Because they do not have direct evidence of a pressure campaign against the Ukrainians, the Majority's allegations are based on presumptions, assumptions, hearsay, and inferences.[1] And its most critical assumptions and inferences have been contradicted by direct evidence from the primary actors in the alleged scheme.[2] It is no surprise the allegations shifted from quid pro quo, bribery, and extortion to settle on an undefined "abuse of power." The facts uncovered by the Intelligence Committee fail to approach the constitutional and historical standard for impeaching a president.[3] As Professor Jonathan Turley testified before this Committee, this the "thinnest evidentiary record" in the history of presidential impeachments.[4] The reason the Majority has failed to seek information to substantiate that record, as Professor Turley and the Minority agree, is "an arbitrary deadline at the end of December."[5]
Some in the Majority have argued that the House of Representatives is like a grand jury that should vote to impeach based on probable cause. This framing contradicts historical precedent. In the Clinton Impeachment Minority Views, House Democrats stated that the burden of proof, just as it was in the Nixon inquiry, should be "clear and convincing evidence."[6] Chairman Nadler elaborated on that standard when he said:
At a bare minimum, [] the president's accusers must go beyond hearsay and innuendo and beyond demands that the president prove his innocence of vague and changing charges. They must provide clear and convincing evidence of specific impeachable conduct.[7]
The Majority should reflect upon Chairman Nadler's words.
The staff report on Constitutional Grounds for Impeachment filed during the Nixon impeachment further explains the high bar required for impeachment:
Because impeachment of a President is a grave step for the nation, it is to be predicated only upon conduct seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office.[8]
- ↑ See The Impeachment Inquiry into President Donald J. Trump: Testimony of Ambassador Gordon Sondland, Hearing Before the H. Perm. Sel. Comm. on Intelligence, 116th Cong. 148-51 (2019) (Ambassador Sondland testifying that his testimony about military was a "presumption" and that nobody told him the aid was linked to investigations); see also Appendix A (Intel. Comm, Minority Views) at 32-64.
- ↑ See supra note 29; Intel. Comm. Minority Views, at 43-44 (testimony of Ambassador Kurt Volker, the Special Envoy to Ukraine); Letter from Sen. Ron Johnson to the Honorable Jim Jordan, Ranking Member, H. Comm. on Oversight & Reform, and the Honorable Devin Nunes, Ranking Member, H. Perm. Sel. Comm. on Intelligence (Nov. 18, 2019).
- ↑ See supra note 10 (Opening Statement of Stephen R. Castor).
- ↑ Turley, supra note 2, at 4.
- ↑ Id. at 48.
- ↑ See id. at 211.
- ↑ Impeachment Inquiry: William Jefferson Clinton, President of the United States, 105th Cong., Consideration of Articles of Impeachment 78 (Comm. Print 1998) (statement of Rep. Jerrold Nadler).
- ↑ Staff of H. Comm. on the Judiciary, 93d Cong., Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment 4, at 27 (Comm. Print 1974) ("Nixon Constitutional Grounds for Presidential Impeachment").
7
