Nick Akerman, former
assistant U.S. attorney in the Southern District of New York
Richard Ben-Veniste,
former member of the National Commission on Terrorist Attacks Upon the United
States
Richard J. Davis,
former assistant secretary of the treasury for enforcement and operations
Carl B. Feldbaum,
former inspector general for Defense Intelligence, former assistant to the
energy secretary and former chief of staff to Pennsylvania Sen. Arlen Specter
George T. Frampton
Jr., former assistant secretary of the Interior and former chair of the White
House Council on Environmental Quality
Kenneth S. Geller,
formerly deputy U.S. solicitor general
Gerald Goldman, former
clerk for U.S. Supreme Court Justice William J. Brennan
Stephen E. Haberfeld,
former U.S. magistrate judge in the Central District of California
Larry Hammond, former
first deputy assistant attorney general in the Office of Legal Counsel
Henry Hecht, lecturer
in residence at University of California at Berkeley School of Law
Paul R. Hoeber, lawyer
in private practice
Philip Allen Lacovara,
former deputy solicitor general of the United States; former special counsel to
the House Ethics Committee; and former president of the D.C. Bar
Paul R. Michel, former
chief judge for the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Federal Circuit and former
associate deputy attorney general of the United States
Robert L. Palmer,
lawyer in private practice
Richard Weinberg,
former assistant U.S. attorney for the Southern District of New York
Jill Wine-Banks,
former general counsel of the U.S. Army; former solicitor general and deputy
attorney general of the state of Illinois; and former chief operating officer
of the American Bar Association
Roger Witten, lawyer
in private practice
We, former members of the Watergate special prosecutor
force, believe there exists compelling prima facie evidence that
President Trump has committed impeachable offenses. This evidence can be
accepted as sufficient for impeachment, unless disproved by any contrary
evidence that the president may choose to offer.
The ultimate judgment on whether to impeach the president is
for members of the House of Representatives to make. The Constitution
establishes impeachment as the proper mechanism for addressing these abuses;
therefore, the House should proceed with the impeachment process, fairly,
openly and promptly. The president’s refusal to cooperate in
confirming (or disputing) the facts already on the public record should not delay or
frustrate the House’s performance of its constitutional duty.
In reaching these conclusions, we take note of 1) the public
statements by Trump himself; 2) the findings of former special counsel Robert S. Mueller III’s investigation; 3) the
readout that the president released of his phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr
Zelensky; 4) the president’s continuing refusal to produce documents
or allow testimony by current and former government employees for pending
investigations, as well as for oversight matters; and 5) other information now
publicly available, including State Department text messages indicating
that the release of essential military aid to Ukraine was conditioned on
Ukraine’s willingness to commence a criminal investigation designed to further
the president’s political interests.
In the 1970s, we investigated serious abuses of presidential
power by President Richard M. Nixon, including obstruction of justice,
concealment of government records and misuse of government agencies to punish
his political enemies. We prosecuted many of Nixon’s aides for their complicity
in Nixon’s offenses. Rather than indicting the president, the grand jury named
him an unindicted co-conspirator, delivered to the
House a “road map” of the evidence implicating him in
wrongdoing and deferred to the House’s constitutional responsibility to address
such presidential wrongdoing through the impeachment process.
mmittee, fulfilled that responsibility by reviewing the
evidence, interviewing witnesses and concluding that the facts warranted adopting three articles of impeachment: one for
obstruction, one for abuse of power and one for contempt of Congress. Shortly
thereafter, the president resigned rather than face a
Senate trial.
In our considered view, the same three articles of
impeachment could be specified against Trump, as he has demonstrated serious
and persistent abuses of power that, in our view, satisfy the constitutional
standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” For example:
● Trump conditioned protection of the military security of
the United States and of an ally (Ukraine) on actions for his
personal political benefit.
● Trump subordinated the integrity of our
national electoral process to his own personal political interest by soliciting
and encouraging foreign government interference in our electoral process,
including by Russia and China. He also appears to have demanded that Ukraine
investigate a potential 2020 political opponent and pursue the conspiracy
theory that Ukraine had interfered in the 2016 presidential election, despite
the unanimous conclusion of the U.S. intelligence community that it was Russia
that had interfered.
● According to the evidence laid out in the Mueller report,
Trump engaged in multiple acts of obstruction of justice in violation of
federal criminal statutes and of his oath of office to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.”
Because Mueller viewed Justice Department policy as precluding him from filing criminal charges against the
president, the special counsel appropriately stated that these abuses are for
Congress to address.
● Trump obstructed lawful congressional investigations by
systematically withholding evidence and by directing government agencies and
employees to refuse to cooperate with legitimate oversight
by Congress. Most significantly, the president’s blanket refusal to honor
requests for relevant information sought by House members conducting an
impeachment inquiry constitutes impeachable contempt and obstruction. The
public is entitled to know the facts, and Congress is the body our democracy
has entrusted with uncovering them.
The Constitution provides for the elected representatives of
the people to resort to impeachment in extraordinary circumstances showing that
this drastic remedy is necessary to restrain, and possibly remove, a president
who has engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors. Proper regard for
reestablishing and protecting the rule of law requires firm and resolute action
by the House. Lawmakers should not allow any refusal by the president to cooperate
in its process to frustrate the performance of its constitutional duties.
If a bill of impeachment comes before the Senate, we urge
all members of the Senate to put aside partisan loyalties and carry out their
own constitutional duties courageously and honestly. In 1974, it was a group of
Republican senators who put national interest over party loyalty and informed
Nixon that his conduct was indefensible and would compel conviction by the
Senate and removal from office. We hope the current Senate would similarly put
honor and integrity above partisanship and personal political interest.
To read more CLICK HERE
No comments:
Post a Comment