Kaleb Poor
Staff Writer
The U.S. House of Representatives Select Committee on Intelligence concluded its impeachment investigation into President Trump as part of a larger inquiry in late Sept.
The impeachment process is a long and complex process that can be confusing and difficult to keep up with. This article will attempt to explain the process by breaking it into three parts – where we have been, where we are now and where we are going – before exploring what is being said about the impeachment.
Where we’ve been so far.
On Aug. 12, an anonymous whistleblower filed a complaint with the inspector general for the intelligence committee, who deemed the complaint to be credible and a matter of “urgent concern.” The report was delivered to the House and Senate Intelligence Committees as required by law.
Just over two weeks later, Politico reported that the Trump administration was withholding $250 million in military aid to Ukraine. The aid had been approved by Congress, which has the sole “power of the purse,” meaning only Congress may appropriate taxpayer funds within the federal government.
On Sept. 5, the Washington Post reported it had been “reliably told” that president Trump was “attempting to force [Ukrainian president] Zelensky to intervene in the 2020 U.S. presidential election by launching an investigation of the leading Democratic candidate, Joe Biden.”
Less than one week later, on Sept. 11, the $250 million in military aid was released to Ukraine.
At this point of the Ukraine scandal president Trump was not yet being impeached. The phrase “quid pro quo” had not been used by either the president or any member of Congress to describe the exchange, and the whistleblower’s complaint had not yet been linked to the military aid.
During the weeks between Sept. 11-24, several key events took place: the Washington Post reported the whistleblower’s complaint involved Ukraine and it involved a “promise” of some kind; president Trump confirmed his administration withheld the military aid to Ukraine; president Trump’s personal lawyer Rudolph Giuliani appears on CNN and ties the withheld military aid to an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; and the focus of the scandal became a phone call between President Trump and his Ukrainian counterpart.
On Sept. 24 House Speaker Nanci Pelosi (D-Calif.) announced that the House of Representatives would be launching an impeachment inquiry, signalling the impeachment process had begun.
One day later, the White House declassified and released a transcript of the call between President Trump and Ukrainian president Zelensky. At a critical point in the call, the transcript shows immediately after Zelensky brings up military aid, President Trump said, “I would like you to do us a favor though.”
The Impeachment process begins.
The process for removing a president is not impeachment. Rather, impeachment is the first step in a process which spans both the House and the Senate.
“We use the process of impeachment, [but] really what we’re talking about is a multi-step process,” said Jim King, a professor of political science at the University of Wyoming. “The House of Representatives has the power to impeach, which is to charge a governmental official…with wrongdoing under the terms of the Constitution. The Senate then decides if the individual has committed these crimes and should be removed from office.”
The House began their investigation in the Select Committee on Intelligence, issuing subpoenas for closed-door witness depositions and declassifying the whistleblower’s complaint.
Shortly after, members of the state department were directed not to comply with House summons by Secretary of State Mike Pompeo. On Oct. 8, White House counsel member Pat Cipollone informed Congress that they would not cooperate with any part of the impeachment inquiry.
Over the next two weeks, the Intelligence Committee heard testimony from officials from the State Department. Several testified despite being ordered not to by the White House.
On Oct. 17, while the House was holding closed-door depositions of witnesses, the president’s acting Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney seemed to confirm that the White House was withholding aid and would not release it unless Ukraine began investigations into his political opponents.
“[Did Trump] also mention to me, in the past, that the corruption related to the DNC server?” said Mulvaney during the press conference. “Absolutely, no question about that. But that’s it. And that’s why we held up the money. . . . The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.”
The notion that Ukraine was responsible for hacking the Democratic National Committee (DNC) during the 2016 presidential race has been widely debunked as a baseless conspiracy theory. The U.S. Intelligence community unanimously concluded that Russia was responsible, and Russian intelligence agencies have since begun a disinformation campaign to frame Ukraine for the attack.
On Oct. 31, the House voted to formalize the impeachment process and to make the proceedings more public. Over the next two weeks, transcripts of the closed-door testimonies were released, and Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland issues a revision to his previous testimony, acknowledging that a “quid pro quo” did occur.
On Nov. 15, following the start of public hearings and witness testimony, Trump issued a Twitter attack on Marie Yovanotvich, former ambassador to Ukraine, during her testimony. Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) questioned Yovanovitch about the attack and she characterized it as “intimidating,” prompting widespread accusations of witness tampering by Trump.
Public hearings continued through late Nov. and were largely damaging to the White House, implicating not only the Trump but also his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Pompeo in a scheme to withhold Ukraine’s Congressionally-approved military aid unless Ukraine publicly announced they were investigating Trump’s political opponents.
Where we are now.
The Select Committee on Intelligence has now concluded its investigation into the Ukraine scandal, meaning the impeachment process is now moving into its next stage.
“The actual impeachment debate begins with the Judiciary Committee,” said King about the current transition.
“Where we are right now is the House Intelligence Committee was charged with gathering information relevant to an impeachment proceeding…The House Judiciary Committee will now take up that report and decide whether articles of impeachment are warranted against President Trump.”
Hearings in the House Judiciary Committee started yesterday and it quickly became clear they would explore three potential articles of impeachment: bribery, obstruction of Congress and obstruction of justice.
Three of yesterday’s four witnesses vehemently affirmed the Intelligence Committee’s findings indicated both that Trump had committed all three offenses and each of those offenses were grounds for impeaching a president. Additionally, the three agreed the President had betrayed the trust of the American people.
“Everything I read on those occasions tells me that when President Trump invited — indeed demanded — foreign involvement in our upcoming election, he struck at the very heart of what makes this a republic to which we pledge allegiance,” said witness Pamela Karlan, a professor at Stanford University.
“If Congress fails to impeach here, then the impeachment process has lost all meaning and, along with that, our Constitution’s carefully crafted safeguards against the establishment of a king on American soil,” said fellow witness Michael Gerhardt, a professor at the University of North Carolina.
Yesterday’s fourth witness – Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University- disagreed with the other three. He said impeaching President Trump would be inappropriate. Citing the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, Turley criticized the speed with which the process was moving and the precedent it may set.
“So we’re all mad, and where has it taken us?” Turley said. “Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad? Will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration?”
The Judiciary Committee is expected to continue calling witnesses and exploring the case for drafting each individual article of impeachment. This can be thought of as deciding which specific charges the House believes the President should be tried for in the Senate.
Where we go next.
Democrats have signalled they want to wrap up the impeachment process by the end of the year, meaning the Judiciary Committee can be expected to wrap up their hearings over the next few weeks and determine which articles of impeachment – if any – should be drafted. If articles are drafted, they will be taken to a vote on the House floor.
It is widely expected that the articles of impeachment will be drafted and passed in the House along party lines. Should that happen, the Senate will be obligated to begin a trial and determine whether the President is guilty of the offenses charged against him.
“In the Senate, what are referred to as ‘managers’ from the House of Representatives will present the case,” said King. “Both sides will present their interpretation of [the Ukraine scandal] and what witnesses have described…and the Senators will debate and take their votes.”
What people think.
While Democrat supporters have largely seen the impeachment as warranted, fair and necessary, Republican supporters have called the process unfair, undemocratic and pre-planned.
Lily Guthrie, a UW student who voted for Trump in 2016, said she thinks the entire impeachment is a farce.
“I think it’s a joke, it’s an absolute fiasco whether you’re a Democrat or a Republican. If you’re looking at the facts and you’re listening to it at all you can’t agree with [the impeachment],” Guthrie said. “First of all, it’s pretty boring, so if you’re listening to it it’s not going to be interesting and it seems like no one has answers. It’s just a wild goose chase.”
Guthrie cited concerns about a lack of evidence against President Trump, where she said second-hand information from witnesses was not enough.
“I don’t think there’s any rule-following in this entire process,” Guthrie said. “I think it’s just an absolute joke. If you ask someone what he’s being impeached for, nobody can answer that question because there’s no evidence, there’s no facts.”
One reason that people do not know what the President is being impeached for may be that articles of impeachment have not yet been drafted. This is because the investigative phase of the impeachment process has just concluded and the Judiciary Committee is reviewing the case for impeaching the president.
“One of the unfortunate things about this current process… is how many members are speaking out, either that they’re already convinced that an impeachable offense occurred or did not,” said King.
Members of the House of Representatives indeed drew their battle lines early, with many Republicans digging in their heels early in defense of Trump and many Democrats on-record as supporting impeachment early in his presidency.
“When your son looks at you and said ‘Mamma, look, you won — bullies don’t win,’” freshman Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI) said early this year. “And I said, ‘Baby they don’t, because we’re gonna go in there and we’re gonna impeach the motherfucker!’” Tlaib has been deeply critical of President Trump and was elected in the 2018 midterms, which were widely seen as a referendum on the president.
“But, that underscores what they’re trying to do. They have never accepted the will of the American people and they’ve gone to this crazy impeachment strategy that we’ve seen unfold now for several months,” said Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio) earlier this week.
Clearly, impeachment has only deeped national divisions over Trump, his policies and his methods. As impeachment moves forward, TV pundits widely speculate that votes will be drawn along party lines, meaning the president will likely be impeached in the House but acquitted in the Senate.
As evidence continues to mount against the president, it remains to be seen whether U.S. voters will be swayed in favor of impeachment or if the public will hold fast to their previous beliefs.
