WASHINGTON (AP) — The House Judiciary Committee opened its first impeachment hearing Wednesday, moving swiftly to weigh findings by fellow lawmakers that President Donald Trump misused the power of his office for personal political gain and then obstructed Congress’ investigation as possible grounds for removal from office.
The panel responsible for drafting articles of impeachment convened as Trump’s team was fanning out across Capitol Hill. Vice President Mike Pence was meeting behind closed doors with House Republicans and Senate Republicans will huddle midday with the White House counsel as GOP lawmakers stand lockstep with the president and Democrats charge headlong into what has become a strictly partisan drive to impeach him.
Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Democrats “haven’t made a decision” yet on whether there will be a vote on impeachment. She was also meeting privately with the Democratic caucus. But a vote by Christmas appears increasingly likely with the release of a 300-page report by Democrats on the House Intelligence Committee that found “serious misconduct” by the president.
“The evidence that we have found is really quite overwhelming that the president used the power of his office to secure political favors and abuse the trust American people put in him and jeopardize our security,” Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., told The Associated Press. “Americans need to understand that this president is putting his personal political interests above theirs. And that it’s endangering the country.”
The Judiciary Committee will hear from legal experts to determine whether Trump’s actions stemming from a July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s president rose to the constitutional level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” warranting impeachment. The report laid out evidence of Trump’s efforts to seek foreign intervention in the U.S. election.
New telephone call records released with the report deepen Trump lawyer Rudy Guiliani’s involvement in what House investigators called the “scheme” to use the president’s office for personal political gain by enlisting a foreign power, Ukraine, to investigate Democrats and Joe Biden, and intervene in the American election process.
Trump told reporters in London, where he is attending a NATO meeting, he really doesnt know why Guiliani was calling the White House’s Office of Management and Budget, which was withholding $400 million in military aid to the ally confronting an aggressive Russia at its border.
“’You have to ask him,” Trump said. “Sounds like something that’s not so complicated. … No big deal.”
Wednesday’s session with legal scholars will delve into possible impeachable offenses, but the real focus will be on the committee, led by Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., and made up of a sometimes boisterous, sharply partisan division of lawmakers.
In a 53-page opening statement obtained by the AP, Republican witness Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University, will say that the Democrats are bringing a “slipshod impeachment” case against the president based on secondhand information. Still, Turley doesn’t excuse the president’s behavior.
“It is not wrong because President Trump is right,” according to Turley. He calls Trump’s call with Ukraine “anything but ‘perfect,” as the president claims. “A case for impeachment could be made, but it cannot be made on this record,” he says.
The remaining three witnesses, all called by Democrats, will argue for impeachment, according to statements obtained by the AP.
Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill argues, “If Congress fails to impeach here, then the impeachment process has lost all meaning.”
The political risks are high for all parties as the House presses only the fourth presidential impeachment inquiry in U.S. history.
In a statement, White House press secretary Stephanie Grisham said, “Chairman Schiff and the Democrats utterly failed to produce any evidence of wrongdoing by President Trump.” She said the report “reads like the ramblings of a basement blogger straining to prove something when there is evidence of nothing.”
Trump has called the impeachment effort by Democrats “unpatriotic” and said he wouldn’t be watching Wednesday’s hearing.
The “Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report” provides a detailed, stunning, account of a shadow diplomacy run by Giuliani, resulting in layers of allegations that can be distilled into specific acts, like bribery or obstruction, and the more amorphous allegation that Trump abused his power by putting his interests above the nation.
Based on two months of investigation sparked by a still-anonymous government whistleblower’s complaint, the report relies heavily on testimony from current and former U.S. officials who defied White House orders not to appear.
The inquiry found that Trump “solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, to benefit his reelection,” Schiff wrote in the report’s preface. In doing so, the president “sought to undermine the integrity of the U.S. presidential election process, and endangered U.S. national security,” the report said. When Congress began investigating, it added, Trump obstructed the investigation like no other president in history.
Along with revelations from earlier testimony, the report included previously unreleased cell phone records raising fresh questions about Giuliani’s interactions with the top Republican on the intelligence panel, Rep. Devin Nunes of California, and the White House. Nunes declined to comment. Schiff said his panel would continue its probe.
Republicans defended the president in a 123-page rebuttal claiming Trump never intended to pressure Ukraine when he asked for a “favor” — investigations of Democrats and Joe Biden. They say the military aid the White House was withholding was not being used as leverage, as Democrats claim — and besides, the $400 million was ultimately released, although only after a congressional outcry. Democrats, they argue, just want to undo the 2016 election.
For Republicans falling in line behind Trump, the inquiry is simply a “hoax.” Trump criticized the House for pushing forward with the proceedings while he was overseas, a breach of political decorum that traditionally leaves partisan differences at the water’s edge.
House GOP leader Kevin McCarthy called on Democrats to end the impeachment “nightmare.” He said, “They’re concerned if they do not impeach this president they cant beat him in an election.”
Democrats once hoped to sway Republicans to consider Trump’s removal, but they are now facing a ever-hardening partisan split over the swift-moving proceedings that are dividing Congress and the country.
Possible grounds for impeachment are focused on whether Trump abused his office as he pressed Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to open investigations into Trump’s political rivals. At the time, Trump was withholding $400 million in military aid, jeopardizing key support as Ukraine faces an aggressive Russia at its border.
The report also accuses Trump of obstruction, becoming the “first and only” president in U.S. history to “openly and indiscriminately” defy the House’s constitutional authority to conduct the impeachment proceedings by instructing officials not to comply with subpoenas for documents and testimony.
For Democrats marching into what is now a largely partisan process, the political challenge if they proceed is to craft the impeachment articles in a way that will draw the most support from their ranks and not expose Pelosi’s majority to messy divisions, especially as Republicans stand lockstep with the president.
While liberal Democrats are pushing the party to go further and incorporate the findings from former special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election and other actions by Trump, more centrist and moderate Democrats prefer to stick with the Ukraine matter as a simpler narrative that Americans understand.
Democrats could begin drafting articles of impeachment against the president in a matter of days, with a Judiciary Committee vote next week. The full House could vote by Christmas. Then the matter moves to the Senate for a trial in 2020.
The White House declined an invitation to participate Wednesday, with counsel Pat Cipollone denouncing the proceedings as a “baseless and highly partisan inquiry.” Cipollone, who will brief Senate Republicans on Wednesday, left open the question of whether White House officials would participate in additional House hearings.
Associated Press writers Zeke Miller, Andrew Taylor, Colleen Long, Eric Tucker and Jill Colvin contributed to this report.
Of founders and findings: What to watch on impeachment
WASHINGTON (AP) — Same pillared House hearing room. Different chairman with his own mission.
When House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler gavels open Wednesday’s impeachment hearings against the nation’s 45th president, he’ll launch the business of actually writing an indictment against Donald Trump.
The question is no longer whether to impeach Trump. It’s on what charges — abuse of power or obstruction or both — and the strength of the Democrats’ case that Trump’s pressure on Ukraine was not just improper but impeachable.
Lots of high-minded talk about the Constitution and the nation’s founders is expected. But impeachment is inherently a political act, at no time more than now on the cusp of the 2020 elections.
What to watch when the second phase of the impeachment process opens at 10 a.m. EST.
The House intelligence committee on Tuesday voted to send its landmark report on Trump’s conduct to the Judiciary Committee, which will write the articles of impeachment against Trump.
At its heart, the 300-page report produced by Chairman Adam Schiff’s panel lays out the case that Trump misused the power of his office for personal political gain and obstructed Congress by stonewalling the proceedings like no other president in history.
The report does not offer a judgment on whether Trump’s actions stemming from a July 25 phone call with Ukraine rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” warranting impeachment. The entire House will decide that question as soon as this month.
Debate begins Wednesday in the House Judiciary Committee.
The U.S. Constitution lays out somewhat vague standards for presidential impeachment.
Look for much discussion about the passage at issue:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
How Nadler’s committee applies those words and ideas to the intelligence committee report will determine the fate of Trump’s presidency.
The pressure’s on the Democrat from Manhattan whose impeachment hearings earlier in the year did little to impress the party’s leaders.
Those events were focused on special counsel Robert Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 elections. Mueller himself was flat. Former Trump campaign manager Corey Lewandowski refused to answer questions about Russia.
When the Ukraine matter broke, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi gave the leadoff investigation to Schiff, in effect sidelining Nadler for a time. On Wednesday, he’ll try to keep control of his famously combative panel so that a trio of law professors called by Democrats and one by Republicans can speak about impeachment in lofty constitutional and historic terms.
Look for whether Nadler wields that gavel resolutely enough to bat down Republican complaints and points of order that could delay or upend the proceedings.
Nothing to see here except a process that’s been unfair to Trump. That’s the core of the GOP’s case, according to the president’s allies. The facts at issue aren’t being significantly contested.
But on the eve of the hearing, Republicans from Congress to the White House predicted a robust defense of the president. The senior Republican on Nadler’s committee signaled the level of bitterness to be expected.
“Tomorrow is simply just a filler because Jerry Nadler didn’t know what to do,” Rep. Doug Collins, R-Ga., the ranking Republican on Nadler’s committee, said Tuesday night.
Watching from the Senate are majority Republicans who would hold a trial if the House approves impeachment articles. None has said they’d vote to convict Trump and remove him from office.
Trump, who is in London attending a NATO summit, called the impeachment effort “unpatriotic.” He has griped about the fact that the Democrats are proceeding while he is overseas and vowed to pay no attention to the proceedings.
But the impeachment drive appears to be very much on his mind. Late Tuesday, he retweeted White House social media director Dan Scavino’s post noting that the president is with other world leaders.
Trump’s lawyers said they would not participate in the Judiciary Committee’s hearing, issuing a long list of complaints about a process they said is unfair.
There’s plenty of expertise on the Judiciary Committee when it comes to the Ukraine report and impeachment in general. That’s in part because several members also sit on the intelligence committee, which generated the report.
They are Democrats Val Demings of Florida and Eric Swalwell of California, and Republicans Jim Jordan of Ohio and John Ratcliffe of Texas.
Also, several members of the panel, including Reps. James Sensenbrenner of Wisconsin and Steve Chabot of Ohio, have been through impeachment before. Both were in Congress during the proceedings against Clinton.
Later in the hearing, look for the new members of Congress on the panel. For some from closely split districts, such as Rep. Lucy McBath of Georgia, making a high-profile splash at an impeachment hearing is a sensitive matter.
For others from safer districts, such as Rep. Veronica Escobar of Texas, it’s less fraught. Watch Escobar for hints of where Pelosi and other leaders want this hearing to go. She was recently named as the freshman liaison to the Democratic leadership.
Across the Democratic caucus, there’s a healthy split over what the articles should say. Some liberals, for example, want the charges to wrap in the Mueller report and its findings that Russia interfered in the 2016 elections. But moderates, especially new members facing tough reelections, have said they want the articles narrowly focused on Ukraine because Trump’s actions are more clearly connected.
At the witness table are three law professors for the Democrats: Noah Feldman of Harvard, Pamela Karlan of Stanford and Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina.
Jonathan Turley of George Washington University is the lone Republican witness.