Page:Impeachment of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States — Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives.pdf/130

 promotion of these investigations and the political narratives behind them thus "served the [President's] personal political interests . . . because they would help him in his campaign for reelection in 2020."

iii."In Return for Being Influenced in the Performance of any Official Act"

In Return for Being Influenced: This element of the criminal anti-bribery statute requires showing "a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act."—i.e., a quid pro quo. As detailed above, the evidence satisfies this standard. President Trump sought an announcement of these investigations in return for performing two official acts. First, the President "conditioned release of [] vital military assistance . . . on [President Zelensky's] public announcement of the investigations." Second, he "conditioned a head of state meeting at the White House . . . on Ukraine publicly announcing the investigations."


 * Federal anti-bribery law defines an "official act" as "any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy" that may be pending or brought before a public official in that person's official capacity. Both of the acts in question—releasing $391 million in approved military and security assistance, and hosting an official head-of-state diplomatic visit at the White House—plainly qualify as "official act[s]" within the meaning of the statute.

First, the release of much-needed assistance to Ukraine was unquestionably an official act. Release of these funds, totaling $391 million, involved a formal certification process by the Department of Defense regarding certain preconditions and an official notification to Congress, among other things. In addition, President Trump's placement of a hold on the funds precipitated "a series of policy meetings involving increasingly senior officials" across numerous federal agencies. These processes unmistakably involved "formal exercise[s] of government power" as defined by the Supreme Court in McDonnell v. United States. Indeed, McDonnell confirmed that a decision to allocate funds obviously qualifies as an "official act."

Second, when the President hosts a foreign head of state for an official diplomatic visit, he performs an official act specifically assigned to him by Article II of the Constitution. The President's