Toast

In an apparent attempt to strengthen the claim he should not have to testify in Congress, Rudy Giuliani tweeted yesterday:

The investigation I conducted concerning 2016 Ukrainian collusion and corruption, was done solely as a defense attorney to defend my client against false charges, that kept changing as one after another were disproven.

He is essentially here claiming attorney-client privilege as the President’s personal, even if unpaid, lawyer.

Unfortunately for Trump, this tweet also confirms that Giuliani was using US government assets as leverage to encourage the Ukrainians to do something that was entirely in the personal interest of his client.

Boom. That is an impeachable offense if there ever was one. No US government employee would be allowed to stay in her or his job if they tried to use government assets as leverage for personal gain. This is the very definition of corruption.

Now the Republicans will argue that even if Trump did it, and is impeached for doing it, it doesn’t merit his removal from office. After all, it didn’t work: the Ukrainians never undertook the investigation demanded and nevertheless got the assistance the Congress had appropriated. How anyone can imagine that a corrupt attempt at extortion for personal gain is not sufficient cause for removal from office, when some of the same people thought lying about an affair with an intern was, is beyond me.

All this will become clearer in the next few weeks as the impeachment process goes public, with testimony that will tag Trump unequivocally as a corrupt extortionist. The Administration is planning to respond by sullying the reputations of those who testify against the President. It will be hard with a boy scout like Bill Taylor, but Lt. Col. Vindman is in the crosshairs. After all, he was born in the Soviet Union and is Jewish to boot.

Here, for those who need a reminder, is the relevant legal provision on election contributions, 52 U.S. Code § 30121 (with thanks to Joe Foley for providing it):

(a) Prohibition It shall be unlawful for—
(1) a foreign national, directly or indirectly, to make—
(A) a contribution or donation of money or other thing of value, or to make an express or implied promise to make a contribution or donation, in connection with a Federal, State, or local election;
(B) a contribution or donation to a committee of a political party; or
(C) an expenditure, independent expenditure, or disbursement for an electioneering communication (within the meaning of section 30104(f)(3) of this title); or
(2) a person to solicit, accept, or receive a contribution or donation described in subparagraph (A) or (B) of paragraph (1) from a foreign national.

I don’t think the election law violation per se would necessarily be sufficient for removal from office, but the extortion is.

More important: the off-cycle elections Tuesday show Trump weakening significantly, particularly in suburban areas and with women. Congressional Republicans joined the President yesterday in celebrating his success in packing the Federal courts with often unqualified nominees who are reliable “conservatives,” meaning that they will favor business interests, oppose abortion, and give Christian evangelicals the benefit of the doubt. The Republicans in the Senate are still wedded to Trump, but if ever they conclude they will lose both White House and Senate majority if he heads the ticket next year, he is toast.