The following are "short read" excerpts of documents related to the impeachment investigation in 2019.
"Presidential Impeachment," a guide to official government documents related to the impeachment inquiry, is available at Hanover College's Duggan Library. You will also find links below to the full-text versions of the documents.
For more information, contact historians@hanover.edu.
Contents
| "Transcript" of July 25 phone call between Pres. Trump and Pres. Zelensky | ||
| |
Constitution of the United States | |
| National Defense Authorization Act for 2019 (concerning Ukraine) | ||
| "Remarks Announcing Impeachment Inquiry"
(Speaker Pelosi, Sept. 24) |
||
| Ambassador
Yovanovitch's public testimony (Nov. 15) |
||
| Ambassador Sondland's public testimony
(Nov. 20) |
||
| Articles of Impeachment (Dec. 13) |
The President: Congratulations on a great victory. We all watched from the United States and you did a terrific job. The way you came from behind, somebody who wasn't given much of a chance, and you ended up winning easily. It's a fantastic achievement. Congratulations.
President Zelenskyy: You
are absolutely right Mr. President. We did win big and we worked
hard for this. We worked a lot but I would like to confess to you
that I had an opportunity to learn from you. We used quite a few
of your skills and knowledge and were able to use it as an example for
our elections. . . . To tell you the truth, we are trying to work hard
because we wanted to drain the swamp here in our country. We
brought in many many new people. Not the old politicians, not the
typical politicians, because we want to have a new format and a new type
of government. You are a great teacher for us and in that.
The President: Well it's very nice of you to say that. I will say that we do a lot for Ukraine. We spend a lot of effort and a lot of time. Much more than the European countries are doing and they should be helping you more than they are. . . . I think it's something you want to look at but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine. I wouldn't say that it's reciprocal necessarily because things are happening that are not good but the United States has been very very good to Ukraine.
President Zelenskyy: Yes you are absolutely right. Not only 100%, but actually 1000%. . . . It turns out that even though logically, the European Union should be our biggest partner but technically the United States is a much bigger partner than the European Union and I'm very grateful to you for that because the United States is doing quite a lot for Ukraine. Much more than the European Union especially when we are talking about sanctions against the Russian Federation. I would also like to think you for your great support in the area of defense. We are ready to continue to cooperate for the next steps specifically we are almost ready to buy more Javelins from the United States for defense purposes.
The President: I would like you to do us a favor though because our country has been through a lot and Ukraine knows a lot about it. I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike. I guess you have one of your wealthy people. The server, they say Ukraine has it There are a lot of things that went on, the whole situation. I think you're surrounding yourself with some of the same people. I would like to have the Attorney General call you or your people and I would like you to get to the bottom of it. As you saw yesterday, that whole nonsense ended with a very poor performance by a man named Robert Mueller, an incompetent performance, but they say a lot of it started with Ukraine. Whatever you can do, it's very important that you do it if that's possible.
President Zelenskyy: Yes it is very important for me and everything that you just mentioned earlier. For me as a President, it is very important and we are open for any future cooperation. We are ready to open a new page on cooperation in relations between the United States and Ukraine. . . .
The President: . . . Mr. Giuliani is a highly respected man. He was the mayor of new York City, a great mayor, and I would like him to call you. I will ask him to call you along with the Attorney General. Rudy very much knows what's happening and he is a very capable guy. If you could speak to him that would be great. The former ambassador from the United States, the woman, was bad news and the people she was dealing with in the Ukraine were bad news so I just want to let you know that. The other thing, there's a lot of talk about Biden's son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you can look into it. It sounds horrible to me.
President Zelenskyy: . . . It was great that you were the first one who told me that she was a bad ambassador because I agree with you 100%. Her attitude towards me was far from the best as she admired the previous President and she was on his side. She would not accept me as a new President well enough.
The President: Well, she's going to go through some things. I will have Mr. Giuliani give you a call and I am also going to have Attorney General Barr call and we will get to the bottom of it. I'm sure you will figure it out. . . .
See Memorandum of Telephone Conversation with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine for the full text.
The first three Articles of the Constitution lay out the balance of power among the three branches of government, a system that the Framers of the Constitution designed to prevent any part of government from abusing its power. Legislative power (including the power to decide how tax money is spent) belongs to Congress, and executive power (including the responsibility for carrying out the will of Congress) belongs to the President. The Framers also gave the House of Representatives the power to impeach presidents -- that is, to charge them with "treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors"; if the House does charge a president, the Senate then holds the trial to decide if the president will be removed from office.
The following excerpts of the Constitution are relevant to the impeachment inquiry of 2019.
Article I
Section 1
All legislative Powers herein granted shall be vested in a Congress of the
United States, which shall consist of a Senate and House of
Representatives. . . .
Section 2
. . . . The House of Representatives shall . . . have the sole Power of
Impeachment.
Section 3
. . . . The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all
Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or
Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief
Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the
Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
Section 8
The Congress shall have Power To lay and collect Taxes, Duties, Imposts
and Excises, to pay the Debts and provide for the common Defence and
general Welfare of the United States. . . .
To make all Laws which shall be necessary and proper for carrying into
Execution the foregoing Powers, and all other Powers vested by this
Constitution in the Government of the United States. . . .
Article II
Section 1
The executive Power shall be vested in a President of the United States of
America. . . .
. . . . Before he enter on the Execution of his Office, [the President]
shall take the following Oath or Affirmation: -- I do solemly swear (or
affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the
United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and
defend the Constitution of the United States.
Section 4
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States,
shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of,
Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Article VI
The Senators and Representatives before mentioned, and the Members of the
several State Legislatures, and all executive and judicial Officers, both
of the United States and of the several States, shall be bound by Oath or
Affirmation, to support this Constitution.
See the Constitution at the National Archives, or browse an annotated Constitution provided by Congress.
The excerpts below are from the law through which Congress designated money to be spent in fiscal year 2018 for the Department of Defense and for other defense-related purposes. It includes more than half of the $400 million that Congress allocated for Ukraine.
Section 1248: Sense of Congress on Enhancing Deterrence against
Russian Aggression in Europe
To protect the national security of the United States and fulfill the
ironclad commitment of the United States to its obligations under the
North Atlantic Treaty, it is the policy of the United States to pursue, in
full coordination with the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO), an
integrated approach to strengthening the defense of allies and partners in
Europe as part of a broader, long-term strategy backed by all elements of
United States national power to deter and, if necessary, defeat Russian
aggression.
It is the sense of Congress that in order to strengthen the defense of United States allies and partners in Europe, the Secretary of Defense, in coordination with the Secretary of State and in consultation with the commander of United States European Command, should . . . .
For the full text, see John S. McCain National Defense Authorization Act for Fiscal Year 2019.
The following is a short-read version of Speaker Nancy Pelosi's announcement that the House was beginning an investigation to decide if Pres. Trump should be impeached.
Sadly, on that day, the Intelligence Community Inspector General formally notified the Congress that the Administration was forbidding him from turning over a whistleblower complaint. On Constitution Day. This is a violation of law.
Shortly thereafter, press reports began to break of a phone call by the President of the United States calling upon a foreign power to intervene in his election. This is a breach of his constitutional responsibilities.
. . . On the final day of the Constitutional Convention in 1787, when our Constitution was adopted, Americans gathered on the steps of Independence Hall to await the news of the government our Founders had crafted.
They asked Benjamin Franklin, "What do we have: a republic or a monarchy?" Franklin replied: "A republic, if you can keep it."
Our responsibility is to keep it.
Our republic endures because of the wisdom of our Constitution, enshrined in three co-equal branches of government, serving as checks and balances on each other.
The actions taken to date by the President have seriously violated the Constitution -- especially when the President says, "Article II says, I can do whatever I want."
. . . And this week, the President has admitted to asking the President of Ukraine to take actions which would benefit him politically. The actions of the Trump Presidency revealed the dishonorable fact of the President's betrayal of his oath of office, betrayal of our national security, and betrayal of the integrity of our elections.
Therefore, today, I am announcing the House of Representatives is moving forward with an official impeachment inquiry. . . .
The President must be held accountable. No one is above the law.
For the full text, see Pelosi's Remarks Announcing Impeachment Inquiry.
The following is a short-read excerpt of
Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch's public testimony. She was the ambassador
to Ukraine before being recalled in May 2019.
Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch's opening statement
"I come before you as an American citizen who has devoted the majority of
my life, 33 years, to service to the country that all of us love. . . .
My service is an expression of gratitude for all that this country has
given to me and to my family. My late parents did not have the good
fortune to come of age in a free society. My father fled the Soviets
before ultimately finding refuge in the United States. My mother's family
escaped the USSR after the Bolshevik Revolution and she grew up stateless
in Nazi Germany before also eventually making her way to the United
States.
Their personal histories, my personal history, gave me both deep gratitude
towards the United States and great empathy for others, like the Ukrainian
people who want to be free.
I joined the Foreign Service during the Reagan administration and
subsequently served three other Republican presidents, as well as two
Democratic presidents. It was my great honor to be appointed to serve as
an ambassador three times, twice by George W. Bush and once by Barack
Obama . . . .
Individuals who apparently felt stymied by our efforts to promote stated
U.S. policy against corruption [in Ukraine] . . . were able to
successfully conduct a campaign of disinformation against a sitting
ambassador [me] using unofficial back channels.
As various witnesses have recounted, they shared baseless allegations with
the president, and convinced him to remove his ambassador despite the fact
that the State Department fully understood that the allegations were false
and the sources highly suspect.
These events should concern everyone in this room. Ambassadors are the
symbol of the United States abroad. They are the personal representative
of the president. They should always act and speak with full authority to
advocate for U.S. policies. If our chief representative is kneecapped, it
limits our effectiveness to safeguard the vital national security
interests of the United States. . . .
As individuals, as a community, [those of us in the Foreign Service]
answer the call to duty to advance and protect the interests of the United
States. We take our oath seriously, the same oath that each one of you
take: to support and defend the Constitution of the United States against
all enemies, foreign and domestic, and to bear true faith and allegiance
to the same. . . .
***
Majority Counsel, Daniel Goldman: So let me see if I got
this right. You were one of the most senior diplomats in the State
Department, you've been there for 33 years, you'd won numerous awards,
you'd been appointed as an ambassador three times by both Republican and
Democratic presidents, and the State Department would not issue a
statement in support of you against false allegations because they were
concerned about a tweet from the president of the United States?
Yovanovitch: That's my understanding.
Representative Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Intelligence
Committee: Mr. Goldman, if I could follow-up on that
question. It seems like an appropriate time.
Ambassador Yovanovitch, as we sit here testifying, the president is
attacking you on Twitter and I'd like to give you a chance to respond.
I'll read part of one of his tweets, "Everywhere Marie Yovanovitch went
turned bad. She started off in Somalia, how did that go?" He goes on to
say, later in the tweet, "It is a U.S. president's absolute right to
appoint ambassadors."
First of all, Ambassador Yovanovitch, the Senate has a chance to confirm
or deny an ambassador, do they not?
Yovanovitch: Yes, advise and consent.
Schiff: But would you like to respond to the president's
attack that everywhere you went turned bad?
Yovanovitch: Well, I -- I mean, I don't -- I don't think
I have such powers, not in Mogadishu, Somalia and not in other places. I
actually think that where I've served over the years, I and others have
demonstrably made things better, you know, for the U.S. as well as for the
countries that I've served in. . . . And I think, in part -- I
mean, the Ukrainian people get the most -- the most credit for that. But a
part of that credit goes to the work of the United States and -- and to
me, as the ambassador in Ukraine.
Schiff: Ambassador, you've shown the courage to come
forward today and testify, notwithstanding the fact you were urged by the
White House or State Department not to; notwithstanding the fact that, as
you testified earlier, the president implicitly threatened you in that
call record.
And now, the president in real-time is attacking you. What effect do you
think that has on other witnesses' willingness to come forward and expose
wrongdoing?
Yovanovitch: Well, it's very intimidating.
Schiff: It's designed to intimidate, is it not?
Yovanovitch: I -- I -- I mean, I can't speak to what the
president is trying to do, but I think the effect is to be intimidating.
Schiff: Well, I want to let you know, ambassador, that
some of us here take witness intimidation very, very seriously.
For the full testimony, see a transcript or the video from the House Intelligence Committee.
The following is a short-read excerpt of
Ambassador Gordon Sondland's public testimony. He is Ambassador to
the European Union.
Ambassador Gordon Sondland, opening
testimony:
As you know, I've already provided 10 hours of deposition testimony. And I
did so despite directives from the White House and the State Department
that I refuse to appear, as many others have done. I agreed to testify
because I respect the gravity of the moment, and I believe I have an
obligation to account fully for my role in these events.
But I also must acknowledge that this process has been challenging and, in
many respects, less than fair. I have not had access to all of my phone
records, State Department e-mails, and many, many other State Department
documents. . . .
Secretary Perry, Ambassador Volker, and I worked with Mr. Rudy Giuliani on
Ukraine matters at the express direction of the President of the United
States. . . . So we followed the President's orders. . . . Mr.
Giuliani demanded that Ukraine make a public statement announcing the
investigations of the 2016 election, DNC server, and
Burisma. Mr. Giuliani was expressing the desires of the
President of the United States, and we knew these investigations were
important to the President. . . .
In July and August of 2019, we learned that the White House had also
suspended security aid to Ukraine. I was adamantly
opposed to any suspension of aid . . . as the Ukrainians needed those
funds to fight against Russian aggression. I tried
diligently to ask why the aid was suspended, but I never received a clear
answer. I still haven't to this day. In the
absence of any credible explanation for the suspension of aid, I later
came to believe that the resumption of security aid would not occur until
there was a public statement from Ukraine committing to the investigations
of the 2016 elections and Burisma, as Mr. Giuliani had demanded. . .
.
I know that members of this committee frequently frame these complicated
issues in the form of a simple question: Was there a quid pro
quo? As I testified previously with regard to the
requested White House call and the White House meeting, the answer is yes.
. . . . Mr. Giuliani expressed those requests directly to the Ukrainians,
and Mr. Giuliani also expressed those requests directly to us. We
all understood that these prerequisites for the White House call and the
White House meeting reflected President Trump's desires and requirements.
. . . Everyone was in the loop. It was no
secret. Everyone was informed via email on July 19th,
days before the Presidential call. As I communicated to
the team, I told President Zelensky in advance that assurances to run a
fully transparent investigation and turn over every stone were necessary
in his call with President Trump. . . .
I was first informed that the White House was withholding security aid to
Ukraine during conversations with Ambassador Taylor on July 18th,
2019. However, as I testified before, I was never able
to obtain a clear answer regarding the specific reason for the hold . . .
.
[By Sept. 1,] the Ukrainians had become aware that security funds had yet
to be disbursed. In the absence of any credible
explanation for the hold, I came to the conclusion that the aid, like the
White House visit, was jeopardized. . . .
As my other State Department colleagues have testified, this security aid
was critical to Ukraine's defense and should not have been delayed. I
expressed this view to many during this period, but my goal at the time
was to do what was necessary to get the aid released, to break the log
jam. I believed that the public statement we had been
discussing for weeks was essential to advancing that goal. . . .
* * *
Majority Counsel, Daniel Goldman:
You called President Trump from your cell phone from the
restaurant. Is that right?
Sondland: That's right. . . .
Goldman: And you don't recall the specifics of holding
your phone far away from your ear as Mr. Holmes testified, but you have no
reason to question his recollection of that, do you?
Sondland: I mean, it seems a little strange I
would hold my phone here. I probably had my phone close to my ear,
and he claims to have overheard part of the conversation, and I'm not
going to dispute what he did or didn't hear.
Goldman: Well, he also testified that you confirmed to
President Trump that you were in Ukraine at the time and that President
Zelensky, quote, "loves your ass," unquote. Do you
recall saying that?
Sondland: Yeah. That sounds like something I
would say. That's how President Trump and I communicate, a lot of
four-letter words, in this case three letter.
Goldman: Holmes then said that he heard President
Trump ask, quote, "is he" (meaning Zelensky) "going to do the
investigation?" To which you replied, "he's going to do
it." And then you added that President Zelensky will do
anything that you, meaning President Trump, ask him to.
Do you recall that?
Sondland: I probably said something to the effect
because I remember the meeting -- President Zelensky was very
--"solicitous" is not a good word. He was just very
willing to work with the United States and was being very
amicable. And so putting it in Trump speak by saying he
loves your ass, he'll do whatever you want, meant that he would really
work with us on a whole host of issues. . . .
Goldman: Because Ukraine depends on the United States as
its most significant ally. Isn't that
correct?
Sondland: One of its most, absolutely.
Goldman: So just so we understand, you were in Kyiv the
day after President Trump spoke to President Zelensky on the phone.
And you now know from reading the call record that in that phone call he
requested a favor for President Zelensky to do investigations related to
the Bidens and the 2016 election, right?
Sondland: I do now know that, yes.
Goldman: And you met with President Zelensky and
his aides on the day after that phone call. And then you
had a conversation with President Trump from your cell phone from a
restaurant terrace, and he asked you whether President Zelensky will do
the investigations. And you responded that he's going to
do it. And that President Zelensky will do
anything you ask him to do. Is that an accurate
recitation of what happened there?
Sondland: It could have been words to that
effect. I don't remember my exact response. . . .
* * *
Representative Adam Schiff, Chairman of the House Intelligence
Committee: You testified that pretty much everyone
could put two and two together and make four and understood that the
military assistance was also conditioned on the public announcement of
these two investigations, correct?
Sondland: That was my presumption, yeah. . . .
Schiff: Now, you're capable of putting two and two
together, and so are the Ukrainians. They can put two
and two together. As well, they understood there was a
hold on security assistance. There is testimony that
they understood that in July or August, but it was without a doubt
understood when it was made public in the newspaper. . . . So they
understood they didn't have the money yet. It had been
approved by Congress, there was a hold on it. You
couldn't give them any explanation. . . . And if they couldn't put
two and two together, you put two and two together for them because you
told them in Warsaw they were going to need to make that public statement
likely to get that aid released. Is that
right?
Sondland: I said I presume that might have to be
done in order to get the aid released. . . .
* * *
Representative John Ratcliffe: And on September
9th . . . you called President Trump to ask him: What do
you want from Ukraine? He responded: I want
nothing. I want no quid pro quo. I
want Zelensky to do the right thing. I want him to do
what he ran on. And what he ran on was fighting corruption,
correct?
Sondland: Correct.
Ratcliffe: And then, lastly, on October 2nd, in a
random in-person meeting that you had, an event for the Finnish President,
you ran into President Trump and advised him that you'd been called to
testify before Congress, and he said to you, good. Go tell the
truth.
Sondland: That's correct. . . .
* * *
Representative Michael Turner: Do you like the
President?
Sondland: Yes. . . .
Turner: Is that your testimony today, Ambassador
Sondland, that you have evidence that Donald Trump tied the investigations
to the aid? Because I don't think you're saying
that.
Sondland: I've said repeatedly, Congressman, I was
presuming.
Turner: So no one told you, not just the
President. Giuliani didn't tell you.
Mulvaney didn't tell you. Nobody -- Pompeo didn't tell
you. Nobody else on this planet told you that Donald
Trump was tying aid to these investigations. . . .
Turner: So you really have no testimony today that
ties President Trump to a scheme to withhold aid from Ukraine in exchange
for these investigations?
Sondland: Other than my own presumption. . . .
* * *
Schiff: About this call you had with the
President. You have confirmed today, in addition to
claiming there was no quid pro quo, the President was adamant that
President Zelensky had to, quote, "clear things up and do it in
public." . . . So he would deny there was a quid pro
quo, but he was adamant that Zelensky had to, quote, "clear things up and
do it in public."
. . . Now, my colleagues seem to think unless the President says the magic
words "I hereby bribed the Ukrainians" that there's no evidence of bribery
or other high crimes or misdemeanors. . . . There's no mistaking
what Donald Trump meant when he had that call with you on an unsecure
phone as you're sitting there in an outdoor terrace in Ukraine, when the
President said investigation, he meant Biden. He made that
abundantly clear to the President of Ukraine the day before. The question
is not what the President meant. The question is not
whether he was responsible for holding up the aid. He
was. The question is not whether everybody knew, and
apparently they did. The question is, what are we prepared to
do about it? Is there any
accountability? Or are we forced to conclude that this
is just now the world that we live in, when a President of the United
States can withhold vital military aid from an ally at war with the
Russians, an ally fighting our fight, too, to defend our country against
Russian aggression? Are we prepared to say, in the words
of Mick Mulvaney, get over it or get used to it?
We're not prepared to say that. We're not prepared to say any of that.
For the full testimony, see a transcript or the video from the House Intelligence Committee.
Resolved, That Donald J. Trump, President of the United States,
is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the
following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States
Senate:
Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the
United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the
United States of America, against Donald J. Trump, President of the United
States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against
him for high crimes and misdemeanors.
Article I: Abuse of Power
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have
the sole Power of Impeachment and that the President shall be removed from
Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other
high Crimes and Misdemeanors". In his conduct of the office of President
of the United States -- and in violation of his constitutional oath
faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to
the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of
the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take
care that the laws be faithfully executed -- Donald J. Trump has abused
the powers of the Presidency, in that:
Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the
interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States
Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct
that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce
investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election
prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States
Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to
pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning
official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on
its public announcement of the investigations. President Trump engaged in
this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of
personal political benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the powers
of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of
the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States
democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the
Nation.
President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct through the
following means:
(1) President Trump -- acting both directly
and through his agents within and outside the United States Government --
corruptly solicited the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce
investigations into --
(A) a political opponent, former Vice
President Joseph R. Biden, Jr.; and
(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia
alleging that Ukraine -- rather than Russia -- interfered in the 2016
United States Presidential election.
(2) With the same corrupt motives, President
Trump -- acting both directly and through his agents within and outside
the United States Government–conditioned two official acts on the public
announcements that he had requested --
(A) the release of $391 million of United 5
States taxpayer funds that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis
for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to
Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which President Trump had ordered
suspended; and
(B) a head of state meeting at the White
House, which the President of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued
United States support for the Government of Ukraine in the face of Russian
aggression.
(3) Faced with the public revelation of his
actions, President Trump ultimately released the military and security
assistance to the Government of Ukraine, but has persisted in openly and
corruptly urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations for
his personal political benefit.
These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous invitations of foreign interference in United States elections.
In all this, President Trump abused the powers of the Presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit. He has also betrayed the Nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.
Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self- governance and the rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, trust, or profit under the United States.
Article II: Obstruction of Congress
The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives "shall have
the sole Power of Impeachment" and that the President "shall be removed
from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or
other high Crimes and Misdemeanors". In his conduct of the office of
President of the United States -- and in violation of his constitutional
oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States
and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the
Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional
duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed --
Donald J. Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and
indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of
Representatives pursuant to its sole Power of Impeachment. President Trump
has abused the powers of the Presidency in a manner offensive to, and
subversive of, the Constitution, in that:
The House of Representatives has engaged in an impeachment inquiry focused
on President Trump's corrupt solicitation of the Government of Ukraine to
interfere in the 2020 United States Presidential election. As part of this
impeachment inquiry, the Committees undertaking the investigation served
subpoenas seeking documents and testimony deemed vital to the inquiry from
various Executive Branch agencies and offices, and current and former
officials.
In response, without lawful cause or excuse, President Trump directed
Executive Branch agencies, offices, and officials not to comply with those
subpoenas. President Trump thus interposed the powers of the Presidency
against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, and assumed
to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the "sole
Power of Impeachment" vested by the Constitution in the House of
Representatives.
President Trump abused the powers of his high office through the following
means:
(1) Directing the White House to defy a
lawful subpoena by withholding the production of documents sought therein
by the Committees.
(2) Directing other Executive Branch agencies
and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of
documents and records from the Committees -- in response to which the
Department of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of
Energy, and Department of Defense refused to produce a single document or
record.
(3) Directing current and former Executive
Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees -- in response to
which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely
John Michael "Mick" Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A. Eisenberg, Michael
Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith, Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian
McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.
These actions were consistent with President Trump's previous efforts to
undermine United States Government investigations into foreign
interference in United States elections.
Through these actions, President Trump sought to arrogate to himself the
right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment
inquiry into his own conduct, as well as the unilateral prerogative to
deny any and all information to the House of Representatives in the
exercise of its "sole Power of Impeachment". In the history of the
Republic, no President has ever ordered the complete defiance of an
impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively
the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate "high Crimes
and Misdemeanors." This abuse of office served to cover up the President's
own repeated misconduct and to seize and control the power of impeachment
and thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in the
House of Representatives.
In all of this, President Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his
trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the
great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest
injury of the people of the United States.
Wherefore, President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will
remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office, and
has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the
rule of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal
from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor,
trust, or profit under the United States.
Transcribed from the House Judiciary Committee resolution.
Hanover College Visitor's Page