More than two and a half years after the unlikely victory of Donald Trump in the 2016 election, this week the president faced the most consequential moment of his presidency.
While the 21-month Mueller investigation into the Trump team’s ties with Russia yielded very little for Democrats, a controversy involving Ukraine’s new president became the issue that triggered an impeachment inquiry. A crisis that surfaced just last week in the media, suddenly erupted into a major constitutional battle.
The controversy emerged on September 18th when the Washington Post reported that a whistleblower had raised concerns about the content of a phone call between the president and a foreign leader. The story sparked a frantic reaction within the White House. Within days the administration released notes of the disputed phone call between Trump and Ukrainian leader Volodymyr Zelensky. The reconstructed phone call confirmed the initial media reports of the whistleblower complaint – that Trump had asked his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter, offering to enlist the help of his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani and attorney general William Barr.
Claims by Trump and his Republican allies that the president had not offered any “quid pro quo” to Ukraine did little to assuage Democrats’ outrage. But within 24 hours the initial scandal had been subsumed into a larger controversy. The original whistleblower complaint – which was sent to the inspector general of the intelligence services on August 12th but not passed to Congress – was released, alleging that the White House sought to “lock down” details of the phone call.
According to the whistleblower, White House officials put the account of the phone call into a highly classified computer system, effectively seeking to hide the transcript in order to protect the president politically. The complainant – who did not witness the disputed phone call first hand – claimed that several White House officials said they were “deeply disturbed by what had transpired in the phone call” and that “they had witnessed the president abuse his office for personal gain”.
‘Witch-hunt’
As the content of the whistleblower complaint reverberated throughout Washington on Thursday, the acting director of national intelligence, Joseph Maguire, faced fierce questioning by Democrats on Capitol Hill about why he did not pass on the whistleblower complaint to the relevant congressional committees as set out in the whistleblower statute. His defence – that the department of justice advised him that it was not necessary because it did not classify the complaint as “urgent” and that it concerned the president rather than an intelligence official – implied an effort by the justice department to stonewall Congress and prevent the transmission of the explosive whistleblower complaint.
Nancy Pelosi immediately declared a “cover-up”, confirming that the whistleblower’s allegations would now become the focus of the impeachment inquiry she announced on Tuesday.
Trump hit back in typical fashion. Decrying the impeachment calls as a “witch-hunt” he urged Republicans to “stick together”. “The Democrats are trying to destroy the Republican party and all that it stands for – our country is at stake!” At a private reception at the US mission at the UN, he also lambasted the whistleblower in scathing terms – “I want to know who’s the person who gave the whistleblower the information because that’s close to a spy,” he said. “You know what we used to do in the old days when we were smart with spies and treason, right? We used to handle it a little differently than we do now…” he added, threateningly.
His intimidatory comments about “spies and treason” flies in the face of whistleblower legislation that was put in place precisely to ensure that executive power is kept in check. It also repeats a pattern by Trump of blaming a “deep-state” conspiracy and an anti-Trump bias in the intelligence services when faced with accusations of executive overreach.
Senate support
What happens next is unclear. The six House committees that were already investigating Trump will now work under the “umbrella” of the impeachment inquiry, according to Pelosi. The House speaker has allegedly told the committee chairs to work as expeditiously as possible, narrowing their focus if necessary. Based on their findings, impeachment articles could be drafted by the House Judiciary later this year. A vote on whether to impeach the president would then be held, first in the judiciary committee and then in the full House. As part of their inquiries House committees may subpoena key players to testify, including Rudy Giuliani.
Questions have also arisen around attorney general William Barr. While the department of justice said he knew nothing about Trump’s efforts to enlist him to help with the Joe Biden inquiry, he is facing calls to recuse himself from connected inquiries. Barr is likely to be aware of the precedent set by John Mitchell – as attorney general during the Nixon administration he ultimately served prison time for obstruction of justice.
Part of Trump’s defiance in the face of this week’s controversy is rooted in the fact that a two-third majority is needed in the Senate to convict him in the event of an impeachment trial. With Republicans mostly behind him so far, his support in the Senate seems solid. Republicans are also buoyed by the lessons of the Bill Clinton impeachment. Democrats ultimately gained electorally from the Clinton impeachment, with voters blaming Republicans for initiating the proceedings. But the Nixon scandal should also provide a salutary lesson. While most Republicans – and the public – supported Nixon initially, that changed as the Watergate hearings got under way. Trump may seem assured of his party’s support at the moment. But we are just at the beginning of a controversy that has a long way to run.
Suzanne Lynch is Washington Correspondent