When Donald Trump delivered his speech to the UN General Assembly, it was impossible not to notice that he looked frowning against his habit. He even seemed tired, which was never noticed by him at all. It is difficult to say what caused the condition of the owner of the White House. Perhaps by the time he entered the rostrum, Donald already knew that the leadership of the Democratic Party had decided to begin the process of impeachment.
On the evening of September 24, a video message from the Speaker of the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi, appeared in which she announced that the president should be responsible for “his behavior related to Ukraine,” and that the six committees of the lower house of Congress will begin hearings and necessary investigations to decide whether to vote on the issue removal of the president from power. The speaker’s performance was rather confusing, despite his pathos. So you should understand it.
First about the procedure itself. According to the Constitution and Congress rules, the decision on the appropriateness of a general vote on impeachment is made by one of the relevant committees of the House of Representatives. Usually this is a legal committee, but theoretically it can be both an intelligence committee and a supervisory committee, depending on which charges are brought against the head of state and which committee conducted the relevant investigation. However, in order for the committee’s hearings to take place, a decision of the regulatory committee is necessary.
Then, the full composition of the lower house is voted. To continue the procedure, a simple majority of votes is needed. If it is recruited, a group of so-called managers will be formed under the leadership of the speaker, who will represent the prosecution at the Senate court.
In the upper house of the congress, it is the court, and not a simple consideration of the issue. As a rule, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court presides over the process. The interests of the president are represented by his lawyers. Senators become jurors. True, they have the right to vote. For example, a debate may take place before moving to a vote (verdict). In order for the president to be convicted and deprived of his post, two-thirds of the senators must vote for this.
As follows from the appeal of Pelosi, there is still not even a decision of the regulatory committee. Moreover, it is still unclear on what charges will be brought. The speaker spoke of six committees, each of which will conduct its own investigation. She did not specify their list, but it can be assumed that legal, financial and supervisory committees, as well as intelligence, international affairs and regulatory committees will take part in the formulation of claims to the head of state. It’s hard to say when the investigations will begin, how they will be carried out and how long they will take. However, the fact that Pelosi chose such a complicated formula to start the impeachment procedure, and did not use her right to immediately raise a question with the regulatory committee, says that, although she agreed with the requirements of her colleagues, she still tries to delay the process. Apparently, in order to regain the initiative and, if necessary, stop the procedure in the early stages. Let me remind you that until yesterday evening she claimed that the game was not worth the candle.
Now about the "Ukrainian scandal", which again returned to the agenda the issue of impeachment trump.
Opponents of the president claim that the White House owner, in a telephone conversation with Ukrainian leader Vladimir Zelensky, exerted pressure on the latter to force him to begin an investigation into the activities of the family of former vice president and senior candidate Joe Biden. The United States allegedly used $ 400 million in financial assistance from Ukraine as a lever of pressure. Media reported that a few days before the telephone conversation, Trump ordered freezing money transfers of “young European democracy”.
Thus, the essence of the accusations, which have not yet been formally formulated, but are already in full swing in the press, is as follows. Donald Trump, taking advantage of his official position on the disposal of taxpayer money, forced the foreign power to collect incriminating evidence against his political opponent and presidential rival.
If the case is filed correctly, then, in principle, it can lead to abuse of power. Of course, it is unlikely that a crime can be proved, but this is quite enough to mobilize Trump's enemies.
It also turned out that one of the staff of the office of the Director of National Intelligence of the United States sent a so-called whistleblower complaint to the inspector general of the department, which was considered, but the course was not given to her. The New York Times was the first to report this. The publication alleged that the complaint also related to Trump's telephone conversation with Zelensky: the owner of the White House allegedly revealed to his interlocutor some "sensitive to national security" information.
Congress demanded that he be provided with the text of the complaint, as well as a transcript of the telephone conversation. Initially, administration officials refused, citing the privileges of the executive branch in terms of international politics. But then the president himself ordered that both documents be placed at the disposal of the legislators (and, according to his statement, without any exceptions). Apparently, it is from their consideration that all six investigations of the lower house will begin.
And here one more part of Nancy Pelosi’s plan is guessed. The more committees (and therefore congressmen) get these confidential documents in their hands, the greater the likelihood of leaks to the press. Apparently, the speaker expects that various fragments of both of these documents will constantly appear and be exaggerated in the media. At the same time, mainstream media, of course, will build discourse so that the president appears in the most negative light.
On the prospects of impeachment. Like six months, and a year, and two years ago, the chances of removing Trump from power are practically zero.
The House of Representatives with a probability of 70-80% will vote for the start of the procedure, unless, of course, Pelosi timely depresses the brakes. And she can resist the further course of the matter, because she understands that through the Senate, the condemnation of the “impossible Donald” will not pass. And an unsuccessful impeachment, as historical practice shows, painfully hits the party that initiated it. The last time they tried to oust President Bill Clinton from power, the speaker of the lower house (Republican Newt Gingrich) was forced to resign.
But the unfolding political drama has another important plot. The fact is that during the congressional proceedings and related journalistic investigations, the whole ins and outs of Bidenov’s dealings in Nezalezhnaya will come out. The former vice president actually outsourced the "young European democracy."
At this time, his son Hunter Biden was appointed a member of the board of directors of the Ukrainian gas company Burisma Holdings with a very high salary and a share in profits even by American standards. The actions of Hunter and his friends, also living in Ukraine, in January - February 2016 fell into the spotlight of Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin. In March, old Joe, threatening to freeze US state guarantees in the amount of $ 1 billion, ultimately demanded that Petro Poroshenko dismiss Shokin. Moreover, Biden himself boasted of this in public.
Of course, the former vice president in his defense may state that he insisted on replacing the main prosecutor of Ukraine because of his corruption. However, the investigation into the son of an American politician was terminated. Moreover, already in the summer of 2016, the Ukrainian authorities passed on to the National Committee of the Democratic Party data revealing the interim head of the headquarters of Donald Trump Paul Manafort, which became an important part of the “Russian case”. It is curious that Biden, talking about his blackmail Poroshenko, argued that President Obama was "in business". Victoria Nuland, Special Representative for Eastern Europe, who also led Nezalezhnaya and did one important thing at the same time, could help to restore relations between the FBI and former British intelligence officer Christopher Steele, the author of the notorious “Russian dossier” on Donald.
If the case of abuse of power by the president is considered carefully enough, almost the entire plot of the former US democratic administration and special services against Trump will inevitably and finally come out. Worst of all will be Joe Biden. After all, he did exactly what the head of state is accused of today. That's just Donald can say that he acted in the public interest (the case of corruption in the highest echelons of power, and even with the participation of a foreign state, is not a joke), and Joe pursued personal selfish interest.
The Ukraine-widening corruption scandal surrounding Biden is not limited to.
A similar personal enrichment scheme was implemented in China. In exchange for trade preferences from Washington, the Chinese government funded a private foundation co-founded by Hunter Biden and the adopted son of US Secretary of State John Kerry Christopher Heinz. And here we were talking about hundreds of millions of dollars.
In general, a new round of political confrontation in the United States will hit Joe Biden hardest. And then it becomes clear why the left-wing wing of the Democratic Party so decisively insisted on the beginning of the impeachment procedure, realizing that the matter could not be completed. In fact, impeachment is not declared to Trump, but to Biden. They strive to remove old Joe from the path of socialist candidates who, although almost catching up with him in the ratings, still continue to fall behind four months before the first primaries. For the leftist ultras, in 2020 it is much more important to seize power in the party, pushing moderate politicians away from the helm than to kick Donald out of the Oval Office.
It becomes clear and the game of Nancy Pelosi. She, mindful of Biden’s past failures on the way to party nomination (in 1988 and 2008), decided to “surrender” Joe and at the same time let the troublemakers in the party show themselves as leaders in the process of removing Trump from power. Taking a cautious stance, she hopes to maintain her party boss power by substituting the socialists for the inevitable return after the failure of impeachment. It may be worth the majority Democrats in the House of Representatives, but there will be no change of leadership of the Democratic Party.
Part of the Washington establishment will undoubtedly play on the side of Biden. For them, the attack on Trump is almost the only way to delay or even prevent a whole series of criminal cases that have long been “crying” for many former and current members of the US intelligence community who participated in the conspiracy against the 45th president.
This is not to say that for Donald, parsing his case will be an easy walk. In many matters, including international ones, his hands will again be tied for a while. In addition, he and his character are guaranteed serious personal experiences. But if he again, more than once before, persists, his victory in the re-election of 2020 is almost guaranteed.
Although the United States expects a dirty war of incriminating evidence and a heated media skirmish, all of the main political forces in Washington are likely to get what they want. Socialists - their presidential candidate (apparently Elizabeth Warren), moderate Democrats - the preservation of their leader in Congress, and Trump - a second term. And only old Joe will have to leave the political scene, not in the splendor of fame, but in shame.
Of course, this will happen only if none of the players make a fatal mistake. Or if the economic crisis does not start. Or a new war in the Middle East will not break out. In a word, if the world will be relatively calm.
The author’s point of view may not coincide with the position of the publisher.