Republicans Try Different Response to Ukraine Call: Quid Pro Quo Isn't Impeachable

  • In Politics
  • 2019-11-05 19:32:20Z
  • By The New York Times
Republicans Try Different Response to Ukraine Call: Quid Pro Quo Isn\
Republicans Try Different Response to Ukraine Call: Quid Pro Quo Isn\'t Impeachable  

WASHINGTON - Since the impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump began, most Republicans in Congress have made the argument that the president's decision to withhold military aid to Ukraine in exchange for investigating a political opponent was not a quid pro quo or an abuse of power.

But after a partisan House vote last week opening up a public phase of the inquiry - and a parade of government officials who testified to Congress that there was a quid pro quo - some in Trump's party are testing out a new refrain: Even if a quid pro quo existed, it is not grounds for impeachment. They are merely concerned.

"Concern is different than rising to the level of impeachment," Rep. Tom Cole, R-Okla., said on NBC's "Meet the Press" on Sunday. "Look, if I believed everything the Democrats are saying, I would still say this isn't an impeachable offense."

The new line of attack, echoed by lawmakers and White House officials, is a turnabout for Republicans toiling to defend the president, who for weeks had led the cry of "no quid pro quo." When Mick Mulvaney, the president's chief of staff, admitted weeks ago that there was a quid pro quo and said that reporters should "get over it," congressional Republicans, stunned by the mess Mulvaney had created, waited until he denied a few hours later that he had said what he said. They then embraced his denial.

"I think Mick was very clear in cleaning up his statement, that there was no quid pro quo," Rep. Kevin McCarthy of California, the minority leader, said at a news conference at the time. "You have the transcript to prove it."

But as House Democrats conclude the fact-finding portion of their inquiry and prepare to make the case in public that Trump abused his presidential power to pressure Ukraine into investigating his political rivals, Republicans, recognizing that their process argument has a looming expiration date, have cast about for a new line of defense.

Adding to the angst is Trump himself, who implored Republicans last week to stop defending him on process and instead defend the substance of his call in July with President Volodymyr Zelenskiy of Ukraine, in which Trump asked the Ukrainian leader to "do us a favor" and investigate Democrats. Lawmakers have since resigned themselves to the notion that the president will continue to use his Twitter feed as an unvarnished, one-man war room, two Republican aides said, and can only hope he will not go off on too many tangents.

On Sunday, Trump suggested a path forward: After The Washington Post reported that Republicans were grappling with a way to combat growing testimony that the president abused his power to pressure a foreign leader, Trump's denial also contained a marching order.

"False stories are being reported that a few Republican Senators are saying that President Trump may have done a quid pro quo," Trump wrote on Twitter on Sunday, "but it doesn't matter, there is nothing wrong with that, it is not an impeachable event. Perhaps so, but read the transcript, there is no quid pro quo!"

The White House did not immediately respond to a question about whether the comments were part of an existing strategy, but on Sunday, Kellyanne Conway, the White House counselor, seemed to take a freelance approach to messaging.

In an appearance on CNN, Conway would not say whether she thought Trump's actions on the July phone call constituted a quid pro quo. "I don't know whether aid was being held up and for how long," Conway said, despite testimony from current and former Trump administration officials that the aid had been held up by mid-July on Trump's orders and was not released until September.

Later, in an appearance on Fox, Conway said that if Trump had held up aid to Ukraine until prosecutors there investigated former Vice President Joe Biden, it would not constitute a high crime worthy of impeachment. She added that the scenario was "a hypothetical that the Democrats want to be true."

Elsewhere, some of the president's most avid supporters have gone to great lengths to defend him.

Rep. Jodey C. Arrington, R-Texas, told The Hill website last week that Trump's call with Zelenskiy was "beyond appropriate."

"I commend him for being a fiduciary and actually caring about how much we pay to support our allies relative to others," Arrington said.

Rep. Brian Babin of Texas, a Republican member of the Science Committee, argued last week on the House floor before the vote to endorse the inquiry that Trump was just "doing his job."

Babin said that U.S. aid should be paired with "a commitment to crack down on corruption at all levels - no matter who someone's daddy is or what their political ambitions are," seemingly a reference to Biden's son Hunter.

House Republican leaders have not yet gone as far as the rank and file. Pressed repeatedly by George Stephanopoulos on ABC's "This Week" on Sunday, Rep. Steve Scalise of Louisiana, the No. 2 House Republican, would not directly answer whether it was appropriate for the president to ask the Ukrainians to investigate his political opponents.

"President Trump gave the money to Ukraine," Scalise said. "Zelenskiy acknowledged that. He wasn't even aware it was withheld."

Laurence H. Tribe, a Harvard law professor and an author of "To End a Presidency," a book on impeachment, said the gamble that the most vocal Republicans appeared to be taking was that Trump - who as a candidate boasted that he could shoot someone on Fifth Avenue and get away with it - had succeeded in essentially saying "so what?" before.

Trump, for example, has denied applying pressure to Zelenskiy to investigate Biden, but then added that it would "have been OK if I did."

Tribe said in an interview that the president and his defenders were using the same attack strategy that the president applied during the Mueller investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 election, relentlessly spreading a message of "no collusion" between Russians and the Trump campaign.

"I think the logic is the logic of the big lie," Tribe said. "That if you repeat something often enough loudly enough to people who are not being critical in their analysis of what they're hearing, you may just get away with it."

This article originally appeared in The New York Times.

© 2019 The New York Times Company


More Related News

'Open and shut': Kamala Harris argues case is clear against Trump in introduction as Biden's running mate

Biden touts his new running mate and says he's proud to have her by his side in the battle for the "soul of the nation."

Exclusive: Trump administration asks court to dismiss Big Tech
Exclusive: Trump administration asks court to dismiss Big Tech's challenge to social media executive order

The Trump administration has filed a motion asking a court to dismiss a lawsuit against the president's executive order targeting social media companies, calling it a "profound misunderstanding," according to a copy of the motion seen by Reuters. The lawsuit was brought in June by the Center for Democracy and Technology (CDT), a Washington-based tech group funded by Facebook Inc, Alphabet Inc's Google and Twitter Inc. It marked the first major legal test of President Donald Trump's directive. Trump issued an executive order in May against social media companies in an attempt to regulate platforms where he has been criticized, just days after Twitter took the rare step of fact-checking...

Coronavirus Relief Talks Still
Coronavirus Relief Talks Still 'Miles Apart'

Democratic leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer said Wednesday that they had turned down an overture from Treasury Secretary Steven Mnuchin for the two sides negotiating a stalled coronavirus relief package to resume talks. The White House, Democrats said, isn't budging from its demands for a smaller aid package. "We have made clear to the Administration that we are willing to come down $1 trillion if they will come up $1 trillion," the Democratic leaders said in a joint statement. "However, it is clear that the Administration still does not grasp the magnitude of the problems that American families are facing. We have again made clear to the Administration that we are...

The White House Has Explored Ways to Sidestep Congress to Cut Taxes: Report
The White House Has Explored Ways to Sidestep Congress to Cut Taxes: Report

The White House has explored whether President Trump has the authority to cut taxes without legislation from Congress, The New York Times reports:"While such a move is not imminent, Mr. Trump's advisers have sought legal guidance from White House lawyers about whether the president has the authority to eliminate certain taxes, including income and business taxes, without the approval of Congress."Daniel Hemel, a tax law professor at the University of Chicago, tells the Times that the administration "clearly can delay pretty much anything for a year." But unlike Trump's weekend move to defer payroll taxes through the end of the year, White House officials are discussing whether the...

POWER PLAYERS: The 16 key healthcare experts advising Joe Biden and Kamala Harris
POWER PLAYERS: The 16 key healthcare experts advising Joe Biden and Kamala Harris

Should former Vice President Joe Biden with the White House, these experts would shape how the US emerges from the coronavirus pandemic.

Leave a Comment

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked with *

Cancel reply


Top News: Politics