Congressman Biggs' Dissenting Views for the House Judiciary Committee's Impeachment Report

DISSENTING VIEWS
Congressman Andy Biggs

I concur with Ranking Member Doug Collins' dissenting views and submit my additional statements for the record.

Democrats have sought to remove or delegitimize President Donald J. Trump since the day he won the 2016 presidential election. Representative Al Green (D-TX) expressed his desire to impeach the President while Barack Obama was still President. Media outlets and others stoked this fire and have kept it going for three years.

Their efforts have been uneven and unsuccessful. The most notorious attempt was the Russian "collusion" allegations that consumed more than $30 million and took the time of 19 FBI agents and operatives, hundreds of interviews, and hundreds of thousands of pages of documents. The conclusion was that the Trump campaign did not conspire, coordinate, cooperate, or collude with the Russians to interfere in the 2016 election.

Even now, however, Representatives who sit on the House Judiciary Committee and House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI or Intel) insist that they have evidence of "collusion."

In August 2019, a leaker, who had been told about a telephone conversation between President Trump and Ukraine President Zelensky, contacted HPSCI staff. Even though HPSCI Chairman Schiff publicly denied this contact, media accounts exposed that there had indeed been contact, and insinuated that there might have been assistance in drafting the "whistleblower's" complaint, which has launched this latest attack on President Trump.

Speaker Pelosi announced the opening of an impeachment inquiry based on the complaint. During her announcement she made representations of the contents of the complaint, as had Chairman Schiff.

The complaint was proven to be substantively false and utterly without merit when President Trump released a transcript of the phone call.

The testimony presented to the Judiciary Committee came in two hearings. In one hearing three law professors who despise this President urged impeachment. A fourth law professor, who did not and does not support President Trump, stated that this impeachment is based on "wafer thin" evidence which does not support Democrat allegations, in a process that is the fastest in the nation's history.

The only other "evidentiary" hearing consisted of the bizarre scenario where a Democrat staffer, who had testified for thirty minutes, left his spot at the witness table to sit next to Judiciary Chairman Nadler on the dais, and cross examine a Republican staffer for thirty minutes. All this strangeness took place in a hearing where each side was supposed to present its report on the closed-door proceedings of HPSCI.

The only facts adduced from those who have direct knowledge of the matters considered in this impeachment are:

1. Ukraine received U.S. aid in conformity with the law;
2. The aid was received without any preconditions other than those required by law;
3. During the period the release of aid was legally paused, Ukraine was not aware of the pause;
4. President Trump had a justified interest in Ukrainian corruption and a well-expressed antipathy toward any foreign aid.

In attempting to make their case Democrats have chosen to draw every inference from the scanty evidence in the most negative light possible against the President. Their obvious animus toward him has prevented them from giving, even one time, a benign interpretation of the evidence. And certainly, they would never accept an interpretation that might inure to the President's benefit.

Having watched and participated in the proceedings, even though limited by Chairman Schiff and the acquiescence of Chairman Nadler in that limitation, I have concluded that the Democrats' would never give a neutral interpretation of the facts (which they believe include rumor, gossip, and innuendo) where President Trump is concerned.

They have no facts. The law is against them. They have rigged the process. Why should the American public give the Democrats the benefit of the doubt?

ARTICLE I – ABUSE OF POWER

During their impeachment inquiry against President Trump, Democrats have dishonestly alleged that President Trump abused the powers of his office by soliciting "interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election." There is no basis for this outlandish claim. Democrats have twisted facts, taken statements out of context, and lied to the American people all in the name of fulfilling their 2016-stated desire of removing President Trump from office.

The shaky foundation of the Democrat case is the July 25, 2019, call between President Donald Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. On this call, Democrats allege that President Trump conditioned future support for Ukraine on their agreement to "publicly announce investigations into…former Vice President Joseph R. Biden." This is not true.

There is no mention of the aid appropriated by the United States for Ukraine on the call. Additionally, there is no discussion of any precondition to release aid. This is the first of many examples of the Democrats twisting the facts to create their own narrative.

Democrats called in several witnesses hoping to confirm their narrative, most for sessions of closed-door testimony, and some of whose transcripts still have not been released. Not one testified of a quid pro quo.

Gordon Sondland, U.S. Ambassador to the European Union is the Democrats' star witness. He is mentioned more than 600 times in a 262-page report authored by Chairman Schiff, which purports to be a summary of the HPSCI hearings.

Ambassador Sondland was not on the July 25 call. He repeatedly testified that the only direct statement from President Trump was that President Trump wanted nothing from Ukraine except for it to clean up its corruption.

Other statements of Sondland, that there was a quid pro quo, and everyone was "in the loop," were simply assumptions he made. In fact, he acknowledged that "no one on earth" told him that there were any preconditions on release of aid. His only direct knowledge was the President's explicit contradiction of the entirety of Sondland's presumptions.

Presumptions cannot be the basis for an impeachment. All the presumptions in the world do not overcome the direct evidence of the President's statement. In a conversation with Ambassador Sondland, President Trump said, "I want nothing [from Ukraine]. I want no quid pro quo. I want Zelensky to do the right thing. I want him to do what he ran on." In this case, President Trump is referring to President Zelensky's campaign to root out corruption within the Ukrainian government. The President's statement directly contradicts Ambassador Sondland's presumption.

The appropriated aid was released to the Ukraine without any investigation or announcement of an investigation by Ukraine. But the Democrats even put their own spin on the ultimate reasoning for release.

Democrats infer that President Trump released the aid because the delay on delivery was made public and Ukraine was made aware. Because they have no direct evidence to substantiate this assertion, they have attempted to rely on a timeline that says the whistleblower complaint became public before President Trump released the money to Ukraine. That temporal coincidence is a pin prick through which they attempt to drive a truck. But their inference is wrong.

That timeline is their only evidence. While that timeline of events is in fact true, that the whistleblower complaint was made public prior to the aid being released, there is a stronger rationale for the President's release of aid. In late August 2019, the Ukraine legislature was working on strong anticorruption legislation, which even Democrat witnesses said would be a significant curb on rampant Ukrainian corruption.

President Trump released the aid the very same day that President Zelensky signed into law two anti-corruption measures: one that ended immunity for Ukrainian legislators and the reinstatement of a vigorous anticorruption court.

The United States had provided aid to Ukraine in 2017 and 2018, but aid was only paused in 2019. The Democrats assert this is because President Trump wanted Ukraine to investigate a political rival. In fact, several Democrats asked what changed between 2017, 2018, and 2019.

What changed? A new president who had run on an anticorruption platform who had been employed by a Ukrainian oligarch before election. President Zelensky was also surrounded by several of the previous corrupt regime's officials. A brief pause, consistent with the law, to determine the credibility of the new president's commitment to ending corruption was justified.

To that end, during the pause there were multiple high-level meetings between U.S. leaders and President Zelensky where the need to take anticorruption measures was emphasized. The aid was released the day the two anticorruption laws were executed.

The Democrats' accusation that President Trump asked for an investigation into his political rival is based on a presumption that is inconsistent with the facts. On the July 25 phone call, President Trump mentioned a set of circumstances in which former Vice President Joseph Biden appeared to have stopped a prosecution that might have implicated Biden's son, Hunter. President Trump asked President Zelensky to "look into" those circumstances. President Trump did not ask President Zelensky to investigate Biden or to "dig up dirt" on Biden, as Schiff brazenly misrepresented to the American people.

Investigating events is not the same as investigating people. It is apparent that this distinction is lost on the Democrats. They have been investigating President Trump for three years and have investigated every nook and cranny of his life. They have investigated his family, his friends and associates, his supporters, his businesses. Democrats always project what they are doing on everyone else. They have been assailing President Trump at every turn. They have been investigating the person, not the events.

Not one witness testified that President Trump ever mentioned politics or the upcoming election. The evidence is that he was motivated by his understanding of widespread corruption in Ukraine and the corrupt circumstances of the Biden's involvement with Burisma, a Ukrainian energy company that was considered by many to be a corrupt actor. A person who is involved with entities committing corrupt acts may end up being investigated in conjunction with the corrupt acts of that entity. Immunity is not granted simply because that person's father is a powerful American political figure.

The telephone call between the two presidents was considered a good, fruitful conversation. The evidence in this case is clear: Ukraine received the aid within the lawful time provided for distribution, provided nothing in return for the aid, and Ukrainian President Zelensky stated publicly on multiple occasions that he never discussed any form of quid pro quo with President Trump and he felt no pressure from the United States.

The real abuse of power is on the part of House Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler. For months, they have run a Stalin-like court and failed to provide the due process fundamental to our nation. They used their platform to lie to the American people and to subvert the political will of 63 million American voters. Their efforts – which were stated in 2016, long before the call between President Trump and President Zelensky – are the real abuse of power.

ARTICLE II – OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS

Democrats' second Article is the most dubious, the "Obstruction of Congress" allegation.

Obstruction of Congress is weaker than the obstruction of justice story they bandied about for several years. It certainly is not a crime of moral turpitude, nor a "high crime or misdemeanor." It is almost an admission that Democrats are aware of the paucity of evidence to support their claims that they bring this Article forward.

Democrats argue that President Trump's unwillingness to support their impeachment is, somehow, obstruction of Congress. Is the President required to acquiesce to process that is patently harassing and of dubious motivation? The principles of separation of powers and checks and balances demand that a president be permitted to resist orders of the legislative branch that are overly broad, burdensome, harassing, or violative of his constitutional privileges.

Democrats claim that by asserting his constitutional privilege President Trump usurped the constitutional imperative that the House has the sole power of impeachment. They demand obeisance to their commands. It is an absurdity to claim that by granting Congress the sole power of impeachment the president is required to cooperate in any and all congressional requests, no matter their merit. Disputes between our branches are a feature, not a bug, of our system. The branches typically engage in a process of accommodation to reach an agreement. When disputes between the legislative and executive branches cannot be resolved, the two can appeal to the courts to rule. Anything less threatens the separation of powers that is the very foundation of our Constitution.

Democrats choose instead to ignore both the accommodation process and the judicial process to resolve this impasse. With a certain degree of shamelessness, they assert that President Trump defied subpoenas issued by the House. President Trump chose to assert his executive privilege, a valid constitutional option. Democrats did not try to reach any accommodation with President Trump and refused to attempt to enforce their subpoenas in court. The courts would have determined the validity of the subpoenas and of President Trump's privilege claim. But Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler publicly stated that turning to the courts would take too long. Democrats are letting themselves be held hostage by the clock and the calendar rather than attempting to follow the constitutional structure that the Founders intended.

Democrats have argued that President Trump undermined the integrity of the democratic process by his efforts to ensure the new Ukrainian President addressed corruption. But really, it's Democrats relentless attacks on President Trump and attempts to overturn the 2016 election that are undermining the integrity of the democratic process.

Democrats spent months of their first year back in the majority focused on impeachment. Rather than address the real issues facing our nation—border security, mounting national debt, and skyrocketing health care prices, to name a few—they've spent all their energy and efforts perpetrating a sham impeachment. We should consider who is more of an obstruction to Congress – President Trump or House Democrats. It's safe to say, it's House Democrats.

BROKEN PROCESS

The Democrats and their adherents in the Left-wing media have propounded a seemingly endless parade of reasons to impeach President Trump. In a "tweet" he used the term "fake news" and some saw that as grounds for impeachment. They asserted he should be impeached for the Muslim Ban (upheld by the Supreme Court), exercising his legitimate constitutional power to pardon (someone they didn't like), his tweet about FBI and U.S. intelligence surveillance of his presidential campaign (confirmed by the 2019 Inspector General report), tweeting about NFL players disrespecting the Flag and law enforcement officers, and just about everything else. One congressman suggested he should be impeached for slavery.

All of these were either policy disputes or personality conflicts. Some were outlandish and nonsensical. But the media and Democrats often repeated them.

Democrats helped perpetuate the Russian collusion hoax and even suggested an invocation of the 25^th Amendment to remove the President.

Is it any wonder that this impeachment process has been greeted with such skepticism? And, once the Schiff show in the top-secret basement bunker started, without the presence of the traditional committee of jurisdiction, the Judiciary Committee, the Democrats demonstrated that Americans' mistrust was justified.

The entire process was based on a foundation of deception. Chairman Schiff opened the informal impeachment – the first time in history an impeachment inquiry has been opened without a full vote of the House – by deceiving the American people into thinking a whistleblower expressed concern over the July 25 call between President Trump and President Zelensky. But Democrats' own New York Times broke the news that the whistleblower had communicated with Chairman Schiff's staff before coming forward publicly. To this day, it is still unclear whether Chairman Schiff himself met with the whistleblower or how his staff conspired to help craft his statement because Chairman Schiff and his staff refuse to answer questions about their dealings.

Once the transcript of the July 25 call was released by the White House and Chairman Schiff found that it did not support, and in fact, conflicted with his narrative, he created his own. After all, he needed some claim such as conditionality that would allow him to propound his false narrative.

Because there was no evidence of a this-for-that in the transcript of the call, Schiff wrote his own dialogue. He made up a conversation and told this fabrication to the world. He made it sound like President Trump directly asked President Zelensky for an investigation of his political opponent. But it was false. A lie. He had to make it up because the evidence he hoped for wasn't there. The oddest part is that Democrats quoted liberally from his report in the impeachment markup and Democrats continue to perpetuate the myth.

Next up, Democrats started calling witnesses to testify, hoping one of them would give them some facts to support their narrative. In violation of House rules, they held these interviews and depositions in a top-secret room in the basement of the Capitol, denying access to most members of Congress (including the Judiciary Committee) and prohibiting attending members from discussing the substance. The secret room and gag rules allowed Democrats to get their story straight before presenting their sham to the American people. Transcripts of the interviews trickled out over time, though not all of them have been released, even to this day. Once again, I call upon Chairman Schiff to release the transcript of the deposition of the Intelligence Community Inspector General.

When Pelosi finally allowed a vote on the rules, H.Res.660 gave President Trump and the minority less due process than President Clinton received from the Republicans during his impeachment. The President's counsel was prevented from examining any fact witnesses, Republicans were denied the right to call their own witnesses, and Republicans didn't have subpoena authority of their own. Worse still, Democrats inappropriately used their subpoenas to gather phone records from the President's attorney, from members of Congress, and members of the press, each of which were cherry picked and published. Despite multiple requests for documents throughout the process, Democrats stonewalled until releasing 8,000 pages of records less than 48 hours before the Judiciary Committee's hearing on the report published by the HPSCI. Never has a majority party abused its power in such a shocking and appalling way.

During one of only two impeachment hearings held by the House Judiciary Committee in this impeachment process—the committee that has historically been tasked with overseeing impeachment inquiries—neither of which were attended by any fact witnesses, House Republicans, in accordance with the House rules, requested the opportunity to hold a minority hearing. Republicans, after all, deserve the opportunity to call additional witnesses and to seek the truth. House rules require the Chairman to hold the hearing once it's requested, presumably in a timely way. Consistent with their track record of denying minority rights, Chairman Nadler refused to approve the hearing before the Judiciary Committee voted to approve the impeachment articles.

After the two hearings at which there were only presentations, the House Judiciary Committee met for more than 12 hours to debate and amend the articles of impeachment. Throughout the entire day, and as they did throughout the entire impeachment process, Chairman Nadler refused to follow committee rules on points of order, recognizing Members, or parliamentary inquiries. These rules are how committees maintain their decorum and protect the rights of the minority. The majority's disregard of the rules has set a terrible precedent and might lead to justification for future abuses. And, quite frankly, the disregard was completely unnecessary. Democrats have a substantial majority and will win the final vote. Disregarding the rules prevents members from representing the tens of millions of Americans who elected them, all the while knowing that the outcome of the final impeachment vote was a fait accompli.

The penultimate disrespect of the minority occurred late into the evening. After many hours of debate, Chairman Nadler postponed voting on the articles until the following morning and recessed the committee. This was done with no consultation of the Ranking Member, no prior notification to Members on the committee, and no reason given for why the vote could not be held that evening. But it was observed that most of the media had departed.

The following morning, after the media had returned, the anticlimactic vote occurred, lasting all of 10 minutes.

During the Judiciary Committee markup, a Democrat Congressman stated, "Freedom from oppression, freedom from tyranny, freedom from abuse of power, freedom is in our DNA." A wiser man, President Ronald Reagan, counterargued that "Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it to our children in the bloodstream. It must be fought for, protected, and handed on for them to do the same, or one day we will spend our sunset years telling our children and our children's children what it was once like in the United States where men were free." Democrats have tried to wrap themselves in the flag and say they are standing for the Constitution. But they are simply ignoring the clearly established facts and circumventing the rules to their advantage.

The American people see this process for what it is – a sham. This President, and all Americans deserve elected officials who have respect for their political will, for the foundations of our constitutional republic, and for the great responsibility that has been set before them. Democrats have damaged our representative republic with this impeachment.