ARTICLE I
The House denies each and every allegation in the Answer to Article I that denies the acts,knowledge, intent, or wrongful conduct charged against President Trump. The House states that each and every allegation in Article I is true, and that any affirmative defenses set forth in the Answer to Article I are wholly without merit. The House further states that Article I properly alleges an impeachable offense under the Constitution, is not subject to a motion to dismiss, and should be considered and adjudicated by the Senate sitting as a Court of Impeachment.
.
Article I charges President Trump with Abuse of Power. The President solicited and pressured a foreign nation, Ukraine, to help him cheat in the next Presidential election by announcing two investigations: the first into an American citizen who was also a political opponent of his; the second into a baseless conspiracy theory promoted by Russia that Ukraine, not Russia,interfered in the 2016 election. President Trump sought to coerce Ukraine into making these announcements by withholding two official acts: the release of desperately needed military aid and a vital White House meeting. There is overwhelming evidence of the charges in Article I, as set forth in the 111-page brief and statement of material facts that the House submitted on January 18, 2020.
.
In his Answer, the President describes “several simple facts” that prove he “did nothing wrong.” This is false. President Trump cites the record of his July 25, 2019 phone call with President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine. But we have read the transcript and it confirms his guilt. It shows,first and foremost, that he solicited a foreign power to announce two politically motivated investigations that would benefit him personally. It also indicates that he linked these investigations to the release of military assistance: on the call, he responded to President Zelensky’s inquiries about U.S. military support by pressing him to “do us a favor though” and pursue President Trump’s desired political investigations. Astoundingly, the Answer claims that President Trump raised the issue of “corruption” during the July 25 call, but that word appears nowhere in the record of the call,despite the urging of his national security staff. In fact, President Trump did not care at all about Ukraine; he only cared about the “big stuff” that affected him personally, specifically the Biden investigation.
.
President Trump also points to statements by “President Zelensky and other Ukrainian officials” denying any impropriety. Yet there is clear proof that Ukrainian officials felt pressured by President Trump and grasped the corrupt nature of his scheme. For example, a Ukrainian national security advisor stated that President Zelensky “is sensitive about Ukraine being taken seriously, not merely as an instrument in Washington domestic, reelection politics.” As experts testified in the House, President Zelensky remains critically dependent on continued United States military and diplomatic support. He has powerful incentives to avoid angering President Trump.
.
President Trump places great weight on two of his own statements denying a quid pro quo. These are hardly convincing. One denial the President blurted out, unprompted, to Ambassador Gordon Sondland, but only after the White House had learned about a whistleblower complaint and the Washington Post had reported the President’s corrupt scheme—in other words, after President Trump got caught. President Trump then demanded to Ambassador Sondland that Ukraine execute the very this-for-that corrupt exchange that is alleged in Article I. As to the second denial cited in the Answer, President Trump made this statement to Senator Ron Johnson also after having learned of the whistleblower complaint, while inexplicably refusing the Senator’s urgent plea to release the military aid. In any event, these self-serving false statements are contradicted by all of the other evidence. They show a cover-up and consciousness of guilt, not a credible defense for the President.
.
Lastly, the President notes that he met with President Zelensky at the U.N. General Assembly and released the aid without Ukraine announcing the investigations. But he did so only after he was caught red-handed.
.
First , the impeachment inquiry was properly authorized and Congressional subpoenas do not require a vote of the full House.
.
Second , President Trump’s blanket and categorical defiance of the House stemmed from his unilateral decision not to “participate” in the impeachment investigation, not from any legal assertion.
.
Third , President Trump never actually asserted executive privilege, a limited doctrine that has never been accepted as a basis for defying impeachment subpoenas. The foreign affairs and national security setting of this impeachment does not require a different result here; it makes the President’s obstruction all the more alarming. The Framers explicitly stated that betrayal involving foreign powers is a core impeachable offense. It follows that the House is empowered to investigate such abuses, as all 17 current and former Executive Branch officials who testified about these matters recognized.
.
Fourth , the President’s invocation of “absolute immunity” fails because this fictional doctrinehas been rejected by every court to consider it in similar circumstances; President Trump extended itfar beyond any understanding by prior Presidents; and it offers no explanation for his across-the-board refusal to turn over every single document subpoenaed.
.
Finally , the President’s lawyers have argued in court that it is constitutionally forbidden forthe House to seek judicial enforcement of its subpoenas, even as they now argue in the Senate thatthe House is required to seek such enforcement. Again, President Trump would have it both ways:he argues simultaneously that the House must use the courts and that it is prohibited from using the courts. This duplicity is poor camouflage for the weakness of President Trump’s legal arguments. More significantly, any judicial enforcement effort would have taken years to pursue. In granting the House the “sole Power of Impeachment,” along with the power to investigate grounds for impeachment, the Framers did not require the House to exhaust all alternative methods of obtaining evidence, especially when those alternatives would fail to deal with an immediate threat. To protect the Nation, the House had to act swiftly in addressing the clear and present danger posed by President Trump’s misconduct.President Trump engaged in a cover-up that itself establishes his consciousness of guilt.Innocent people seek to bring the truth to light. In contrast, President Trump has acted in the way that guilty people do when they are caught and fear the facts. But the stakes here are even higher than that. In completely obstructing an investigation into his own misconduct, President Trump asserted the prerogative to nullify Congress’s impeachment power itself. He placed himself above the law and eviscerated the separation of powers. This claim evokes monarchy and despotism. It has no place in our democracy, where even the highest official must answer to Congress and the Constitution.
.