Democrats unveiled two impeachment charges against the president of the United States Tuesday. But the evidence is flimsy and the motivations are suspect. Here are five reasons why these charges are trumped up.
There’s no quid pro quo. Gordon Sondland, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union, testified to Congress that the president explicitly told him to make that clear to Ukrainian president Zelensky.
The declassified transcript of Donald Trump’s phone conversation with Volodymyr Zelensky evidences no quid pro quo either.
Sondland also concedes that it is merely his “guess” that aid was being withheld to Ukraine until they announced an investigation.
There’s no smoking gun in this case, just Democrats connecting the dots. Even their star witness, Ambassador Sondland, says he inferred a quid pro quo. It’s an unproven theory based on the timing of withheld defense aid to Ukraine and the White House drive for a public investigation of Biden.
That’s called circumstantial evidence. It’s evidence that could be explained by a person committing a crime. But that doesn’t prove they did commit the crime. For circumstantial evidence to be sufficient for a conviction, it must surmount a very high legal threshold.
So Democrats object that they could get better evidence if Donald Trump allowed more White House officials to testify.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler says:
President Trump engaged in unprecedented, categorical and indiscriminate defiance of the impeachment inquiry. This gives rise to the second article of impeachment for obstruction of Congress.
As if these Democrats never heard of executive privilege. That’s the legally recognized right of the president to override subpoenas to protect confidential information if revealing it might impair the executive’s sensitive functions.
In United States v. Nixon, the Supreme Court ruled that executive privilege is especially legitimate when national security is at stake.
And as Speaker Nancy Pelosi has made clear, White House aid to Ukraine is a very grave matter of national security.
In 2012, Democrats voted not to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt of Congress for withholding subpoenaed documents. When Barack Obama asserted executive privilege, Democrats backed him.
Nancy Pelosi has abused her power to personally benefit herself. Using power for personal benefit is what Congress does. We all know that.
Rep. Maxine Waters, who was on the stage when Democrats announced the impeachment articles, was ranked one of the most corrupt members of Congress by a liberal watchdog group.
And the same Democrats pushing for impeachment now, as a matter of constitutional law, supported Obama’s unconstitutional power grabs.
Are Democrats seriously saying that they’re okay with foreign governments knowing about crimes committed by U.S. officials seeking public office — while American voters stay in the dark about it?
What’s transparent, or democratic about that?
Donald Trump requested another head of state look into possible crimes committed by a high ranking U.S. official. There’s a legitimate national interest in the executive exercising this prerogative.
Last modified: January 22, 2020 11:41 PM UTC