EACH TRUMP administration scandal is different, but the questions they invite are the same. Has another president done something similar before? Does this scandal involve a breach of the law, or merely of norms and precedent? Where does this rank on the Trump-o-Meter, with fibbing about the size of the crowd at his inauguration at one end and obstruction of justice at the other? Finally, if you heard that a president had done something but you were not told which president, how would you judge the behaviour? If Donald Trump did indeed put pressure on the president of Ukraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, to produce material that would embarrass a political rival, might that be the worst Trump scandal yet, as Max Boot, an ex-Republican who is generally a reliable guide, wrote in the Washington Post? Or is it not even worthy of comment, as most Senate Republicans seem to believe—at least in their public statements?
Begin with what we know. In August the government of Ukraine received news that the White House had frozen a package of military aid to the value of $250m. This was unexpected because Congress had already appropriated the money, and because the aid supported America’s interests in Ukraine, which are to see a country that is as peaceful and stable as possible. A month earlier, Mr Trump had spoken to Ukraine’s newly elected president to congratulate him on his election win. Something said by Mr Trump in that call reportedly gave rise to a formal complaint from a whistleblower in America’s intelligence services. We do not know for sure what that something was, but the Wall Street Journal has reported that Mr Trump asked Mr Zelensky about eight times during the call to investigate Hunter Biden, the son of the Democratic front runner for the presidential nomination, who had business interests in Ukraine. Mr Trump has recently admitted that he raised the issue of corruption with Mr Zelensky.
The contents of that call were probably part of the whistleblower’s complaint, which itself is now at the centre of a wrangle between the White House and Congress. The law states that such reports are passed from the Office of the Director of National Intelligence to Congress. The Trump administration is arguing that the law has been incorrectly applied, and that in any case, the president’s calls with foreign leaders should enjoy executive privilege. The administration may offer a compromise of sorts, by releasing the transcript of the call but not the whole of the whistleblower’s report.
That would not clear the matter up. So far most of the focus in the American press has been on the contents of that one phone call. Was the freezing of the money explicitly linked to the investigation of Hunter Biden? Probably not. The Economist’s reporting suggests that the call was characteristically Trumpian, but that there is no smoking gun in the transcript. A former lawyer to the president, Michael Cohen, has spoken of how he often makes his wishes plain without making explicit requests or orders.
From the Ukrainian perspective, the main channel through which Mr Trump applied pressure to help him out politically was via his personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani. Shortly after the call between the two leaders, Mr Giuliani travelled to Madrid to meet an adviser to Mr Zelensky, Andriy Yermak. He urged the Ukrainian government to investigate the younger Mr Biden and dangled the possibility of a state visit to Washington, DC, as an inducement. Mr Giuliani has since said that he was acting merely in his role as the president’s private lawyer. But this distinction, if it existed, was lost on the Ukrainian government.
The reason this scandal rises above the level of Mr Trump’s others is that, on the face of it, the president appears to have acted against America’s national interest—by freezing aid to a vulnerable ally—in order to pursue a vendetta against a political rival at home. If the administration suggested that the military aid would come if Ukraine’s government investigated the younger Mr Biden—if you give us the dirt we give you the guns—that would be tantamount to extortion.
Even without such an explicit assurance, it looks as if the president failed to put America first, and also used taxpayer’s money to put pressure on a foreign government to produce material that would help his re-election campaign. If in 2015 Barack Obama had given the government of Azerbaijan the impression that American aid was contingent on digging up dirt on Mr Trump’s property deals there, would that have been a betrayal of the trust that America put in him? Yes it would.
That is why more Democratic members of the House of Representatives are now talking about impeachment. There are three groups: the convinced impeachers, who have argued for getting rid of Mr Trump almost from day one; the House leadership, which believes that impeaching Mr Trump in the House and then seeing him acquitted in the Senate (where Republicans have a majority) would be a political own-goal; and the reluctant impeachers, who are willing to believe that impeachment is not in their narrow political interests but believe that to duck impeachment because it is politically inconvenient would be to shirk the role the founders gave to Congress. This is the group to watch closely over the next few days.
As for the Senate, the numbers lined up against any possible impeachment trial are still stacked in Mr Trump’s favour. The Hunter Biden story is hugely helpful for Mr Trump and gives Republicans another genuine scandal to talk about when the subject of Ukraine comes up. Because that the vice-president’s son, who does not know a great deal about hydrocarbons, sat on the board of a Ukrainian gas company, drawing a salary of as much as $50,000 a month, while his father was not just the sitting vice-president but was responsible for the White House’s Ukraine policy was, if not illegal, then the kind of misjudgment that only seems normal for those who have grown accustomed to the cash-for-influence industry in Washington, DC. In moral terms, what Hunter Biden did or did not do in Ukraine has nothing to do with whether the president offered the president of Ukraine guns for “oppo research”. In political terms, the two are linked.
That leaves American politics in a bind. The president may have abused his office. Yet if he has, nothing much can be done about it. Even if the numbers change and the House votes to impeach, Mr Trump will probably be exonerated in the Senate. Mr Trump would be unimpeachable. The glimmer of light is that the scrutiny Mr Trump is being subjected to now over his dealings with Ukraine might make him think twice about doing something similar in the future.
ABC's prime-time political soap "Scandal" launched mid-season with little fanfare in the spring of 2012, to tepid reviews and disappointing ratings.
Following the exploits of Emmy-nominated Kerry Washington as Washington, DC crisis manager Olivia Pope and her team of problem-solving "gladiators," the show didn't immediately take off and it looked destined to be strangled at birth.
As it nears its finale six years on, however, it bows out as a bona fide hit that changed the way we watch TV, ushering in the era of live-tweeting shows, known as "double-screening."
Its army of vocal Twitter fans, who also call themselves "gladiators," helped ratings for "Scandal" soar more than 50 percent to 12.7 million an episode by 2014.
Much of its success was driven by the goodwill it engendered as an intriguing Washington, DC political story of sex, murder and double-dealing starring a strong black female character.
But its pioneering showrunner, "Grey's Anatomy" creator Shonda Rhimes, has been credited with the insight that stars and producers live-tweeting episodes along with fans makes a difference in ratings.
From the earliest days, she would diligently connect with her Twitter followers, who have expanded during the show's lifetime from 350,000 to 1.7 million.
"Gladiators: 'Scandal' would not have the opportunity to be on magazine covers without all of you watching. Thank you for making it happen!" she would tweet, giving fans a feeling of belonging that they'd never had before.
- 'I was very skeptical' -
Rhimes would offer personal insights into production and the scriptwriting process and, most importantly, rope in the cast to post their own thoughts in real-time.
It is a common tactic these days but no one was really doing it -- certainly on a regular, reliable basis -- before Rhimes.
By the second season, "Scandal" was drawing 119,000 tweets per episode and ratings began to climb, particularly among the millennial age group that advertisers covet.
The show is in its final run of 11 episodes after returning last week from a mid-season break and finishes for good on April 19.
Tony Goldwyn, who plays ex-president Fitzgerald "Fitz" Grant, Pope's longtime love interest, told journalists at a recent set visit in Hollywood how the cast had embraced Rhimes' ground-breaking strategy.
"It completely transformed my perception of social media. I was very skeptical and judgmental about it, and just thought... it was irrelevant to me," said Goldwyn ("Ghost," "The Belko Experiment").
The 57-year-old actor figured that no one would be interested in his opinions but was staggered when thousands of people began following him and responding to his tweets.
"It's kind of like being in a Broadway theater with 1,000 people there and you're talking to them," he said.
"I was really awed by the impact of it and the fact that you can literally communicate one-on-one with people or a group."
Other networks have begun to catch up but "Scandal" still finished ninth across broadcast stations last year in the social media charts, with 5.2 million interactions.
- 'Yearning for connection' -
The cast makes sure to live-tweet for audience in both the east and west coast time zones, said Cornelius Smith Jr, who plays White House communications director Marcus Walker.
"It's a lot of fun and it's a really different kind of way to communicate and connect. I think people are really yearning for connection in this world, especially today," he told reporters.
Jeff Perry, who plays vice-president Cyrus Beene, joked that the only negative reaction to the live-tweeting had come from other actors in Hollywood.
Though they can be full of praise, he said that "a little more often they're (annoyed) at us. 'You guys made that work and now I have to tweet all the time.'"
Social media aside, "Scandal" has an equally important reason to be proud of its reputation for pioneering TV, -- its commitment to diversity.
All the characters in the most powerful roles are women, and the show has always been committed to reflecting the racial diversity of modern-day America.
"When we first aired most of the questions I received centered around the fact that there had not been a black woman as the lead in a television drama in my lifetime," said Washington, 40.
"It was not something I grew up seeing... and that is certainly not the case now. You'd be hard-pressed to find a network that does not have a show with a woman of color at its center."
![What could be worse than a WWII Nazi Army in Minneapolis? [FREE GAME]](https://lh3.googleusercontent.com/blogger_img_proxy/AEn0k_s95IKGIbdsxxcl4OWjdQA3nsOz_9xdVRLNSPTD8EP7R5bzvLTzUk6oIFJ7jpgjyAaXzHPXB0Yh7i-JYO2ECyKrbHtXCIf5mM_dHGzn188RkMjGGTDR_zhqON59LZlPg61ELmhnG1gFVxU3kE_W_W9gJzXMR8F774C7QRhcA3TcB8n46m2W1_wZFwiyhSe-20SFBEbM8Suu2ngkSRncwhkleYqFzN8qSulmg391opKF_VRVkIfiGoan2zXZ00tTHZrEtQCI22tQ2n9yfJxa6TGW2VyFlqzNy5u_uIduKr2D7sWQ4Qs=s0-d "What could be worse than a WWII Nazi Army in Minneapolis? [FREE GAME]")
