Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for High Crimes and Misdemeanors

Floor Speech

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Mr. KIND. Madam Speaker, I am the only member of Congress who has voted to open impeachment inquiries against Presidents William J. Clinton and Donald J. Trump, a Democrat and a Republican.

Since then, I have voted to hold attorneys general of both parties in contempt for obstructing legitimate congressional inquiries.

One of the most important roles for Congress to perform is acting as a coequal branch of government, holding the executive branch accountable to the rule of law and the Constitution.

No one comes to Congress to impeach a president. I have always said it should be a last resort. I know impeachment is inherently divisive and brutal. The first casualty is usually the facts. I took an oath of office, not to any political party or person, but to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. Congress is the only institution in our democracy that can hold a president accountable.

The House opened an inquiry after learning of a whistleblower complaint alleging that the president actively coerced Ukraine to meddle in our elections.

This complaint came from a nonpartisan intelligence officer working in the White House. By law, the report had to be turned over to Congress to be investigated.

As a formal special prosecutor, I know that it is important to follow the facts and evidence. For the past few months, the House investigated these serious allegations outlined in the whistleblower's report. Here are those facts:

During a phone call on July 25th, President Trump asked Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to ``do us a favor though,'' immediately after discussing frozen military aid. He urged President Zelensky to work with his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and Attorney General William P. Barr in opening investigations connected to a political opponent, Vice President Joseph Biden, Jr., and a debunked conspiracy theory alleging that Ukraine--not Russia--was responsible for meddling in the 2016 election.

Just weeks before the call, President Trump withheld nearly $400 million in critical security assistance to Ukraine, which had been overwhelmingly approved by Congress. No reason was given for the hold beyond that it was directed by the president. The hold on security assistance was lifted only after the whistleblower complaint was filed and Congress opened its inquiry.

The investigation also revealed that besides withholding military aid, the president and his allies withheld White House meetings, phone calls and trade preferences from Ukraine.

We heard from nonpartisan State Department and intelligence officials who worked for the president, and they confirmed the allegations outlined in the whistleblower reporter.

I have reviewed the evidence and followed the hearings. It is clear the president's actions were a flagrant abuse of constitutional power; it was unlawful, and it jeopardized our national security.

The president had every opportunity to present contrary evidence but did not. Instead, he chose to obstruct the inquiry, preventing top officials from testifying and withholding relevant information.

Some have argued to let the voters in the next election decide. But how can we trust an election that the president is trying to corrupt?

I grew up in this country believing no one is above the law, including the president. If any president--Democrat or Republican--had committed these offenses, I would reach the same conclusion. And I ask others how they would feel if President Obama, instead of President Trump, engaged in this conduct.

Not all bad conduct is impeachable. Being rude or mean is not impeachable. Jaywalking, petty theft or infidelity does not put our national security at risk. But asking another country to meddle in our election and withholding vital security assistance to an ally is what our founders feared and why they placed impeachment in our Constitution.

The president once said that he could stand in the middle of Fifth Avenue and shoot somebody without losing any support. Clearly, he was exaggerating, but have we become so partisan, polarized, and tribal that as long as it is someone on our ``team,'' they can defy the law?

The president is wrong to believe this is all about him. More importantly, it is about defending the rule of law and our Constitution and what signal we send future presidents of what is acceptable behavior. In short, do we want a democracy where no one is above the law, or do we want a monarchy?

The decision of whether the president should be removed from office now rests with the Senate. In the meantime, I will continue to work across party lines, tackling issues of importance like lowering health care and prescription drug costs, ending trade wars, and combating the student loan debt crisis.

BREAK IN TRANSCRIPT

Source