bribery, extortion, and a host of other common law and penal code crimes,[1] but the Articles of Impeachment do not include any of those specific offenses. In fact, the first Article in the resolution sponsored by Chairman Nadler alleges an amorphous charge of "abuse of power."[2]
Simply put, the Majority has included the vague "abuse of power" charge because they lack the evidence to prove bribery, extortion, or any other crimes. For example, during the Committee's markup of the articles of impeachment, Members from the Minority explained in detail why the Majority's claims that the President was guilty of bribery were erroneous.[3]
It is not the Minority's contention that an abuse of power can never form the basis for an impeachment. But an accusation of abuse of power must be based on a higher and more concrete standard than conduct that "ignored and injured the interests of the Nation."[4] The people, through elections, decide what constitutes the "interests of the nation." For an abuse of power charge, although "criminality is not required...clarity is necessary."[5]
Unfortunately, such clarity is utterly lacking in the Majority's articles. This is the first presidential impeachment in American history without the allegation of a crime, let alone a high crime or high misdemeanor. The absence of even an allegation of criminality, after months of claiming multiple crimes had been committed, reveals the Majority's inability to substantiate their claims.[6] The abuse of power charge in the first Article is vague, unprovable, and confined only by the impulses of the majority party in the House of Representatives. The Majority has failed to distinguish its definition of "abuse of power" from simple dislike or disagreement with the President's actions because this impeachment is inextricably tied to the Majority's dislike and disagreement with the President. That is not what the Founders intended.
The crux of the factual allegations in the first Article is that the President directed a months-long pressure campaign to force President Zelensky to announce particular investigations in exchange for U.S. security assistance or a White House meeting, in an effort to influence the 2020 election. The Intelligence Committee Minority Report demonstrates that these claims were not only unproven but, in fact, are undermined or contradicted by the primary actors in the alleged scheme.[7] Significantly, the alleged victims of the supposed pressure campaign were not even aware of any so-called pressure campaign.[8] Indeed, if the Majority had proof of bribery, they would have said so in the Articles.
- ↑ See e.g., Mike DeBonis & Toluse Olorunnipa, Democrats sharpen impeachment case, decrying 'bribery' as another potential witness emerges linking Trump to Ukraine scandal, Washington Post (Nov. 14, 2019).
- ↑ H. Res. 775, 116th Cong. (2019).
- ↑ See Markup of H. Res 755, Articles of Impeachment Against President Donald J. Trump, Before the H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 116th Cong. 77-78, 167-68 (statements of Reps. Buck and Reschenthaler; specifically, that Democrats lacked the evidence to prove at least three elements of the crime of bribery).
- ↑ Id. at 110 (Article I, charging that the President abused his power because he "ignored and injured the interests of the nation.").
- ↑ Turley, supra note 2, at 11.
- ↑ See Appendix A (Intel. Comm. Minority Report), outlining the evidentiary deficiencies in the Majority's case.
- ↑ Id. at 32-64.
- ↑ 29 Georgi Kantchev, Ukrainian President Denies Trump Pressured Him During July Call, Wall Street Journal (Oct. 10, 2019) (President Zelensky said, "There was no blackmail."); Matthias Williams, U.S. envoy Sondland did not link Biden probe to aid: Ukraine minister, Reuters (Nov. 14, 2019) (Ukraine's Foreign Minister Vadym Prystaiko said Ambassador Sondland "did not tell us... about a connection between the assistance and the investigations."); Mark Moore, Ukraine's Zelensky again denies quid pro quo during Trump phone call, {{Smallcaps|NY Post (Dec. 2, 2019) (President Zelensky again denies there was a quid pro quo); Simon Shuster, Top Ukraine Official Andriy Yermak Casts Doubt on Key Impeachment Testimony, TIME (Dec. 10, 2019) (Andriy Yermak denies discussing military assistance with Ambassador Sondland).
6
