I realize I'm publishing this weeks after the impeachment of Trump. Why do it now? First, I wanted to give it some time because I was (and continue to be) angered by the talking points. Second, I had other publishing priorities. Third, I'm sure at least some of the talking points will be repeated during the upcoming Senate trial.
While I intend to quote from a transcript below, let me address a particular talking point: that the Democrats were trying to steal the 2016 POTUS election. First, while the Democrats are not happy with Trump and reflect the views of their partisan base, and some Democrats have called for impeachment for years (Congressman Al Green particularly comes to mind) often on dubious grounds (like alleged racism and policy), the fact is that Nancy Pelosi was well-aware that the GOP paid a political price after the failed impeachment trial of Clinton and Clinton survived despite the GOP controlled the Senate because of super-majority requirements.
The revelation that Trump used his foreign relations authority to go after political rival Biden in his discussion with new Ukraine president Zelensky and that he intentionally blocked release of Ukraine military aid is beyond dispute. There have been disingenuous responses from Republicans:
- "Trump was going after corruption, and he was protecting the American taxpayer." No, he wasn't. He discusses no corruption specifics in the phone call. In fact, he praised the notoriously corrupt former top prosecutor (Viktor Shogun) a "very good man". Local reformers claimed that Shogun refused to prosecute corruption, and the fact is the IMF blocked several billions more in loans than the US blocked in aid under the Obama Administration, leading to the Ukraine parliament's ouster of Shogun. Hunter Biden joined the Burisma board AFTER an incident and a subsequent investigation resulting in an accountant being fined. In fact, Shogun refused to cooperate with international authorities in a money laundering allegation against Burisma. The fact Trump was not aware of the allegations against Shogun, a matter of due diligence, exposes the lie he was acting "against corruption"; in fact, the DoD (in May, John Rood) had cited sufficient reforms under Zelensky (and IMF similarly agreed) to release aid BEFORE Trump's freeze. Trump's going after the Bidens was totally political and an abuse of his Presidential authority. In fact, when Trump ordered the funding frozen, there was no reason given.
- "The Ukraine aid was released anyway." The whistleblower complaint is filed on Aug. 12, a month before the aid is finally released. Atkinson notified the House Committee of the whistleblower complaint 2 days before the release on Sept. 11. Durbin was about to file an amendment (which had Graham's support) tying release of the aid to DoD funding. The release clearly is tied to political pressure on Trump. He got caught with his hand in the cookie jar.
- "Zelensky says there's no quid pro quo; the Ukrainians themselves weren't aware that aid was being withheld." This is particularly disingenuous: since when is a hostage going to admit he's being mistreated? Zelensky knows Trump is the key conduit to his getting aid; among other things, Trump's signature is needed on Congressional spending bills. He has no interest in biting the hand that is feeding him. He's going to say what he thinks Trump wants to hear. If you look at the above-cited timeline, there were Ukrainian queries at least as early as the Zelensky phone call on the status of aid release. Not to mention Trump in the phone call goes to some length to point out that Ukraine is fairly isolated, that Ukraine gets more than the US in our relationship, and he wants a "favor". While the quid pro quo is not directly stated, it is clear from context. There is extensive documentation from Sondland (US ambassador to the EU) about what is expected from Zelensky, even before the July 25 phone call. There is also a quid pro quo for Zelensky to win a much-coveted visit to the White House.
Doug Collins: (03:20)
The people of America see-through this. The people of America understand due process and they understand when it is being trampled in the people’s House. You see it’s also not a matter of process which will be discussed today. It’s a matter of actual facts. I will fight the facts all day long because what we found here today is a President who did not do as being charged. In fact, they had to go to abuse of power, this amorphous term that you’re going to hear many, many arguments about, how that abuse of power, except for one thing. The call itself, the two parties say, “No pressure. Nothing was ever done to get the money.” In fact, they didn’t even know the money was held.
Doug Collins: (03:56)
But there is something that very much bothers me about the facts. There were five meetings, we’ll hear about those today, in which there was never a linkage made. There was one witness that is depended on over 600 times in the majority’s report. That in the end after questioned had to say, “Well, that was my presumption of what was happening.” You see, this is an impeachment based on presumption. This is an impeachment basically also a poll-tested impeachment on what actually sells to the American people.
Doug Collins: (05:29)
You see, President Trump actually did give them offensive weapons. President Trump did nothing wrong. We’re going to talk about that all day long today. We went on process and we went on facts. Why? Because the American people will see through this.
Doug Collins: (05:40)
But before I close this first part, I will have to recognize that even the Senate, the minority leader in the Senate recognized that the House did not do their job because he can’t make the case to his own members. So he’s having to ask for witnesses, ask for more time. And even yesterday it was sort of funny. I thought it hilarious that minority leader in the Senate went out and did a press conference and said, “They denied my witnesses. They denied my requests.” Well, welcome to the club, Mr Schumer. That’s exactly what’s happened over here for the last three months.
Doug Collins: (06:10)
So today we’re going to talk a lot about impeachment. We’re going to talk a lot about our President, and we’re going to talk about two articles of impeachment: abuse of power, because they can’t actually pin anything of factual basis on him. The President did nothing wrong in this issue. And then they’re going to talk about obstruction of Congress. You know obstruction of Congress, as I’ve said before, is like petulant children saying we didn’t get our way when we didn’t ask the right way and we didn’t actually go after and try to make a case. You know why, Madame Speaker? The clock and the calendar are terrible masters and the majority will own that problem today because to the clock and the calendar, facts don’t matter. The promises to the base matter. And today is a promise kept for the majority, not a surprise of fact. And with that, I reserve.
Okay, this is knowingly a bunch of crap. Collins and his colleagues weren't interested in the background of Trump's misconduct on Ukraine. They wanted to out the whistleblower, who was not a direct witness of the Zelensky phone call. They wanted to open the investigation to make the Bidens the issue, not Trump--the exact thing Trump was extorting Zelensky to do. And Collins is intentionally obfuscating impeachment vs a Senate trial. The Congress by Constitution has an oversight authority over the Executive Branch. Impeachment is more like a grand jury; is there sufficient evidence for a trial? The trial itself takes place in the Senate. And so when Collins criticizes Schumer, Schumer is talking about witnesses to Trump's misconduct in the Administration under dubious, self-serving executive privilege (which in this context will not be upheld by SCOTUS). For example, Bolton, Trump's former National Security Adviser, notably dissented to Trump's freezing aid, but he's been prevented from testifying. As to "no pressure", Collins is in a state of denial. Ukraine in fact had known, at least as early as the Zelensky phone call, that passed aid had not been released, and Trump released funds less than 3 weeks before the end of the fiscal year (when it would have expired.)
Tom Cole: (00:54)
Throughout it all, the majority trampled on minority rights. They refused to call witnesses with relevant first-hand knowledge. They relied on hearsay news reports to make their case. They denied Republicans the right to hold a minority hearing day. And they refused the president of the United States his due process rights in the committee that was actually conducting the impeachment process and investigating him. And in the end, what was the result? Articles of impeachment based on an event that never happened. A purported quid pro quo that did not exist. Aid that was allegedly withheld that in reality was never withheld at all. And a narrative of intent based on nothing more than fantasy.
Tom Cole: (01:03)
Yet today, after a truncated investigation that denied the president due process, cherry-picked evidence and witness testimony to fit their narrative and trampled on Republican’s minority rights. Democrats in the House are pressing forward with a partisan impeachment vote. Doing so contradicts Speaker Pelosi’s own words back in March of this year when she said that, “An impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bi-partisan, I don’t think we should go down that path because it divides the country.” But if we’re really being honest, Democrats have been searching for a reason to impeach President Trump since the day he was elected. In December of 2017, a current member of the majority forced to vote to impeach the President. And even then, long before there was an even an impeachment investigation, 58 Democrats voted to impeach the President. And those members have only grown since then, to the point where the majority is now pushing forward with a final vote on impeachment, heedless of where it takes the country, and regardless of whether or not they’ve proven their case.
Tom Cole: (02:20)
And if my colleagues in the majority believe they have proven their case, let me be clear, they have not. The entire premise of these articles of impeachment rests on a pause placed on Ukrainian security assistant. A pause of 55 days. The majority has spun creative narratives as to the meaning and the motive of this pause, alleging the President demanded a, “quid pro quo.” But with no factual evidence to back it up. Security aid to the Ukraine was released. The administration did so without the Ukraine ever initiating an investigation into anyone or anything. It’s even more startling to me that the majority wants to move forward with this resolution, given how substantially flawed and procedurally defective the entire process has been. The Judiciary Committee, which drafted these articles of impeachment engaged in an abbreviated process, hearing from no witnesses with first-hand knowledge of the events in question.
Tom Cole: (03:28)
They did not conduct their own investigation, and only held two hearings on this topic before drafting the articles. One was staff and one with constitutional law scholars. That’s hardly the type of lengthy and serious consideration a topic as grave as impeachment demands. The committee actually charged with an impeachment investigation was the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, not the Judiciary Committee. But that committee, too, follow a primarily closed process. Republicans were denied the right to call witnesses or subpoena documents, and the President was denied the right to representation in the committee’s hearings. Without respecting minority rights and without respecting due process rights of the President, how can anyone consider this a fair process? Madam speaker, it gets worse. The articles of impeachment we are considering today are based on the Shift Report, the final document produced by the Intelligence Committee and transmitted to the Judiciary Committee.
Tom Cole: (04:34)
But the shift report includes unsubstantiated allegations. It includes, in some cases, news reports as the only evidence supporting so-called factual assertions, and it includes at least 54 different hearsay statements as assertions of evidence without any first-hand information from witnesses to corroborate those statements. The author of the report, Chairman Schiff, was never questioned by the Judiciary Committee, and he refused to sit for questions, or to explain how his committee conducted its investigation. In fact, during the staff presentation of evidence that the Judiciary Committee, ranking member Collins asked how the investigation was conducted that resulted in the drafting of the Shift Report. But he never received an answer. During the Rules Committee, consideration of House Resolution 755, there were numerous times when the members on both sides of the aisle posed questions to our witnesses. Questions they could not answer because they sit on the Judiciary Committee, and were not the author of the report that brought about H Res 755.
Tom Cole: (05:44)
The author has never appeared before members of the minority to explain a single thing in the report, or to provide factual information supporting the many assertions it contains. Madam Speaker, this is no way to go about impeaching the President of the United States. The articles before us are based on very limited information. They are based on hearsay, on news reports, and on other unsupported allegations. They’re based on a report written by a member of Congress who refused to answer questions about it. And I do not believe the allegations, which are subject to interpretation, actually rise to the level of an impeachable offense. To make matters worse, when Republicans attempted to exercise one of their rights under House rules, they were shut down by Chairman Nadler under clause 2-J-1 of Rule 11, the minority is allowed to demand a minority hearing day. On December 4th, the Republicans on the Judiciary Committee properly exercised that right, and transmitted a demand to Chairman Nadler for a hearing day, at which the minority could call their own witnesses.
Tom Cole: (06:59)
And to be clear, Madam Speaker, a minority hearing day is not subject to the Chair’s discretion. It is a right, and Republicans on the Judiciary Committee properly demanded the exercise of that right. And yet, Chairman Nadler declined to allow a minority hearing day to be held before the voting of these articles. I think we can all agree that it would have been better for the institution and for the American people to allow all voices to be heard, and all witnesses to be questioned. Before 60, the resolution setting up the official impeachment inquiry, less than two months ago, I warned that house that what the majority was doing was setting up a closed, unfair process that could only have one outcome. And today, we’re seeing the end result of this closed and unfair process. A quick rush to judgment forced through, not one, but two committees in short order with minority rights trampled, witnesses left unquestioned, and due process ignored.
Cole's "hearsay" objection is an indirect reference to the whistleblower. But he disingenuously fails to note that Trump himself released a transcript of the Zelensky phone call. And that transcript shows Trump asking for a favor, investigations into the Bidens and the (American) company that did forensic analysis on the DNC server. No, there is compelling evidence that Trump himself froze, with no reason specified, military aid to the Ukraine. Yes, Trump did release the aid without his specified demands for an investigation announcement (via administration contacts), but under pressure the Senate would likely tie release to other DoD funding. He tries to tie impeachment to a partisan investigation by pointing out 58 voted to pursue impeachment before the Zelensky kerfuffle, but he failed to point out there are over 215 Democrats, the vast majority of which opposed a Trump impeachment but ended up voting for the two counts. I think there is some limited credibility to the Trump impeachment process being less open than the Nixon and Clinton impeachment processes, but the fact of the matter is the Constitution lets the House set its own rules, and the Republicans didn't have the votes. As for "due process" for Trump, Trump did not want to testify and blocked most witnesses to his misconduct from testifying. But the fact is the trial takes place in the Senate, not the House.
Chris Stewart: (00:01)This is fairly representative of most Republican comments. They are arguing that the Dems are trying to steal back the 2016 election. This is rubbish; first of all, Senate conviction is unlikely with the GOP holding the majority; some 20 Republican senators would have to flip in the context of not even 1 Republican Congressman voting for either count. Second, if Trump is removed from office, Pence becomes President and he will nominate a Republican Veep to replace him. So the Democrats don't benefit in the sense of inheriting the Presidency. Do many, if not most Democrats despise Trump? Yes, but similar to the fact most Republicans loathed Obama as POTUS.
I discovered something recently. It’s shocking, I know. But it turns out that some people don’t like President Trump. They think he’s loud. They think he can be arrogant. They think sometimes he says bad words and sometimes he’s rude to people. And to their sensitive natures, they’ve been offended. I get that. I really do. But let’s be clear. This vote, this day has nothing to do with Ukraine. It has nothing to do with abuse of power. It has nothing to do with obstruction of Congress. This vote, this day is about one thing and one thing only. They hate this president. They hate those of us who voted for him. They think we’re stupid. They think we made a mistake. They think Hillary Clinton should be the president and they want to fix that. That’s what this vote is about. They want to take away my vote and throw it in the trash. They want to take away my president and delegitimized him so that he can not be reelected. That’s what this vote is about.
Chris Stewart: (01:03)
And for those who think this started with this investigation, what nonsense. You’ve been trying to impeach this president since before he was sworn into office. Some of you introduced articles of impeachment before he was sworn into office. This isn’t something you’re approaching prayerfully and mournfully and sadly. “Oh, the chaos. Oh, the sadness.” This is something you’re gleeful about, and you’ve been trying to do it for three years, and it’s very clear. You don’t have to go back and Google very much to find out that is the absolute truth. I could give you pages of examples of things you have said for three years about this president. That’s what this is about.
Chris Stewart: (01:52)
And if you think … if this impeachment is successful, the next president, I promise you, is going to be impeached and the next president after that. If you set this bar as being impeachable, every president in our future will be impeached. It erodes our republic in ways that our founding fathers recognize. They got it right. High crimes and misdemeanors, other than that, settle it at the ballot box. I look forward to that day.
But, no, the charges are legitimate. Trump wanted to use his authority to engage in a political attack against Joe Biden. Several Republicans argue trivial points against this, noting the large Democratic candidate field and dismissing him as a likely nominee. The fact of the matter is that Biden has won a majority of national polls, often by double-digits and has consistently outpolled Trump in most battleground states, sometimes the only Democrat to do so, and in nearly all national head-to-head polls. Is he a lock? No; as I've pointed out before, Blagojevich had less than a 40% approval rating the year before his reelection. And Trump's 2-point cumulative overall popular vote loss to Clinton in the 2016 election was not replicated in the more important electoral college.
But Stewart is in a state of denial about Trump's misconduct. Trump was not acting in the national interest, his only legitimate course of action, in withholding aid from Ukraine for partisan reasons. (It should be noted that as a libertarian, I oppose foreign aid in general. But as a Constitutionalist, I oppose his violation of the rule of laws.) He was engaging in self-serving behavior, the very thing the emoluments clause was intended to address. High crimes and misdemeanors includes violations of Constitutional authority and checks and balances (including accountability, the second count).
At this point, I'll end this post. The Republican talking points were trite and repetitious. (I reserve the right to publish a follow-up post.) I think the points made by the 3 Congressmen I quoted were fairly representative to what I heard during the live hearings. I would have respected the Republicans more if they had at least acknowledged Trump's misconduct, e.g., "What Trump did was wrong but not serious enough to merit removal from office." (That may happen in the Senate.)
