Democrats have wanted to impeach President Trump since the day he took office. This impeachment inquiry is simply the latest effort to remove Donald Trump from the presidency and prevent his candidacy in 2020.
Before the July 25th phone call ever took place, 103 out of 233 House Democrats had already voted to impeach President Trump for everything from criticizing NFL players to criticizing members of "the Squad."
This is the context in which President Trump has had to defend himself against Democrats' baseless and absurd allegations.
Impeachment #1Date: December 6, 2017
President Trump accused of: Criticizing professional football players who disrespect the American flag and national anthem.
Vote result: Failed 58 to 364
Impeachment #2
Date: January 19, 2018
President Trump accused of: Mentioning "shithole" countries in a White House meeting.
Vote result: Failed 66 to 355
Impeachment #3
Date: July 17, 2019
President Trump accused of: Criticizing members of "the Squad."
Vote result: Failed 95 to 332
Impeachment #4Date: Ongoing
President Trump accused of: Bribery, extortion, abuse of power, obstruction of Congress.
Evidence: Zero. Democrats proved incapable of discovering a single piece of direct evidence that President Trump committed impeachable offenses, despite weeks of closed-door hearings, depositions, and subpoenas.
The July 25th Phone Call
Amid accusations of wrongdoing during President Trump's July 25th phone call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, the Trump Administration took the extraordinary step of declassifying and releasing the transcript so the American people could see for themselves that nothing illicit took place.
Nowhere in the transcript does President Trump make any promises to President Zelensky, and nowhere in the transcript does President Trump threaten to withhold aid to Ukraine if Vice President Biden's activities were not investigated.
When confronted with the truth, Democrats simply doubled down on their "quid pro quo" claim by also accusing President Trump of bribery, extortion, committing a cover-up, and obstruction of Congress.
The Sham Inquiry Begins
Breaking with all historic precedent, Speaker Pelosi unilaterally declared the start of an impeachment inquiry via press conference. In all previous cases, impeachment inquiries were first authorized by a full vote in the House.
For several weeks, Chairman Adam Schiff presided over a Soviet-style process, denying 75% of voting Members of Congress, and therefore the over 230 million Americans they represent, a voice in the process by excluding them from hearings and access to transcripts.
After weeks of this tainted process, Speaker Pelosi held a vote to rubber stamp her secretive, partisan, behind-closed-doors impeachment inquiry. Pelosi's resolution, setting out the ground rules of the public phase of the impeachment inquiry, failed to provide the minority and the administration with the same due process rights which have been afforded in past presidential impeachments.
For months, Speaker Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Jerry Nadler claimed a vote to impeach the President would need bipartisan support. The only bipartisan vote they received was against their sham resolution and rigged rules.
"Bombshell" Witnesses
After weeks of selective leaking and due process violations, Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler finally opened impeachment hearings up to the public.
However, every single fact witness with firsthand knowledge of the situation repeatedly confirmed that President Trump never personally directed bribery, extortion, or any kind of quid pro quo on the call with President Zelensky.
Here's what the witnesses had to say:
Gordon Sondland, US Ambassador to the European Union, in an exchange with Republican counsel Steve Castor.
Mr. Castor: Did President Trump ever tell you personally about any pre-conditions for anything?
Ambassador Sondland: No.
Mr. Castor: Any pre-conditions for the aid to be released?
Ambassador Sondland: No.
Mr. Castor: Any pre-conditions for a White House meeting?
Ambassador Sondland: No.
Tim Morrison, former White House National Security Council adviser to President Trump on Russia and Europe, in an exchange with Rep. Elise Stefanik (R-N.Y.)Rep. Stefanik: There was no mention of withholding aid on the call, correct?
Mr. Morrison: That is correct, Congresswoman.
Rep. Stefanik: And there was no quid pro quo, correct?
Mr. Morrison: Correct.
Rep. Stefanik: No bribery?
Mr. Morrison: Correct.
Rep. Stefanik: No extortion?
Mr. Morrison: Correct.
Kurt Volker, former U.S. Special Envoy to Ukraine, in an exchange with Republican counsel Steve Castor.
Mr. Castor: In no way, shape, or form in either read outs from the United States or Ukraine, did you receive any indication whatsoever, or anything, that resembled a quid pro quo. Is that correct?
Ambassador Volker: That's correct.
Mr. Castor: And the same would go for this new allegation of bribery?
...
Ambassador Volker: I was never involved in anything that I considered to be bribery at all.
Mr Castor: Or extortion?
Ambassador Volker: Or extortion.
Marie Yovanovitch, former U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine, in an exchange with Rep. Chris Stewart (R-Ut.)Rep. Stewart: Do you have any information regarding the President of the United States accepting any bribes?
Ambassador Yovanovitch: No.
Rep. Stewart: Do you have any information regarding any criminal activity that the President of the United States has been involved with at all?
Ambassador Yovanovitch: No.
William Taylor, Acting U.S. Abmassador to Ukraine, and George Kent, Deputy Assistant Secretary of State for European and Eurasian Affairs, in an exchange with Rep. John Ratcliffe (R-Tex.)Rep. Ratcliffe: Where is the impeachable offense in that call? Are either of you here today to assert there was an impeachable offense in that call? Shout it out. Anyone?
[No response.]
George Washington University Law Professor Jonathan Turley — a self-professed Clinton, Obama voter — on how this impeachment inquiry differs from previous impeachment efforts.Professor Turley: This would be the first impeachment in history where there would be considerable debate, and in my view, not compelling evidence of the commission of a crime.
And later, warning Democrats about their rushed, sham impeachment process:Professor Turley: If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power. You are doing precisely what you are criticizing the president of doing.
The Final Product: Vague, Unconvincing Articles of Impeachment
Neither of Democrats' two articles of impeachment mention a specific crime. Instead, Speaker Pelosi has had to walk her accusations back all the way from extortion and bribery to "abuse of power" and "obstruction of Congress."
The average American probably couldn't tell you what exactly Democrats are impeaching President Trump for. Democrats haven't discovered a single piece of direct evidence that President Trump committed crimes or impeachable offenses, and Democrats have failed to make their case clear to the American people.
Voters will revolt against this cynical and blatant overreach at the ballot box in 2020.
