees and received from State Department employees in response to subpoenas have revealed that multiple Ambassadors, Charges de’ Affairs of Ukraine and personal aides to President Zelensky were involved in establishing a quid pro quo understanding not on “corruption in Ukraine” but specifically on the investigation of Biden and Crowdstrike server conspiracies.

These messages were between the US Ukrainian Ambassador Volker, US European Union Ambassador Sondland, US Charges de Affairs to Ukraine Bill Taylor, Andrey Yermak who is a personal aide of President Zelensky of Ukraine, and Rudolph Giuliani. President Zelensky’s agreement to launch an investigation is specified as listed as a necessary precondition for both a successful call on 25 JUL and agreement to a future visit to Washington DC. This is made clear in the texts themselves (source first comment) days prior to the call.

“[7/19/19, 7:01:22 PM] Kurt Volker: Good. Had breakfast with Rudy this morning – teeing up call w Yermak Monday. Must have helped. Most impt is for Zelensky to say that he will help investigation – and address any specific personnel issues – if there are any”

However, Charge de’ Affairs (a ranking diplomat beneath the Ambassador) relays concerns about Ukraine’s reluctance:

“[7/21//19, 1:45:54 AM] Bill Taylor: Gordon, one thing Kurt and I talked about yesterday was Sasha Danyliuk’s point that President Zelensky is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously , not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic, reelection politics
[7/21//19, 4:45:44 AM] Gordon Sondland: Absolutely, but we need to get the conversation started and the relationship built, irrespective of pretext. I am worried about the alternative”

These texts include the morning of 25 JUL, just hours before President Trump spoke to President Zelensky:

“[7/25/19, 8:36:45am] Kurt Volker: Good lunch – thanks. Heard from White House – assuming President Z convinces trump he will investigate / ‘get to the bottom of what happened’ in 2016, we will nail down date for visit to Washington. Good luck! See you tomorrow – kurt.”

This coordination continues after the call for several weeks as Ambassador Volker and Aide Yermak coordinate a press conference and Zelensky statement announcing investigations which is a precondition to a ‘reboot’ of Ukrainian relations contingent upon the announcement of an investigation:

“[8/10/19, 5:42:10PM] Andrey Yermak: Once we have a date, will call for press briefing, announcing upcoming visit and outlining vision for the reboot of US-UKRAINE relationships, including among other things Burisma and election meddling in investigations.”

This term of ‘reboot’ is vital and goes to the heart of the case. Because there was no break in continuity within US and Ukrainian relations until President Trump personally intervened over the last few months to cause it. The White House, State Department, Congress and even Pentagon all had policies and stances in place that the US was supporting Ukraine in its conflict with Russia. The “reboot” is because by this point Trump has fired Ukrainian envoy who wasn’t seen as loyal enough and ordered military aid withheld; all as part of the quid pro quo to which now the “reboot” will deliver the goods he wants, which is an investigation by a foreign government of his political rivals.

A Great Veil Pierced

Why this is so important has to do with the “great veil” that may not be well understood by those who have never worked at the Federal level. The “veil” is established due to no employee, politician, public servant, soldier or personnel receiving a civilian or military job without first taking an oath of office, enlistment, or civilian appointment. This oath clearly states their duty is to the Constitution, not to a person or political ideology. This “great veil” is an ironclad distinction between appropriate and necessary use to further a legitimate government function or interest which, if you trace it back through regulation, policies, and legislation and executive decision-making arrives back at the authorities found within the Constitution.

The government is not to be used for personal purposes, clear and simple. Even contractors, who are not employees of the government, have to take care on how government provided emails are used to ensure that personal use is minimized. Slipping up on this will bring immediate warnings not to do it. Usually by a crotchety GS-13 who is only to happy to serve a contractor a dish of comeuppance.

This “great veil” is similar to the “corporate veil”, which is the first law of corporate organization that you shall not mix corporate and personal finances. But the “great veil” is about mixing government and personal agendas. Obviously, there are grey areas and room for valid disagreement within the broad expanse of this great veil. Vice President Gore ran afoul of it when he used a government provided phone to make political calls, requiring the establishment of an office outside the White House for political purposes. Sometimes these are smoothed over with reimbursement schemes and personnel distinctions – such that the political parties reimburse the US government for the political use of US resources consumed by an officer conducting legitimate political activities (e.g. campaigning) and/or paying the salary of personnel who provide political support but are not employees of the Federal government.

But what is absolutely not allowed is for a politician to leverage US government personnel to harm another person in pursuit of political gain. This is abuse of office, plain and simple.

A Simple Case

Although I’m sure we’ll get more details as more evidence comes rolling in, and I’ll continue to do my analysis, the Impeachment case has now become extremely simplified:

In order to pursue a personal agenda to harm a political rival President Trump personally intervened in US-Ukrainian relations to create a break of continuity in funding and support. This set the stage for conversation with President Zelensky and President Trump on 25 JUL. Prior to the call through his personal attorney, US Ambassadors and other government personnel President Trump established a quid pro quo that in order to “reboot” relations with Ukraine and restore desperately needed military funding, President Zelensky would have to agree on the phone call and announce publicly in a statement he would be investigating the Biden’s. Only when the President was satisfied with the ‘deliverables’ of this agreement would aid be restored. And coordination was ongoing, with the aid being withheld, until 11 SEP. This is only after White House became aware of both the whistleblower complaint and a separate Congressional investigation into whether there was a political reason for the military aid being withheld from Ukraine and appears to be a clumsy attempt to coverup the quid pro quo by releasing the aid.

That’s abuse of office.

And that’s impeachable.

Sources:

https://www.politico.com/f/?id=0000016d-94d6-dfb2-afef-f7f7b74f0001

Original Post: www.facebook.com/tim.clancy.313/posts/10211058354775374