Trump impeachment inquiry: The short, medium and long story
(6 days later)
There's a new political controversy in the US - involving Donald Trump, foreign nationals, questions about legal and ethical behaviour, and allegations against a political rival - and it's all led to an impeachment inquiry into the US president.
You may have heard this one before - a controversy involving a foreign power could threaten the future of the Trump presidency.
The story can be difficult to follow, so here are some answers to the most pressing questions.
Donald Trump is the subject of an impeachment inquiry over allegations that he improperly sought help from Ukraine to boost his chances of re-election.
Why is this important?
But the story is fast-moving and complex. Let's break it down.
Mr Trump's critics accuse him of using the powers of the presidency to bully Ukraine into digging up damaging information on a political rival, Democrat Joe Biden.
Mr Trump is accused of breaking the law by pressuring Ukraine's leader to dig up damaging information on a political rival.
Mr Trump and his supporters allege the former vice-president abused his power to pressure Ukraine to back away from a criminal investigation that could implicate his son, Hunter.
In July, he urged his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate one of the frontrunners to take him on in next year's presidential election. This matters because it is illegal to ask foreign entities for help in winning a US election.
Mr Biden is the front-runner for the Democratic nomination to take on Mr Trump next year.
An impeachment inquiry that could see the president eventually removed from office is under way.
In other words, it is nothing less than the White House at stake.
But there is a fierce debate about whether Mr Trump broke the law or committed an impeachable offence - he himself says he has done nothing wrong.
Where does this row stem from?
At the heart of this story is a complaint from an unknown whistleblower.
Mr Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky had a phone conversation on 25 July this year.
In August, an anonymous intelligence official wrote a letter expressing concern over Mr Trump's 25 July call with the Ukrainian president.
A rough transcript of the call shows that the US president pressed his Ukrainian counterpart to investigate former Vice-President Biden and his son, who was a board member for a company owned by a Ukrainian oligarch.
They said they had an "urgent concern" that Mr Trump had used his office to "solicit interference from a foreign country" in the 2020 presidential election.
The call came after the Trump administration had delayed releasing US military funds to Ukraine until mid-September.
A rough transcript of the call later revealed that Mr Trump had urged President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate former US Vice-President Joe Biden, a frontrunner to take on Mr Trump in next year's election, as well as Mr Biden's son.
Mr Trump also referenced the 2016 hacking of the Democratic email server in the call to Mr Zelensky, and seemed to imply that the server still exists somewhere in Ukraine.
The call came shortly after Mr Trump had personally blocked releasing millions in military aid to Ukraine. His critics accuse him of using this aid as a bargaining tool, but the president denies this.
The US president says he has done nothing wrong, calling the impeachment proceedings a "joke".
Mr Trump and his supporters allege that Mr Biden abused his power to pressure Ukraine to back away from a criminal investigation that could implicate his son, Hunter, who worked for a Ukrainian energy company.
He has accused Democrats of themselves threatening Mr Zelensky by withholding their votes on US laws affecting Ukraine, and says the controversy was created in order to distract from Mr Trump's meetings at the United Nations.
But these allegations have been widely discredited. There is no evidence that Mr Biden took any action to intentionally benefit his son, nor is there any evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden.
What are other US politicians saying?
Congressional Democrats say the phone call is proof that Mr Trump broke the law by seeking foreign help to try and smear Mr Biden ahead of the election.
Congressional Democrats say the phone call - raised by a whistleblower in a formal complaint - is proof Mr Trump brought improper pressure on a foreign power for personal gain.
But there has been some debate over whether soliciting opposition research from a foreign government constitutes an impeachable offence. President Trump has dismissed the growing controversy as a "witch hunt".
Democrats say the president wanted the Ukrainians to start the investigation into corruption because this could sully the reputation of Hunter and his father.
Regardless, the July call is now at the centre of an effort by Democrats to expel Mr Trump from office. But for it to be successful, members of his own Republican party will have to turn against him.
Several Republicans came forward after the partial transcript of the call was released to defend Mr Trump. This shows the partisan nature of the controversy, which has - like much else in Washington - been divided by party politics.
It was supposed to be the kind of call a president makes multiple times a year.
However, at least one Republican, Mitt Romney, a US senator from Utah, said he would like to know more.
Mr Trump says he called his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky on 25 July to congratulate him on his recent election victory. Mr Zelensky, a former TV star with no political experience, was elected president in a landslide win in April.
What was in the whistleblower's complaint?
But an anonymous whistleblower, reported to be a CIA official, felt there was something more serious in their exchange. They filed a formal complaint on 12 August explaining why they were so concerned.
Citing information from "more than half a dozen" US officials, the whistleblower - who has not been named - alleges that President Trump solicited interference from Ukraine in the upcoming 2020 election.
In their letter, the whistleblower admitted that they did not directly witness the call but said accounts shared by other officials had painted a consistent picture.
The nine-page document cites Mr Trump's 25 July call with President Zelensky, during which Mr Trump allegedly pressured Mr Zelensky to investigate Biden family activity, and to find and hand over any servers belonging to the Democratic National Convention.
For context, about a dozen people are reported to have listened in on the conversation, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo.
The whistleblower alleges that, after realising the gravity of discussions, White House officials tried to cover up details of the call by moving the transcript into a separate system used to store classified information.
It's important to note that the call occurred days after Mr Trump blocked about $391m (£316m) in military aid to Ukraine. Democrats argue this aid was used as a bargaining chip to pressure the new government in Kiev, but Mr Trump denies this.
Mr Trump's lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was reportedly a "central figure" in efforts to pressure Ukraine over Mr Trump's demands, and met several Ukrainian officials as the president's "personal envoy".
The whistleblower's complaint alleges that the president used "the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country" in next year's presidential election (more on this later). They also alleged that White House officials had been "deeply disturbed" by the call and acted to "lock down" all details of it.
The complaint also alleges that in early July - weeks before his call with President Zelensky - Mr Trump ordered officials to cut US military aid to Ukraine without giving any explanation.
Amid the growing controversy, Mr Trump promised to release a "complete, fully declassified and unredacted transcript" he said would prove the call had been "totally appropriate".
In their letter, the whistleblower admits that they did not directly witness the events, but said the accounts shared by other officials had been consistent.
But the details disclosed by the White House were notes of the conversation. It was not a full, verbatim, account and it did little to quell the spiralling controversy. The whisteblower's complaint was made public shortly after.
The complaint itself was released to the House and Senate Intelligence committees on Wednesday and reports suggest that negotiations are under way to allow the whistleblower to testify.
The transcript of the call showed that Mr Trump had urged Mr Zelensky to investigate discredited corruption allegations against former Vice-President Joe Biden, a 2020 Democratic frontrunner, as well as Mr Biden's son.
Joseph Maguire, the acting director of national intelligence, has been testifying publicly before the House Intelligence Committee.
Mr Trump and his allies have been suggesting that Mr Biden, as Barack Obama's vice-president, encouraged the firing of Ukraine's top prosecutor in 2015 because he had been investigating an energy company which employed Hunter Biden.
Earlier this week, President Trump pledged to release the transcript of his phone call with Mr Zelensky - which he said would prove the call was "totally appropriate".
At the time, by working closely with foreign-owned entities while his father was in the White House, Hunter Biden was criticised for leaving his father exposed to suggestions of a possible conflict of interest. But no evidence has emerged that Mr Biden took any action to intentionally benefit his son.
The transcript released, however, was not a full, verbatim account, but rather notes of the conversation taken by US officials who listened in.
The Ukrainian prosecutor who replaced the one who was fired told the BBC there was no reason for Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and that any corruption with the company happened before Hunter Biden joined.
Did the president do something illegal?
Mr Trump has pointed to a boast Mr Biden made in 2018 about how as vice-president he had threatened to withhold a billion dollars in aid from Ukraine unless the prosecutor was fired.
The most damning allegation is that the president pressured a foreign leader for damaging information about a political opponent while holding out the prospect of US military aid.
But motivation is key here. Mr Biden wanted him removed precisely because he was failing to crack down on corruption. And the vice-president was not acting alone, but rather as the focal point of a wider anti-corruption drive in Ukraine backed by the US government, European allies and the International Monetary Fund.
Is that illegal? We do have some very recent precedent.
Mr Trump pressing a foreign leader to investigate the discredited allegations against Mr Biden is significant. This is because Mr Biden is the current favourite to win the Democratic nomination and, if chosen, he would be the man facing off against Mr Trump for the presidency in November 2020.
It certainly recalls the recently concluded two-year Robert Mueller investigation into possible Trump campaign ties to Russian election-meddling in 2016.
As Mr Biden is his biggest rival for the presidency, it opens Mr Trump up to claims he was working with a foreign power to influence the election. This - crucially - is against the law.
The special counsel's report detailed multiple contacts between the campaign and Russian nationals, including the June 2016 meeting between top campaign officials such as Donald Trump Jr and several Russians with ties to the Kremlin.
This is not the first time Mr Trump has been scrutinised over his foreign connections. His 2016 election campaign was investigated over its alleged ties to Russia. The inquiry did not establish a criminal conspiracy to influence the election, but it also did not exonerate the president.
There has been some debate over whether soliciting opposition research from a foreign government constitutes a campaign finance violation, but Mr Mueller declined to file charges.
The Democrats have launched a formal impeachment inquiry and have spared no time in getting to work. House Democrats demanded that five department officials - including the former US ambassador to Ukraine - appear for depositions in October.
Mr Trump's Ukrainian call could also potentially run afoul of federal bribery statutes. The special counsel concluded that Justice Department policy guidelines prohibit a sitting president from being indicted, however, so even if Mr Trump did commit some kind of crime with his actions, he's safe at the moment from criminal prosecution.
The president's personal lawyer, Rudy Giuliani, was subpoenaed for documents relating to Ukraine. Mr Giuliani has been central in pushing the allegations against the Bidens. Secretary Pompeo was also served with a subpoena.
With this in mind, a more relevant question might be …
So how does the impeachment process work?
Did Mr Trump commit an impeachable offence?
Impeachment is the first part - the charges - of a two-stage political process by which Congress can remove a president from office. If the House votes to pass articles of impeachment, the Senate is forced to hold a trial.
The constitutional process for handling a president who committed illegal and-or unethical acts is impeachment by a majority of the House of Representatives and conviction and removal by a two-thirds majority of the US Senate.
A Senate vote requires a two-thirds majority to convict. As it stands, this is unlikely given that Mr Trump's party controls the chamber. Unlikely, but not impossible.
The US constitution outlines the grounds for impeachment as "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanours". When it comes down to it, an "impeachable offense" is whatever a majority of the House says it is.
Ever since the conclusion of the Mueller investigation, the drumbeat for impeachment among Democrats - who hold a comfortable majority in the House - has been steadily increasing. Initially, however, the House Democratic leadership was loath to push ahead with a formal investigation that could lead to an impeachment vote.
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi had suggested that such a move could damage the electoral prospects of Democrats in moderate congressional districts and would in the end be meaningless because the Republicans who hold the majority in the Senate would never vote to remove the president.
But then on Tuesday, Ms Pelosi announced that Democrats were opening a formal impeachment inquiry.
She said the president had committed "a violation of the law", and called his actions "a breach of his constitutional responsibilities". She said he "must be held accountable".
Is there anything to these allegations about Joe Biden and his son?
The allegations against the Bidens pushed by Mr Trump and his lawyer, former New York City Mayor Rudy Giuliani, centre on the then-vice-president's successful effort to force out top Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin in 2016.
From early 2014, Hunter Biden, the son of former Vice President Joe Biden was on the board of an energy company Burisma Holdings, which was co-founded by a Ukrainian oligarch, Mykola Zlochevsky.
In 2015, the then Prosecutor General Victor Shokin said that Burisma Holdings was among those companies he had in his sights on as he sought to tackle corruption.
By 2016 there were concerns within the Obama administration that Mr Shokin had not aggressively enough pursued corruption cases (including against Burisma Holdings) and Vice-President Biden issued an ultimatum to Ukraine's parliament to dismiss Mr Shokin or lose US loan guarantees.
At the time, by working closely with foreign owned entities while his father was playing a key foreign policy role in the White House, Hunter Biden was criticised for leaving his father exposed to suggestions of a possible conflict of interest.
However no evidence has emerged that Mr Biden took any action to intentionally benefit his son, nor is there any evidence of wrongdoing by Hunter Biden.
