This article is from the source 'nytimes' and was first published or seen on . It last changed over 40 days ago and won't be checked again for changes.

You can find the current article at its original source at https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/04/us/politics/trump-impeachment.html

The article has changed 7 times. There is an RSS feed of changes available.

Version 1 Version 2
Scholars Call Trump’s Actions on Ukraine an Impeachable Abuse of Power Scholars Call Trump’s Actions on Ukraine an Impeachable Abuse of Power
(about 3 hours later)
WASHINGTON — The House Judiciary Committee opened an epic partisan clash over the impeachment of President Trump on Wednesday at a hearing where Democrats and Republicans offered up dueling legal scholars who disagreed over whether the president’s conduct rose to the constitutional threshold to warrant his removal from office. WASHINGTON — The House of Representatives on Wednesday opened a critical new phase of the impeachment proceedings against President Trump, with a rigorous debate featuring legal scholars over whether his conduct and the available evidence rose to the constitutional threshold necessary for his removal from office.
At the start of a new phase in Democrats’ fast-moving push to impeach Mr. Trump, three law professors they invited to testify declared that the president’s move to press Ukraine to investigate his political rivals constituted an abuse of power that was clearly impeachable, crossing crucial boundaries established by the nation’s founders to ensure the sanctity of American democracy. The appropriate and necessary remedy, they argued, was impeachment. In a daylong hearing convened by the Judiciary Committee, three constitutional scholars invited by Democrats testified that evidence of Mr. Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine for political gain clearly met the definition of an impeachable abuse of power. They said his defiance of Congress’s investigative requests was further grounds for charging him.
A fourth scholar invited by Republicans disagreed, warning that Democrats were barreling forward with a shoddy case for the president’s removal based on inadequate evidence, and risked damaging the integrity of a sacred process enshrined in the Constitution.
The spirited exchange unfolded as the Judiciary Committee began determining which impeachment charges to lodge against Mr. Trump based on an investigation by the House Intelligence Committee. The president abused his power, sought to subvert an American election and endangered national security when he pressured Ukraine for political favors, Democrats said.
In an investigative report released on Tuesday, they also concluded that Mr. Trump pressured President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to announce investigations into former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and other Democrats, while withholding a White House meeting and $391 million in vital security assistance.
Within days and despite unanimous Republican opposition, the panel could begin drafting and debating articles of impeachment, eyeing a vote by the full House before Christmas. Democrats signaled on Wednesday that the charges could be based not just on the Ukraine matter but also on earlier evidence that Mr. Trump may have obstructed justice when he sought to thwart federal investigators scrutinizing his campaign’s ties to Russia’s election interference operation.
But on Wednesday, in the wood and plasterwork-adorned chambers of the House Ways and Means Committee, lawmakers and the scholars they invited sparred over history and precedent as they prepared to embark on the third impeachment of a sitting president in American history.
Invoking arguments between the framers of the Constitution and impeachment precedents dating to monarchical England, the scholars dissected the quality of the evidence before the House and how to define at least one possible impeachment charge, bribery.
The three law professors invited by Democrats said that Mr. Trump’s behavior was not only an egregious abuse of his power for personal gain, but the textbook definition of the kind of conduct that the nation’s founders sought to guard against when they drafted the impeachment clause of the Constitution.
“If what we’re talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable,” Michael J. Gerhardt, a professor at the University of North Carolina, told the panel. “This is precisely the misconduct that the framers created the Constitution, including impeachment, to protect against.”“If what we’re talking about is not impeachable, then nothing is impeachable,” Michael J. Gerhardt, a professor at the University of North Carolina, told the panel. “This is precisely the misconduct that the framers created the Constitution, including impeachment, to protect against.”
A fourth witness, called by Republicans, said that might be the case, but argued that Democrats had failed to prove their case against Mr. Trump and risked dangerously lowering the standards for impeachment for decades to come if they drove forward with a “fast and narrow,” and entirely partisan, process. But a fourth witness, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, cautioned that House Democrats were rushing headlong into an impeachment based on an incomplete set of facts and overly broad standards. He conceded that the president’s conduct may have been impeachable, but said Democrats risked tainting the validity of the Constitution’s only remedy for grave presidential misconduct outside an election.
“I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger,” said the witness, Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University. “To impeach a president on such a record would be to expose every future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment.” “I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger,” he said. “To impeach a president on such a record would be to expose every future president to the same type of inchoate impeachment.”
The dispute unfolded as members of both parties braced for a historic confrontation in the weeks to come over whether to make Mr. Trump only the third president in history to be impeached. In offering the argument, Mr. Turley, who said he had not voted for Mr. Trump and did not condone his behavior, handed Republicans what could be a potent counterpoint to put to a divided public.
“Are you ready?” Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, privately asked a roomful of Democrats meeting behind closed doors before the Judiciary Committee’s proceedings began. They were, the lawmakers answered in unison, according to people who attended the session who discussed it on the condition of anonymity to describe a confidential gathering.
Nearby, Vice President Mike Pence was delivering his own battle cry to Republicans at their weekly conference meeting. “Turn up the heat” on House Democrats, he instructed them, according to an official familiar with his comments who spoke about them on the condition of anonymity. The dispute unfolded as members of both parties braced for a historic confrontation over Mr. Trump’s impeachment.
Inside the House Ways and Means Committee’s hearing room, the political divisions briefly receded amid a loftier debate among the constitutional scholars about executive power and accountability, and the standards by which Congress should move to oust a sitting president. “Are you ready?” Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Democrat of California, asked a roomful of Democrats meeting behind closed doors on Wednesday morning before the Judiciary Committee’s proceedings began. They were, the lawmakers answered in unison, according to people in attendance who discussed the session on the condition of anonymity to describe a confidential gathering.
Nearby, Vice President Mike Pence delivered his own battle cry to Republicans at their weekly conference meeting. “Turn up the heat” on House Democrats, he instructed, according to an official familiar with his comments who spoke about them on the condition of anonymity.
The panel invited lawyers for Mr. Trump to participate in Wednesday’s hearing, but they declined, citing what they called an inherently unfair process, and instead huddled privately with Senate Republicans over lunch to discuss a likely Senate trial. Pat Cipollone, the White House counsel, told senators that the president was eager to present a case for his defense in the Senate, should the House vote to impeach him.
Across the Capitol at the Judiciary Committee, the scholars debated whether Mr. Trump’s actions met the standards of impeachment laid out in the Constitution, which says a president can be removed for “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard, argued that Mr. Trump’s decision to withhold a White House meeting and military assistance from Ukraine while he demanded political favors from its president was a classic impeachable abuse of power.Noah Feldman, a professor at Harvard, argued that Mr. Trump’s decision to withhold a White House meeting and military assistance from Ukraine while he demanded political favors from its president was a classic impeachable abuse of power.
“If we cannot impeach a president who uses his power for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy,” Mr. Feldman said. “We live in a monarchy or a dictatorship.” “The essential definition of high crimes and misdemeanors is the abuse of office,” he said. “The framers considered the office of the presidency to be a public trust.”
But Mr. Turley argued that Democrats were tainting the very concept of impeachment by sloppily applying what should be an ironclad set of standards for the most drastic remedy available to hold an American president accountable for wrongdoing. For instance, he said, Democrats were interpreting the concept of bribery too broadly when they used the word to describe Mr. Trump’s conduct. Pamela S. Karlan, a Stanford law professor, went further, arguing that Mr. Trump’s actions toward Ukraine could constitute another offense outlined in the Constitution: bribery. She defined that offense as “when an official solicited, received or offered a personal favor or benefit to influence official action.”
“If you conclude that he asked for the investigation of Vice President Biden and his son for political reasons, that is to aid his re-election, then, yes, you have bribery here,” Ms. Karlan said.
But Mr. Turley argued that Democrats were tainting the very concept of impeachment by sloppily applying what should be an ironclad set of standards. He said Democrats and the other witnesses were interpreting the concept of bribery too broadly to describe Mr. Trump’s conduct.
“This isn’t improvisational jazz — close enough is not good enough,” Mr. Turley said. “If you’re going to accuse a president of bribery, you need to make it stick, because you’re trying to remove a duly elected president of the United States.”“This isn’t improvisational jazz — close enough is not good enough,” Mr. Turley said. “If you’re going to accuse a president of bribery, you need to make it stick, because you’re trying to remove a duly elected president of the United States.”
Within the first half-hour of the Judiciary Committee’s work, it was clear that the impeachment proceedings had entered a new, more cantankerous stage. The panel, stacked with some of the House’s most ideologically progressive and conservative lawmakers, lived up to its reputation for partisan rancor. Republicans repeatedly tried to grind the proceedings to a halt with parliamentary demands, while the Democrats tried to press forward undaunted, eyeing an impeachment vote by the full House before Christmas. Mr. Turley also disputed that Mr. Trump could be fairly charged with obstruction of Congress. Without going to court to ask a judge to enforce their subpoenas, he argued, Democrats’ case lacked important validation and could even be an abuse of the House’s power.
Democrats and Republicans also sparred bitterly over the findings of the two-month-long House Intelligence Committee investigation, concluded a day earlier. In a 300-page report released on Tuesday, the Intelligence panel asserted that Mr. Trump abused his office by pressuring Ukraine to help him in the 2020 presidential election, while withholding a coveted White House meeting for Ukraine’s president and $391 million in security assistance, and then tried to conceal his actions from Congress. Republicans submitted dissenting views that rejected any wrongdoing. Within the first half-hour of the hearing, it was clear that the proceedings had entered a more cantankerous stage. The panel, stacked with some of the House’s most ideologically progressive and conservative lawmakers, lived up to its reputation. Republicans repeatedly sought to halt the proceedings with parliamentary demands, while the Democrats pressed forward.
“President Trump welcomed foreign interference in the 2016 election,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the Judiciary Committee’s chairman, trying to establish a web of misconduct by Mr. Trump broader than just Ukraine. “He demanded it for the 2020 election.” “President Trump welcomed foreign interference in the 2016 election,” said Representative Jerrold Nadler, Democrat of New York and the Judiciary Committee’s chairman, trying to establish a web of misconduct by Mr. Trump beyond Ukraine. “He demanded it for the 2020 election.”
Mr. Nadler added: “The president has shown us his pattern of conduct. If we do not act to hold him in check — now — President Trump will almost certainly try again to solicit interference in the election for his personal, political benefit.”Mr. Nadler added: “The president has shown us his pattern of conduct. If we do not act to hold him in check — now — President Trump will almost certainly try again to solicit interference in the election for his personal, political benefit.”
Questioning the witnesses, Democrats hinted at articles of impeachment that could be brought forward in public as soon as next week. They included abuse of power and bribery related to the Ukraine matter and obstruction of justice stemming from the findings of Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel who investigated the Trump campaign’s ties to Russian election interference. They also appeared to be building a case to charge Mr. Trump with obstruction of Congress for his refusal to allow aides to testify in the impeachment inquiry and a blockade on documentary evidence requested by the House. Pressing his colleagues to “stand behind the oath you have taken,” Mr. Nadler added, “Our democracy depends on it.”
Republicans on the panel, who represent some of the most outspoken conservative defenders of Mr. Trump in the House, sought to portray the case as a political hit job. And they disputed vigorously that Democrats had proved that Mr. Trump directed a pressure campaign on Ukraine. Questioning the witnesses, Democrats hinted at what articles of impeachment they are considering. They included abuse of power and bribery related to the Ukraine matter and obstruction of justice stemming from Mr. Trump’s attempts to impede the investigation by Robert S. Mueller III, the special counsel who investigated the campaign’s ties to Russian election interference. They also appeared to be building a case to charge Mr. Trump with obstruction of Congress for his refusal to allow aides to testify in the impeachment inquiry and a blockade on documentary evidence requested by the House.
“This may be a new time, a new place and we may be all scrubbed up and looking pretty for impeachment,” said Representative Doug Collins, Republican of Georgia. “This is not an impeachment. This is simply a railroad job, and today is a waste of time.” Republicans on the panel, some of Mr. Trump’s most ardent defenders, sought to portray the case against him as a political hit job. And they disputed vigorously that Democrats had proved that Mr. Trump directed a pressure campaign on Ukraine.
Mr. Trump, in Britain for the 70th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, called impeachment “a dirty word that should only be used in special occasions.” “This is not an impeachment,” said Representative Doug Collins, Republican of Georgia. “This is simply a railroad job, and today is a waste of time.”
The Judiciary Committee is expected to convene one to two more hearings before it begins drafting and debating articles of impeachment. In the coming days, the panel will almost certainly hear a formal presentation of evidence from Democratic and Republican lawyers for the Intelligence Committee on the conclusions of their investigation into the Ukraine matter. Mr. Trump, in Britain for the 70th anniversary of the North Atlantic Treaty Organization, called impeachment “a dirty word that should only be used in special occasions.” When the hearing concluded, his spokeswoman dismissed the proceedings as a “sham process,” proclaimed the president’s innocence, and branded the opinions of the three legal scholars called by Democrats as the product of “political bias.”
The panel could also hold another session to allow Mr. Trump’s lawyers to present a formal defense, including by calling witnesses, if the White House requests it. Mr. Nadler has given the president and his team until Friday to decide whether they will participate in proceedings that they have so far shunned. Democrats must also decide whether to grant Republicans a minority day of hearings they formally requested on Wednesday. The Judiciary Committee is expected to convene additional hearings before it begins drafting and debating impeachment articles. In the coming days, the panel will almost certainly hear a formal presentation of evidence from Democratic and Republican lawyers for the Intelligence Committee on the conclusions of their investigation into the Ukraine matter.
Much of the day was given over to a historical discussion of the founders, their intent and the application of the Constitution’s reference to “high crimes and misdemeanors” in past presidential impeachments. But if the references were high-minded, the witnesses’ statements were quickly digested into the larger political debate raging on the dais. The panel could also hold another session to allow Mr. Trump’s lawyers to present a formal defense, including by calling witnesses, if the White House requests it. Mr. Nadler has given the president and his team until Friday to decide whether to participate. Democrats must also decide whether to grant Republicans a minority day of hearings they formally requested on Wednesday.
Mr. Gerhardt and the two other legal experts called by Democrats said they agreed that Mr. Trump’s actions in the Ukraine and Russia matters warranted articles of impeachment on abuse of power, bribery and obstruction of justice. They also agreed that Mr. Trump’s stonewalling of Congress was itself impeachable. As the marathon session wore on, tensions flared between lawmakers and even the witnesses.
Pamela S. Karlan, a Stanford law professor, told lawmakers that the president’s attempt to “strong-arm a foreign leader” would not be considered politics as usual by historical standards. Representative Andy Biggs, Republican of Arizona, sought to undercut the scholars invited by the Democrats, reading aloud critical statements they had made about Mr. Trump and accusing them of setting aside the law in favor of “preconceived notions and bias.” Democrats implied Mr. Turley, who argued in favor of Mr. Clinton’s impeachment two decades ago, was being disingenuous this time around.
“Drawing a foreign government into our election process is an especially serious abuse of power because it undermines democracy itself,” Ms. Karlan said. Ms. Karlan’s attempt at a pun to make a point about titles of nobility — “The president can name his son Barron; he can’t make him a baron,” she said — drew howls of outrage from the Republicans including Melania Trump, the first lady, who called the invocation of her 13-year-old son’s name “very angry and obviously biased public pandering.”
In Mr. Turley, Republicans reached for a well-respected scholar familiar to lawmakers, whose opposition to Mr. Trump’s policies, they believe, makes him a more powerful messenger than those who would reflexively defend him. Ms. Karlan, who tangled with Republicans several times during the hearing, interrupted the proceedings to apologize for the remark, saying, “It was wrong of me to do that.” But she added that she wished the president would also apologize for the things that he had done.
In a 53-page statement submitted to the committee, Mr. Turley made it clear that he was not a supporter of the president and believed that the Ukraine matter warranted investigation. But he said the facts were simply not yet developed and offered a lengthy rebuttal of his fellow witnesses.
“Impeachments have to be based on truths, not on assumptions,” Mr. Turley said. “That’s the problem when you move toward impeachment on an abbreviated schedule.” Reporting was contributed by Sheryl Gay Stolberg, Emily Cochrane and Catie Edmondson.
He took particular aim at claims that Mr. Trump’s actions met the standard for bribery charges and obstruction of Congress. Without going to court to ask a judge to enforce their subpoenas, he argued, Democrats’ case for obstruction lacked important validation.
Sheryl Gay Stolberg and Catie Edmondson contributed reporting.