The new controversy about President Trump’s conduct toward the government of Ukraine is not really hard to understand, but it does involve multiple sub-issues. Here, then, in the interests of clarity, is a basic outline of the situation.

Sub-issue 1: Did Hunter Biden, son of the former vice president, engage in corruption while on the board of Burisma, an energy exploration company long operating in Ukraine; and did then-vice president Joe Biden improperly intervene to quash a Ukrainian government investigation of his son’s actions?

The elder Biden was the Obama administration’s point person on policy toward Ukraine, and he has boasted about forcing the firing of the prosecutor who was overseeing the investigation into Burisma. The same prosecutor, though, was widely thought to be refusing to fight other, much more pervasive corruption that hurt American interests. From a policy standpoint, then, Joe Biden’s pressure would not have raised red flags if it had not been for his son’s situation.

It is unknown if Hunter Biden actually was involved in corruption. It is clear Joe Biden knew his son was under investigation. Critics say the vice president should have recused himself from Ukraine-related policy because of it. The Trump team, meanwhile, wants both Bidens investigated.

Sub-issue 2: Did Trump withhold military aid to Ukraine, duly approved by U.S. law in pursuit of American security interests, as a way to pressure Ukraine to re-open its investigation into the Bidens?

If so, was that quid pro quo improper, despite lawyer Rudy Giuliani’s protestations to the contrary? As there is no obvious national-security interest in the Biden matter, the most apparent motive for Trump would have been purely political interest in hobbling his potential electoral rival, the elder Biden. This could be seen as using American taxpayer dollars effectively as a bribe to a foreign government to harass a political opponent. Even if the opponent, Biden, is guilty, Trump’s suspected pressure tactics could easily be seen as impeachable offenses.

Sub-issue 3: Should Congress have access to the report of the Intelligence Community’s inspector general that portrayed information provided by a whistleblower, apparently pertaining to Trump’s actions with regard to Ukraine, as both “urgent” and “credible?”

Conflicting claims here, all serious and legitimate, make this question quite a thistle. On one hand, inspectors general are creatures of Congress and usually report to Congress. Moreover, the specific act pertaining to the Intelligence Community’s inspector general says that when the director of national intelligence receives such a report from him, the DNI “shall within 7 calendar days of such receipt, forward such transmittal to the congressional intelligence committees” of Congress. There is no discretion. By law, he must do so.

Contrarily, while presidents often provide a general summary of discussions with foreign leaders, the exact details of those discussions are indeed usually understood as legally “privileged.” Indeed, it is generally understood that a president’s expectation of confidentiality is at its zenith in the realm of diplomacy and military affairs. Thus, if the whistleblower’s report does indeed involve an Oval Office call with the Ukrainian leader, the DNI has good reason to feel obliged to obey an attorney general’s directive to not transmit the whistleblower’s report to Congress. Congress, though, has equally good reason to expect the report’s delivery.

Without the whistleblower’s report, though, it may be impossible to know for certain if Trump actually attempted the quid pro quo arrangement described above, even if most of the evidence indicates he probably did.

All of which almost certainly means another huge political-legal battle is in the offing. It’s a battle that could leave all sides as losers.