James L'Angelle
University of Nevada, Reno
Spring 2020
A Brief Summary of a Very Long Document.
Following the table of contents, the Introduction divides the report into four sections; the first gives a look at the process, the second refers to impeachment standards, the third examination of the abuse of power charge, the fourth obstruction in line with the subpoenas. Page 3 gives a hint as to intent of the House;
"Although the 2020 election is less than a year away, Congress cannot wait for the next election to address the President’s misconduct." The part of "cannot wait for the next election" confirms a cause for alarm by the President's foes to address their concern over defeat. Note in the same paragraph, the following;
"the President’s private attorney was back in Ukraine to promote the same sham investigations,"
a politically charged statement with no direct evidence to back it up. The President's attorney, Rudy Giuliani, had not testified officially regarding his mission to Kiev.
In Part B of Section II, on page 8, the key inquiry components are mentioned: the allegation that investigation into the opposition candidate's son was directly related to political gain for the President, the business with Ukraine being related to more political gain and the coverup by subpoena denial. This was initiated by HR 660. It was noted that no independent prosecutor was appointed. Witnesses gave testimony related to supposed vital national security interests related to military assistance to Ukraine. The report consumes the next 20 pages with justification for the impeachment inquiry and what protections the President has, citing various past efforts including those directed at Presidents Nixon and Clinton.
The next section beginning on page 29 finally gets around to definitions of impeachable offenses, where again treason and bribery are dangled in front of the reader, enticing but unconvincing, and, irrelevant. As for the other;
"In identifying 'other high Crimes and Misdemeanors,' we are guided by the text and structure of the Constitution, the records of the Constitutional Convention and state ratifying debates, and the history of impeachment practice."
The category appears to be a catchall for all the other non-treasonable offenses and at the same time, a minefield for the executive branch where its actions can be construed as abuse of power, betrayal to foreign powers and corruption. Nixon is mentioned in the first, no one else in the other two. The criminality argument is dismissed on page 32, again referring to Nixon and Clinton;
"Some crimes, like jaywalking, are not impeachable."
Six falsehoods are then addressed, in number four, the motives of the President are addressed. Abuse, Betrayal and Corruption aren't addressed again until page 42, following another history lesson, possibly a result of appearance by academia at the hearings. Note also, the saturation of this section with definitions of treason and bribery, charges that are not brought against the President, intended possibly to create the illusion of criminal activity, although crime isn't necessarily a requirement for impeachment. Again we are treated to another long-winded legal history lesson into definitions, precedents and at least one reference to Nixon. On page 46, it is noteworthy that reference to impeachment during the state ratifying conventions related to pardon power, for some reason hardly convincing that it relates to national security. In fact, the reference to national security has yet to be mentioned. At least the background on President Johnson's interference with post Civil War reconstruction might be considered in the interests of national security. In Section D., the conclusion offers little to support the charges against the President;
"“the House has never, in any impeachment inquiry or proceeding, adopted either a comprehensive definition of ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ or a catalog of offenses that are impeachable."
Article V discusses the "Criminality Issue" where A through D discuss the similarities of congressional and civil cases; including witness tampering. The document finally gets around to addressing the charges in HR755 on page 78.
"President Donald J. Trump used the power of his office to solicit and pressure a foreign nation to interfere in the 2020 United States Presidential election."
Again, we hear more political academia about what the "Framers" intended for high crimes and misdemeanors. On page 83, the so-called facts surface as are already known, the phone call, the arm-twisting, the withholding of aid for anti-tank armaments. All of it makes sense but connecting the dots in the conspiracy is still far-fetched, even with expert professional testimony beyond the college historian crowd. On page 85, the document insists the "conclusion is straightforward." A long review of the wrong doing is then summarized, in detail no less, citing such reliable official sources such as The Washington Post on page 90.
Next, the report brings up the suffering of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression and that the military assistance was vital to the nation. It doesn't mention the fact that Ukraine is not part of NATO and thus could easily become a security threat to the alliance should the weaponry fall into the wrong hands. Again, on page 94, the report cites another reliable official government source, CNN. On a sidenote, it is curious that of all the assertions and assumptions made in the report thus far, that another, even more similar affair in foreign meddling has yet to be mentioned, Iran-Contra.
Section 4 on page 115 attempts to establish a bribery effort, reviewing various US Codes related to the charge. None of this is included in the HR document passed by Judiciary.
Next, if evidence doesn't support the case, what about "lack of remorse" and "egregiousness," in other words, character assassination. The report has now hit a low point and hopefully it will recover before fully read and understood by the public. On page 138, the second article of the impeachment resolution is examined. Once again, a long winded justification, historically based, on authority to impeach. The subpoena defiance list is included on page 156. It concludes with a brief review under the heading;
"Judicial Review is Unnecessary and Impractical Here"
Many would agree the entire process of judicial review was unnecessary throughout the entire resolution. The entire preliminary justification ends on page 169 and the rest of the material in the pdf file released is actual hearing related text and testimony. Dissenting views begin on page 196 of the pdf document. It includes the refusal by the committees to hear minority arguments, witnesses, the failure of Article I to establish impeachable offense and lack of evidence. "Hyperbolic" is mentioned on page 205 but goes uncredited as to who said it. Criminality basis of prior impeachments is mentioned. The rebuttal, in effect, categorically refutes the charges and the methods used to lay the foundation for impeachment. It's signed by Doug Collins, Ranking Member of the House Judiciary Committee. The next rebuttal begins on page 217. It appears to be the long version of the Collins complaint and apes the information in more detailed description. It's documented with a John Bolton tweet on page 258. Most of the second, long-winded rebuttal is laced with testimony. Anyone who has been following the hearings with serious interest could wade through this without being surprised by the conclusions drawn.
The next rebuttal is by Mike Johnson, in a neatly organized quasi power-point line-by-line examination of the resolution that begins on page 340. The appendix begins on page 360. Some of it reads like assumptions made by the prosecution when no evidence is available, or even better, that written by an aspiring investigative reporter out to establish journalistic credentials. One highlight, on page 400, reads;
"Rudy Giuliani, on Behalf of President Trump, Led a Smear Campaign to Oust Ambassador Yovanovitch"
Refreshing to see that indictment by associate is still a popular method to convict the boss. On page 407, one of Giuliani's "tweets" is mentioned as proof of impeachable activity. We have now moved from the official Washington Post and CNN official sources to Twitter. On page 416, the New York Times becomes an official government source of information. ABC news officially enters the document on page 425. Again, most of the following is just a repeat for those who have good knowledge and have been following the story. Thankfully, "EndNotes" begin on page 511.
On page 561, yet another long-winded document appears, similar to the others, alleging just about the same, with the same introductions, historical precedents and assumptions.
Conclusion: Reading this entire document word for word is an enviable task but certainly, the recurrence of the vocabulary and text alludes to redundancy and a basic understanding can be gained without a close reading. Some parts require it, others can be skimmed. To what degree this will convince the Senate of guilt remains to be seen.
Back to Iran-Contra-- (pdf, Page 144)
A search of the entire pdf actually indicates one, just one, reference to Iran-Contra;
"Past Presidents have also produced documents and permitted senior officials to testify in connection with other Congressional investigations, including inquiries into Presidential actions.
For example, in the Iran-Contra inquiry, President Ronald Reagan’s former National Security Advisor, Oliver North, and the former Assistant to the President for National Security Affairs, John Poindexter, testified before Congress.29 President Reagan also produced “relevant excerpts of his personal diaries to Congress. (809 See id. at 721-22; see also Ukraine Report, at 205-206)
Further Reading:
HR755 IMPEACHMENT REPORT--Determinism vs Relativism--THE BENEDICT CITATION
JOUR107.1003 James L'Angelle University of Nevada, Reno Spring 2020 PAGE 53-- The ML Benedict Citation-- (239)--A Close Reading "Scholars now largely agree that President Johnson's impeachment was motivated not by violations of the Tenure of Office Act, but on his illegitimate use of power to undermine Reconstruction and subordinate African-Americans following the Civil War.
This Just In: The Subpoena SNAFU et. al. : According to at least two opinions from Justice, advisers to the President are not required to testify to Congress if ordered to do so. There is also some evidence to show that DOJ is not required to submit grand jury testimony of the Mueller inquiry to assist in the impeachment effort:
Congressional Demand for Deposition to the President, 23 July 1982
Memorandum to Edward C. Schmults
The Grand Jury Document: "As discussed more fully below, HJC has identified the requisite “judicial proceeding” to be a possible Senate impeachment trial, which is an exercise of judicial power the Constitution assigned to the Senate." (Page 20)
"Notwithstanding the weight of these precedents, DOJ maintains that an impeachment trial
cannot be a “judicial proceeding” under Rule 6(e) because the plain and ordinary meaning of the
term refers to 'legal proceedings governed by law that take place in a judicial forum before a
judge or a magistrate.' " (Page 25)
Note here the discussion falls back on the "determinist" vs. "relativist" interpretation of authority of the House with respect to impeachment being a criminal indictment. (see above: The Benedict Citation)
Grand Jury Disclosure, Rule 6(e) "
Sources
Report, https://rules.house.gov/sites/democrats.rules.house.gov/files/CRPT-116hrpt346.pdf
Oliver North image, https://nationalpost.com/news/world/oliver-north-set-to-become-the-next-nra-president
President Reagan image, https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2018/02/why-the-russia-investigation-could-end-more-like-iran-contra-than-watergate/554345/