25
of outrage. A special counsel spent two
years meticulously documenting a presi-
dential campaign receptive to assistance
from a foreign adversary and a President
who may have used his office to block the
investigation. In the end, the result was a
collective yawn.
But the Ukraine affair has caused
something to snap, and not merely be-
cause Trump has supplied enough final
straws to fill a hayloft. Unlike the Rus-
sia controversy investigated by Robert
Mueller, it took place entirely while
Trump was in office. It affects national
security in the present, not the past, and
bears on an election yet to take place. It
is, compared with the Mueller probe, rel-
atively easy to understand. Perhaps most
significant, for Democratic members of
Congress it appears to have been born
out of Trump’s sense of impunity. Having
escaped Mueller’s net and dodged con-
gressional oversight, critics say, Trump
apparently believed he could get away
with anything—and immediately set out
to solicit a foreign power to involve itself
in his next election. He made his call to
Zelensky the day after Mueller testified
before Congress.
now even many reluctant House Demo-
crats have concluded they have no choice
but to begin an impeachment inquiry. “To
VIEWPOINT
An impeachmentinquiry is necessary
By David FrenchThe unredacted, declassified summary of
Donald Trump’s July 25 telephone call with
Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky
contains an express request that he work
with Trump’s personal attorney Rudy
Giuliani, and it creates a powerful infer-
ence tying this request to the Ukrainian
need for American Javelin missiles to
assist in deterring Russian aggression.
The sequence in the call is damning.
First, in the opening moments of the call—
just after Trump congratulates Zelensky on
his election victory—he raises direct con-
cerns that while the U.S. has been “very
very good to Ukraine,” the nation not been
“reciprocal necessarily” with the U.S.
There is nothing wrong in the abstract
with a statement like this. Nations do seek
quid pro quos all the time in international
diplomacy. The relevant question is what
the U.S. wants for its friendship.
That’s why the next paragraphs are so
very crucial. Zelensky specifically thanks
Trump for his “great support” in the area
of defense and then specifically notes
that Ukraine is “almost ready to buy” addi-
tional anti tank missiles. These missiles
are vitally important to Ukraine’s efforts
to blunt Russia’s overwhelming military
advantage by substantially raising the
potential cost of further Russian action.
How does Trump respond? The very
next words out of his mouth are, “I would
like you to do us a favor though ...” The
first thing he outlines is Ukrainian assis-
tance in what appears to be continued
investigation of the 2016 election. Trump
says, “I would like you to find out what
happened with this whole situation with
Ukraine” and references CrowdStrike, the
firm involved in investigating cyber attacks
on Democratic National Committee com-
puter servers.
Zelensky responds with “yes,” saying
the matter is “very important” to him. In
the next paragraph, Trump goes further.
He indicates that he would like Giuliani to
call Zelensky, and asks Zelensky to talk
to him. Then we get the key words. Trump
says, “The other thing, there’s a lot of talk
about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the
prosecution and a lot of people want to
find out about that so whatever you can do
with the Attorney General would be great.”Trump continues, “Biden went around
bragging that he stopped the prosecution
so if you can look into it ... It sounds hor-
rible to me.”
A fact-check is in order. Former Vice
President Biden has boasted of his role in
compelling Ukraine to fire its former chief
prosecutor, but there is no evidence that
Biden stopped any prosecution of his son
Hunter. In fact, Biden was not only advanc-
ing Obama Administration policy, he was
expressing the desires of key European
Union allies. Yes, Biden was a poor mes-
senger. Yes, his son’s business dealings
in Ukraine created a conflict of interest.
But there’s no evidence that Biden saved
his son from prosecution.
Zelensky responds to Trump by assur-
ing him that the next prosecutor will be
“100% my person, my candidate,” and
promises that “he or she will look into the
situation.”
Paragraph by paragraph, the context
unfolds. Trump complained about a lack of
reciprocity in the relationship with Ukraine.
Zelensky asks for missiles vital to his
national defense. Trump asks Zelensky
for additional investigation of matters
related to the 2016 election, and Zelensky
agrees. Trump then asks for Zelensky
to talk to Trump’s personal attorney and
investigate his political rival. Zelensky
agrees.
Crucially this conversation occurred
after Trump reportedly intervened to place
a hold on military aid to Ukraine.
It’s entirely unacceptable that a
President would ask a foreign leader to
work with personal counsel to investigate
an American rival. These facts were plain
before the summary was released. But
now the summary raises serious ques-
tions abut Trump’s repeated denial of any
“quid pro quo” with Ukraine.
When Trump demanded reciprocity,
he made it clear what reciprocity meant,
and it meant in part an investigation
of a leading Democratic candidate for
President. Under these facts, an impeach-
ment inquiry is an entirely appropriate
response.French is a TIME columnist and a senior
writer at the National Review