Trump’s ‘I want nothing’ defense doesn’t hold water (opinion)

Editor’s Note: In this weekly column “Cross-Exam,” Elie Honig, a CNN legal analyst and former federal and state prosecutor, gives his take on the latest legal news. I want no quid pro quo.” In the other corner, we have testimony from multiple ambassadors and National Security Council officials that suggests Trump indeed conditioned foreign aid and a White House visit on Ukraine’s announcement of investigations into Trump’s political rivals. Acting Ambassador to Ukraine Bill Taylor testified that “by mid-July it was becoming clear to me that the meeting President Zelensky wanted was conditioned on the investigations of Burisma and alleged Ukrainian interference in the 2016 US elections.” Lt. Col. Alex Vindman, who listened to the July 25 call in his capacity on the National Security Council, described “a demand for him to fulfill his—fulfill this particular prerequisite in order to get the meeting.” Even Ambassador Sondland, central to Trump’s September 9 defense, acknowledged that he directly proposed a conditional exchange to a key Ukrainian adviser, and Ambassador Kurt Volker, the former Special Representative for Ukraine negotiations, explicitly offered a similar this-for-that exchange in a text message to the same adviser. And, upon any sensible reading, Trump himself directly proposed a conditional exchange in his July 25 call with Zelensky, according to the White House’s own transcript of the call: “I would like you to do us a favor though…” Do not be distracted by the “I want nothing!” defense. Testimony from Lt. Col. Vindman, Ambassador Sondland, and National Security Council official Tim Morrison – and other evidence including text messages between US and Ukraine officials – establishes that the “deliverable” Trump and Giuliani sought from Ukraine was not necessarily an actual criminal investigation of the Bidens but rather a public announcement of the investigation.