—
Rachel Maddow motivated me, if I was going to read nothing else from the THE TRUMP-UKRAINE IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY REPORT — read the list of the KEY FINDINGS OF FACT (starting on page 34)
This list from the Fact-based world, closes with a summary of Trump’s stunning Abuses of Power. Here are those “closing” Findings of Facts, for your review:
[pg 34]
KEY FINDINGS OF FACT
Based on witness testimony and evidence collected during the impeachment inquiry, the Intelligence Committee has found that:
[...] [pgs 35-6]
VII. By withholding vital military assistance and diplomatic support from a strategic foreign partner government engaged in an ongoing military conflict illegally instigated by Russia, President Trump compromised national security to advance his personal political interests.
VIII. Faced with the revelation of his actions, President Trump publicly and repeatedly persisted in urging foreign governments, including Ukraine and China, to investigate his political opponent. This continued solicitation of foreign interference in a U.S. election presents a clear and present danger that the President will continue to use the power of his office for his personal political gain.
IX. Using the power of the Office of the President, and exercising his authority over the Executive Branch, President Trump ordered and implemented a campaign to conceal his conduct from the public and frustrate and obstruct the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry by:
A. refusing to produce to the impeachment inquiry’s investigating Committees information and records in the possession of the White House, in defiance of a lawful subpoena;
B. directing Executive Branch agencies to defy lawful subpoenas and withhold the production of all documents and records from the investigating Committees;
C. directing current and former Executive Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees, including in defiance of lawful subpoenas for testimony; and
D. intimidating, threatening, and tampering with prospective and actual witnesses in the impeachment inquiry in an effort to prevent, delay, or influence the testimony of those witnesses.
In so doing, and despite the fact that the Constitution vests in the House of Representatives the “sole Power of Impeachment,” the President sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own misconduct, and the right to deny any and all information to the Congress in the conduct of its constitutional responsibilities.
Since these Abuses of Power reminded me of a tyrant — of someone who thinks he is “absolutely” Above the Law — I decided to search the entire report for the references to the word “king”.
Here are those references to that archaic concept; references that explain why we have a free democracy and a Constitution in the first place:
[pgs 215-6]
President’s Top Aides Are Not “Absolutely Immune”:
According to Mr. Cipollone, the President’s top aides are “absolutely immune” from being compelled to testify before Congress.[109] This extreme position has been explicitly and repeatedly rejected by Congress — which has received testimony from senior aides to many previous Presidents—and by federal courts. In 2008, a federal court rejected an assertion by President George W. Bush that White House Counsel Harriet Miers was immune from being compelled to testify, noting that the President had failed to identify even a single judicial opinion to justify his claim.[110]
On November 25, 2019, another federal judge rejected President Trump’s claim of absolute immunity for former White House Counsel Don McGahn, concluding: “Stated simply, the primary takeaway from the past 250 years of recorded American history is that Presidents are not kings,” and that “Executive branch officials are not absolutely immune from compulsory congressional process — no matter how many times the Executive branch has asserted as much over the years — even if the President expressly directs such officials’ non-compliance.”[111] Mr. Cipollone’s position, adopted by President Trump, has thus been repudiated by Congress and the courts, and is not salvaged by Executive Branch legal opinions insisting upon a wholly fictional ground for non-compliance. In ordering categorical defiance of House subpoenas, President Trump has confirmed the unlimited breadth of his position and his unprecedented view that no branch of government — even the House — is empowered to investigate whether he may have committed constitutional offenses.
And there’s this brief history lesson about why there is the Power of Impeachment, in the Constitution, in the first place:
[pg 8]
The Framers of the Constitution well understood that an individual could one day occupy the Office of the President who would place his personal or political interests above those of the nation. Having just won hard-fought independence from a King with unbridled authority, they were attuned to the dangers of an executive who lacked fealty to the law and the Constitution.
In response, the Framers adopted a tool used by the British Parliament for several hundred years to constrain the Crown—the power of impeachment. Unlike in Britain, where impeachment was typically reserved for inferior officers but not the King himself, impeachment in our untested democracy was specifically intended to serve as the ultimate form of accountability for a duly-elected President. Rather than a mechanism to overturn an election, impeachment was explicitly contemplated as a remedy of last resort for a president who fails to faithfully execute his oath of office “to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.
That is, we have a “free democracy” — for as long as we can uphold and protect it.
As long the Balance of Powers spelled out in the Constitution are taken as seriously, as the facts now in evidence demand. And not treated as a joke. As another cynical exercise in moving the goalposts, for personal gain and aggrandizement.
...
— —
Oath of Office
Upon taking office, senators-elect must swear or affirm that they will "support and defend the Constitution." The president of the Senate or a surrogate administers the oath to newly elected or re-elected senators. The oath is required by the Constitution; the wording is prescribed by law.
www.senate.gov