Return to Transcripts main page


House Voting to End Debate on Impeachment Rules; House Debates Impeachment. Aired 11:30a-12p ET

Aired December 18, 2019 - 11:30   ET




ANDERSON COOPER, CNN ANCHOR: And welcome back to our continuing coverage.

Right now, the House is voting on ending the debate to end the rules -- excuse me -- they're voting to end the debate on the rules on the impeachment rules. And then the actual debate about the impeachment, itself, will begin. Obviously, we'll bring all of that to you live.

I want to go to Dana Bash, who has been talking to members of Congress, both Republicans and Democrats all morning -- Dana?

DANA BASH, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL CORRESPONDENT: Anderson, that's right. One of the members of the Democratic leadership in the House I spoke with just while the debate was going on is James Clyburn. And we were talking about what we expect to see later today, which is probably unanimously Republicans voting no on impeachment.

Here's what he said about what we should take from that when it comes to the GOP.


BASH: So when you go forward with these votes, it is possible, probable, that some Democrats are going to vote no, but it's fairly unlikely that you're going to get any Republican to come on board. How much of a signal does it send if it's a partisan vote?

REP. JAMES CLYBURN (D-SC): I think the American people understand that this Republican Party has given itself to this person. They are no longer a Republican Party. They are Trump's party.


BASH: And he said when we see those votes taken, and Republicans in lock step, it will cement the notion of the Republican Party being the Trump party, which we've obviously seen happen over the past three years. But this will be kind of a recorded vote on that issue.

One of the top Republicans on the floor, you heard him pushing back against that notion. It was very interesting. Tom Cole, who is the ranking Republican, so he was speaking a lot, he said, don't question whether or not I'm doing this just because I can't stand up to the president. I'm doing there because I don't think it's right. And you know I believe this is the appropriate way to move forward.

So he didn't actually adhere to James Clyburn but he's heard other Democrats make that argument that this is all politics, that they don't have the guts, frankly, to stand up to the president.

That is a real dynamic going on here today. It will play out as we see the votes go down.


Dana, thanks very much. We will come back to you and obviously come back as more Congress people get up and talk about their view on impeachment.

Jeff Toobin, so far, it has really been all procedural. There will be six hours of actual debate about the impeachment, itself.

JEFFREY TOOBIN, CNN CHIEF LEGAL ANALYST: Right, although, most of the members now are already talking about the merits of the impeachment not as much about the procedural matters.

You know, the question is, who has the high ground here. Who speaks for the Constitution? The Democrats are saying that, you know, this is an abuse of power, this is exactly why we have impeachment. And the Republicans are saying that the process is a perversion of the impeachment.

And that's -- you know, we'll see what happens.



SANTORUM: That's not fair. That's not a fair analysis. They're saying, yes, they are saying it's the process.

But they're also saying even -- you heard several say, even if you accept everything that the Democrats say, this doesn't rise to the level of impeachment. We don't think they've proven their case.

It's not just a matter of process. They're saying that these actions are not serious enough to be impeachable. And they're also saying they haven't proven those actions.

And they haven't given time to prove the second article to run through the proper course of the Congress going to the court and having the court arbitrate whether the president should turn over these documents.

So to say it's just process is not fair.

(CROSSTALK) TOOBIN: Although, just to be accurate, you are right. They are definitely saying that the underlying events don't justify impeachment as well, but they are primarily at this point making a procedural argument.

SANTORUM: They're making a procedural argument because this is a rule and that's a procedural argument.


COOPER: I think also to Senator Santorum's point, what they're not saying is the call was perfect. They're not really defending the actual call, itself.

SANTORUM: Just because the call isn't perfect doesn't mean it's impeachable.


CHARLIE DENT, CNN POLITICAL COMMENTATOR: They can't defend the president's actions, because they're indefensible. The arguments most of my former colleagues are making have largely been procedural. They're not on substance, because they can't talk -- the president did solicit a foreign power, used his office, you know, for his political benefit and then conditioned the foreign assistance.

You know, as a White House --


SANTORUM: I don't think most Republicans accept that charge. I don't accept that.

DENT: If you or I did that, as a member of Congress, we used our office to call a foreign head of government for a political purpose, I guarantee not only would you have an Ethics Committee -- and I was chair -- you'd have the Department of Justice crawling up your back side, no doubt about it. I guarantee it.

SANTORUM: With all due respect, every single interaction with a foreign government has a political purpose. You are drawing lines here. I understand, you can say he crossed the line. Fine, but the idea that there's no politics involved with communications --


LAURA COATES, CNN LEGAL ANALYST: No one is saying there's no politics involved. You are missing at least one point here, and that is there happens to be a second article of impeachment they're going to debate.

And as a former Senator, I would appreciate the current Senators would debate this in a full-blown trial to actually evaluate these different measures.

With the obstruction of Congress aspect, you could probably make this argument you're trying to make that abuse of power being perhaps too much of a leap of faith. But obstruction of Congress relies on you looking at two things. How many documents were requested, how many were provided, how much testimony was asked for, how much was provided.

In that respect, that's more than simply a procedural aspect. That's also a substantive. And I am always surprised to know that members of Congress would say a member of the executive branch, they can thumb their nose at them with no consequence.

SANTORUM: That's not what we're saying. I don't think that's what any Republican is saying. That's not what Jonathan Turley said.


SANTORUM: What Republicans are saying is --


SANTORUM: -- there's a process by which you go through to determine whether the president is obstructing Congress. And that is through the courts.

When there's a debate between the two branches of government, have you the umpire, which is the court. Go to the court and you make the case before the court as to whether there's, in fact --


KIRSTEN POWERS, CNN POLITICAL ANALYST: But that's not -- you are saying that. It's a red herring argument that the Republicans are making. Because that hasn't been the case in past impeachments.

So like you didn't have to go through the court to get people from the Nixon administration to testify. You didn't have to go to the court to get the people from the Clinton administration to testify. They told them to cooperate.

So Republicans have created this idea that somehow the Democrats are obligated to do that and they're not. The reality is a president should be making people available. And he would be making people available if they were going to help his case.

COOPER: Jeff Toobin, you made the point that this, what the Democrats are calling obstruction of Congress, it is unprecedented that there are always a debate and sometimes it goes to court about individual documents --

TOOBIN: Right.

COOPER: -- individual --

TOOBIN: It's an issue of scale. I mean, there have always been debates about whether certain witness can testify, whether secretary of some department can testify about a conversation with the president, is that covered by executive privilege.

It's perfectly appropriate for -- to have arguments over that what has never happened before.

What has never happened before is you've had a White House counsel write an eight-page letter that says we are not cooperating at all. We are not talking. We are not supplying witnesses. We are not supplying documents or e-mails. That's why we have a constitutional crisis here.

In addition, the other point that is important is that this argument, oh, let's just go to court and spend the next several months. The problem with it is that what he has been doing is interfering in the 2020 election. So if the Democrats are forced to go to court, they have to let him continue for the next six months.

COOPER: What is he doing interfering right now with the 2020 election?

POWERS: We don't know.


SANTORUM: Oh, we don't know.


SANTORUM: We have been through we don't know for two-and-a-half --


SANTORUM: -- with Russia and it's been debunked.

COOPER: But what we do know is he --


SANTORUM: He hasn't interfered in the election.

COOPER: He just asked China to interfere and he asked Ukraine again to interfere. He did that on the front lawn of the White House.

SANTORUM: As you heard, they have to -- the president believes -- you may not believe it. If the president believes there's corruption going on at the very highest levels with certain members of the Democratic Party and in the prior administration, and he wants that to be looked into.


COOPER: Him asking China to investigate the Bidens, you are saying that's a legitimate thing?

SANTORUM: All I know is that both in the case of Ukraine and the case of China, Hunter Biden, simply because he was the president's son, made a boat load of money.

COOPER: That's not all you know. You know is there's an election coming up. You know that Joe Biden is running against the president. And you know that this will have an impact on that election.


TIM NAFTALI, CNN PRESIDENTIAL HISTORIAN: But wait. That's the same argument Richard Nixon made about Larry O'Brien (ph). Larry O'Brien (ph) made a boat load of money. I don't like O'Brien (ph). I'm going to have him investigated. He didn't follow the proper procedure.


SANTORUM: -- vice president of the United States.

NAFTALI: But there was no probable cause.


POWERS: -- Hunter Biden.

NAFTALI: This is the point here, that's why it's abuse of power. We have all kind of institutions to do exactly what you think ought to be done.


SANTORUM: Those institutions like the FBI that just got skewered by the FISA court.


NAFTALI: So the answer is to ask foreign FBI --


SANTORUM: So the problem is we've seen a pattern where the president has been unjustly accused and we've seen, again, by the Horowitz report, that the intentional efforts to hurt --


COOPER: So the president is going to Ukraine because he can't trust the FBI to investigate the former vice president of the United States?

SANTORUM: I didn't say --


COOPER: He trusts the corrupt regime of the Ukraine --


COOPER: -- which he says is corrupt?

NAFTALI: Do you know how dangerous that is?


SANTORUM: You know how dangerous it is for the FBI to what they did?

COOPER: Excuse me. Do you want to put faith in foreign governments to investigate --


SANTORUM: I think any president who has been under siege, who now has -- through this FISA, through the report, by Horowitz, has justifiably been --


COOPER: But intellectually, your argument doesn't make sense. You say he can't trust the FBI, so, of course, it's natural, he would go to Ukraine to launch an investigation against the former vice president of the United States.

There were plenty of people in the United States in the government who could investigate the former vice president if it was legitimate. He knows it's not legitimate. So he's going to Ukraine to say they're going to investigate. He doesn't care if there's an investigation.

TOOBIN: That's another point that deserves some emphasis here, is that the president has no interest in an actual investigation of Hunter Biden or the Bidens. What he wants is an announcement of an investigation, which he can do politically.

SANTORUM: That's what some people say. We don't have that from the president.


TOOBIN: That's what the evidence was.

SANTORUM: That's what some people testified.

TOOBIN: Look --

SANTORUM: We don't know that to be the case.

COOPER: But some people did swear under oath, under penalty of perjury.


TOOBIN: -- the evidence is available because the president has cut off access to any other evidence.

But one thing I want to try to make clear here, is that, you know, we have -- there's a very much a good-faith debate about whether the president's conduct is impeachable.

That is a matter of opinion. It's a matter of interpretation of the Constitution.

SANTORUM: Right. TOOBIN: And that's a very appropriate thing.

But what we should not have a debate about is what happened. The facts. Everyone is entitled -- as Senator Moynihan used to like to say, everyone is entitled to their own opinion. They're not entitled to their own facts. The idea there's an alternative view of the facts is a mistake.

SANTORUM: Again, I disagree with that. I think there's -- we don't have direct evidence. We have indirect evidence.


SANTORUM: I understand you say, well, we should get the direct evidence from the president. That's where I think you have to take the time to do that.


POWERS: But when you say investigating members of the Democratic Party, Hunter Biden was not a leader in the Democratic Party. Hunter Biden was somebody that went and did this on his own.

There's not one shred of evidence that Joe Biden did anything to help him with that or did anything because he had that job. So you're just mixing it altogether --

SANTORUM: I guess --


POWERS: -- and suggesting something nefarious happened here when there's just literally not even --


POWERS: -- the tiniest shred of evidence --

SANTORUM: From the president's perspective, a person he trusts, Rudy Giuliani, has made a case that there is evidence. You can say that's not true. It is true.


SANTORUM: I'm telling you this is what the president believes.

NAFTALI: But there are constitutional consequences if a president acts on a conspiracy theory and goes outside the normal --


SANTORUM: We have all sorts of evidence of conspiracy theories in this Russia investigation that actually turned out to be true.

COATES: Senator, you have to focus on actually why we're here, Senator Santorum. Here's why. It's an impeachment. Which means only the president can be subject to that.

Hunter Biden is not the president. Joe Biden is not the president. Not for lack of trying, quite frankly. So you have this focus on him.

What we're focusing on is whether or not these two articles of impeachment are viable enough to remove the president of the United States.

You are asserting this there's no sound argument, even grounds for debate --

SANTORUM: I didn't say there was no sound argument.

COATES: I'm going to finish my point -- no grounds for debating there could be an abuse of power because there's lack of direct evidence.

You know it's a circular argument by I'm not giving you the very thing you require you need to make this claim stick.

That is not what happens. A brief reminder, if I will, of the organizational chart of the executive branch of government, the FBI falls under it.


If you read page two and three of this scathing letter, of yesterday, that the president put forth on the eve of an impeachment vote, you note he is saying he has never acted against the interests of the United States of America.

If you take this position by saying, as Anderson was talking about, there's no reason to go to a United States agency to try to investigate alleged corruption, and you are going to go to a foreign power, isn't that the very essence of saying, I don't believe in the very institutions that I oversee.

If you don't like that, why are you the head of the executive branch of government?

SANTORUM: Number one, there's legitimate reasons to be concerned about what went on in the FBI in 2016 to 2017 --


SANTORUM: -- and it's laid out clearly. By the way, it's bipartisan.

There's as much concern -- I have as much concern looking at that report of what happened with Hillary Clinton and Jim Comey as I do with what happened with Donald Trump.

There are serious issues that everybody seems to be glossing over. The president looks at it from that perspective. It's a legitimate concern he has.

By the way, I'm not making the case -- I agree with Jeffrey. I think the Democrats have a plausible case to make that he obstructed power. I don't agree with it. I think they're wrong. I don't think the evidence supports that.

I do believe, contrary to you, that there's a procedure by which you determine whether the president is obstructing justice and you have to go through the court first.

Whether it's unprecedented in the case of impeachment, we're talking two cases. This is not a long history. But what we have is a very long history when the president is demanded things, he can say no, and there's a remedy and that's to go to the courts.

NAFTALI: I think there's an issue not only of scale but venue. George Washington made clear there was something special about impeachment power that allowed the House to ask for things it ordinarily wouldn't ask for.

In that case, it's something to do with the Jay Treaty. He said the House has no role to play in our foreign policy.

The Senate asks for it, fine. But if you had asked for something with regard to the impeachment of me, then we would have to turn it over.

The issue is not simply -- this isn't Fast and Furious again. This is an issue of the executive branch against the legislative brand.

When it comes to impeachment, there aren't real rules in the Congress - in the Constitution except that the House has sole impeachment power. And traditionally -- sorry, traditionally, our presidents have understood there's something special about an impeachment request.

Donald Trump is the first president to have stonewalled every request. That's -- so it's not just scale. It's venue.

SANTORUM: What you are doing, and I think correctly so, is putting this in context. This is different because of context. I think you need to give the president the benefit of the doubt of context.

Because for the last three years, context, this House of Representatives has been trying to go at well, the Democrats in the last year, but really since the beginning have been trying to destroy this president. The Mueller investigation, all of these rumors, all of which now have been completely debunked.


SANTORUM: The reality is -- the reality is that they have been trying to impeach this president from the very beginning and we're looking for a reason to do so.


DENT: I was there. I was there.

There were a handful of Democrats you know, Tlaib, you know, Al Green, a few of them are issuing articles. That was a handful. Most Democrats I think were done with impeachment after the Mueller investigation. We're only here because of the president's reckless self-destructive behavior --


POWERS: Democrats didn't start the Mueller investigation. That's not how it worked. The Democrats can't start the Mueller investigation. That was done by the DOJ. I don't understand how they're getting blamed for that.


POWERS: I mean, look, are they anti-Trump? Yes. Were you and your Republican cohorts anti-Clinton from the second he stepped foot into office? Yes.


SANTORUM: I don't know anyone calling for impeachment of Bill Clinton from the beginning.

POWERS: We end up with this ridiculous lengthy investigation by Ken Starr that went into every possible crevice of Bill Clinton's life in an effort to try to find a way to impeach him.

The point is I think we have to look at where we are now. Whatever people's partisan positions are. And say, is this an impeachable offense. And I think that that it is. I think if it was Barack Obama, you would think it is.

COOPER: Just in terms of what we are going to see from now, so they've had this vote on ending the debate about the impeachment rules --

TOOBIN: Can we ask Charlie? What's going on here?


DENT: They just completed the debate on the rule on the previous question. Now they're going to move on the

COOPER: This is the debate on --

DENT: -- substance of the articles of impeachment. I guess Article I will be first, then Article II. So that's what's going to happen. So we're going into five or six hours of debate.


TOOBIN: Is this now the final vote on the rule?

DENT: This is the final vote on the rule.


DENT: There are two votes. You just had to vote on the previous question and the rule. As soon as this is completed, which would be momentarily, they will then move to the substantive debate. And it will be split evenly between the --


COOPER: How much time will each person have to talk?


DENT: Well, the committee members on the Judiciary Committee will probably have more time than rank-and-file members who will have less time. So, if it's six hours of debate, three hours Republicans, three hours Democrat. They usually divide up leadership time.

SANTORUM: They're saying -- I heard somebody say 50 seconds each, non-committee members.


SANTORUM: I think in the six hours -- I could be wrong -- but usually, they reserve time at the end for the leaders and speakers, both sides.

So that the rank -- the committee, as Charlie said, will have priority and then the rest of the members. Then usually, the last hour is for leadership to --


COOPER: This is a dumb question. Is there some sort of a sign-up sheet? I mean, how do --


COOPER: All right.

DENT: Somebody is keeping track. And --

COOPER: So a representative says, I want to talk, they're told when they can talk?

SANTORUM: Yes. And someone -- whoever is controlling that -- it could be a chairman, a ranking member, the leadership in this case, because it's such a big deal. They're going to decide who they will let speak or not.

TOOBIN: But the people controlling the debate, we do know, are going to be the chairman and ranking members of the Judiciary Committee --


TOOBIN: -- Jerry Nadler for the Democrats, Mitch McConnell for the Republicans.


SANTORUM: -- to speak. And they're going to be out front. DENT: And Nancy Pelosi and Kevin McCarthy will not be subjected to any time limit I would suspect at the end of the debate, which is when they will speak.

COOPER: Tim, just in terms of history, obviously, big picture, it is a remarkable day. It's been commented on a lot.

How do you see it compared to sort of what we know from impeachments from the past and history viewed those impeachments?

NAFTALI: So in modern impeachments, there has been a debate in both parties. I'm not sure how strong the debate was within the Republican Party in 1988, but I know there was some Republican dissenters, so there was a debate.

DENT: Yes, absolutely.

NAFTALI: There was a debate in the Democratic Party in 1974. You h ad a bunch of southern Democrats whose constituencies and whose philosophy was closer to Richard Nixon than it was to Tip O'Neill. So there were debates in both parties.

What is different now I think is the sense I'm getting. We're going to watch the debate. My sense is that there's no debate in the Republican Party right now.

SANTORUM: I don't think there's a debate in the Democratic Party either.

NAFTALI: I think - I disagree with you.



NAFTALI: Senator, I'm sorry.

If you read what the -- we'll call them the Trump district Democrats have been saying about why they're voting for impeachment and the fact that at least one of them is going to vote for one of the articles of impeachment. I think that there has been a debate in the Democratic Party. I think that's one reason why Nancy Pelosi managed the system as she did.

Now you look at me skeptically. I really believe they're - look, we'll find out --


COOPER: We'll continue this in a moment.

I do just want to go back to Jake and Wolf.

WOLF BLITZER, CNN ANCHOR: It's interesting, the next minute or so, they should wrap up the voting, Anderson, on this procedural vote, agreeing to the Rules Committee resolution, which allows the full debate over these two articles of impeachment to go forward.

That debate should be beginning very, very soon. Jerry Nadler, the chairman of the Judiciary Committee, Doug Collins, the top Republican on the Judiciary Committee, they will go first. Three hours for that debate.

JAKE TAPPER, CNN ANCHOR: That's right. Although, Adam Schiff, the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, which really shepherded this impeachment investigation through, will also take over for Democrats --

BLITZER: The second three hours.

TAPPER: -- for the second three hours.

They'll go back and forth, back and forth between Democrats and Republicans although the time will be kept even until the very end and then everybody gets to make up the proceeding time.

It is interesting, Gloria Borger, one of the things that has been noted is that normally an impeachment goes through the House Judiciary Committee. But in this case, Adam Schiff chaired it from the House Intelligence Committee. There's a lot of speculation as to why that was.

I asked a member of the House Intelligence Committee why that would be. He said that's because the whistleblower was an Intelligence Community whistleblower. He came forward with the official complaint about President Trump allegedly abusing his office.

GLORIA BORGER, CNN CHIEF POLITICAL ANALYST: That's true. And I think there may also be some internal Democratic politics going on here, which is that, when Jerry Nadler ran his hearings months ago on impeachment, and he had Corey Lewandowski up before them and it didn't go so well, and he seemed to lose control of the committee.

I think Adam Schiff is very close to Nancy Pelosi. I would not be surprised if he's named a floor manager.

One of the ironies of all of this is that Adam Schiff came to Congress by defeating a Republican Congressman Rogan (ph), who was an impeachment manager against -- for Bill Clinton's impeachment. When he came to Congress, he said, well, he forgot about his home district.


But Schiff was very impressive in his committee, had complete control of his committee.

The flip side of that is he is a favorite target of Republicans and of the president. The Republicans tried to censure him on the floor of the Congress and that did not occur.

So he's going to be attacked on the floor, although there are rules about that. But he's not a favorite of the president. It will be interesting to see. The president has kind of been live

tweeting this impeachment. When Schiff appears, I don't know if he's going to be able to control himself. He's got nicknames for Adam Schiff, as you know.


BORGER: So I think he is Pelosi's choice.

TAPPER: John King, one of the things that's interesting is also that we have heard legitimate defenses of President Trump of there being enough question, enough doubt as to whether or not this should be an impeachable offense, whether or not every vein has been exhausted in terms of trying to force subpoenas, in terms of trying to get witness testimony and evidence.

But one of the things we hear from House Republicans so often are just misrepresentations, lies about what happened.

I don't know if many people remember the show "Popup Video" on VH-1, which would provide facts and figures during music videos back when people showed music videos. I wish we could do popup video because we're about to hear a torrent of lies about what the president actually did.

JOHN KING, CNN CHIEF NATIONAL CORRESPONDENT: Right. And I would say, as we go to this next segment looks like we're about to resume today's Washington -- we did not have today's Washington this morning. Not that Republicans weren't making their adamant case against this and Democrats were making it for it.

But you have in Chairman McGovern and the ranking member, Cole, two men who like and respect each other, two old-school Washington politicians, who do it with respect and do it as bipartisan as possible. That's about to end.

We're about now to get into the Nadler and Schiff, who are the Republican opponents --


BLITZER: Hold on a second. Let's listen in.



UNIDENTIFIED CONGRESSWOMAN: The resolution is adopted. And without objection, the motion to reconsider laid on the table.

BLITZER: Now they're going to go forward with the real debate over these two articles of impeachment.

On that resolution, there were two Democrats who voted with the Republicans on that resolution to suspend the whole thing. Obviously, the Republicans lost, but they did manage to pick up two Democrats. KING: We're going to watch that throughout. We'll to have to get the

actual roll call. I suspect it's Collin Peterson, of Minnesota, and Jeff Van Drew, from New Jersey, the two Democrats who voted against launching the impeachment inquiry to begin with. We have to double check and confirm that, but that is what we expect.

And Justin Amash, a former Republican from Michigan, now an Independent, is voting with the Democrats here.

To Jake's point, some irony, hypocrisy, call it what you will, with the Republicans saying, we didn't get to call Adam Schiff as a fact witnesses in the committee. How dare you deny us that information. Well, why won't you support your own party when they want to bring in the people.

If you can counter the 17 witnesses who said, withheld the White House meeting, withheld aid, demanded investigation of a debunked conspiracy theory, the CrowdStrike 2016 thing, demanded investigation of Hunter Biden, if you can counter that, well, it would be John Bolton who could do it. It would be Mick Mulvaney who could do it. It would be all their documents and e-mails that could do it. And the White House has refused to give those documents.

So to your point about the Republicans banking their outrage --



Let's listen.

UNIDENTIFIED CONGRESSWOMAN: -- of House Resolution 755. The clerk will report the resolution.

UNIDENTIFIED CLERK: House Calendar number 61, House Resolution 755, resolved that Donald John Trump, president of the United States, is impeached for high crimes and misdemeanors and that the following articles of impeachment be exhibited to the United States Senate.

Articles of impeachment exhibited by the House of Representatives of the United States of America in the name of itself and of the people of the United States of America against Donald John Trump, president of the United States of America, in maintenance and support of its impeachment against him for high crimes and misdemeanors.

Article one, abuse of power. The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment and that the president shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.

In his conduct of the office of the president of the United States and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of president of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, Donald J. Trump has abused the powers of the presidency.


In that using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States presidential election. He did so through a scheme or --