[Congressional Bills 117th Congress]
[From the U.S. Government Publishing Office]
[H. Res. 1010 Introduced in House (IH)]
<DOC>
117th CONGRESS
2d Session
H. RES. 1010
Expunging the December 18, 2019, impeachment of President Donald John
Trump.
_______________________________________________________________________
IN THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES
March 29, 2022
Mr. Mullin submitted the following resolution; which was referred to
the Committee on the Judiciary
_______________________________________________________________________
RESOLUTION
Expunging the December 18, 2019, impeachment of President Donald John
Trump.
Whereas the United States 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'';
Whereas, on December 18, 2019, the House of Representatives passed House
Resolution 755, Agreeing to Article I of the Resolution Impeaching
Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high Crimes and
Misdemeanors, by a vote of 230 Yeas, a bipartisan coalition of 197 Nays,
1 Present, and 3 Not Voting;
Whereas Article I of the Resolution, entitled ``Abuse of Power'', alleges, based
on vague innuendo, opinion, and hearsay, that President Trump
``solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the
2020 United States Presidential election'';
Whereas Article I of the Resolution alleges President Trump ``sought to pressure
the Government of Ukraine'' to announce two investigations, the first
into ``a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden,
Jr.,'' and the second, into provable lies by House and Senate Democrats
that Donald Trump colluded with Russia to undermine the 2016
Presidential election;
Whereas Article I of the Resolution alleges President Trump conditioned ``(A)
The release of $391 million . . . for the purpose of providing vital
military and security assistance to Ukraine . . .; and (B) a head of
state meeting at the White House . . .'' with the President of Ukraine,
upon a Ukrainian announcement that both a corruption investigation into
influence-peddling by the Biden family and an investigation into
election interference in the 2016 United States Presidential election
had begun;
Whereas President Johnson was impeached in 1868 for violating the Tenure of
Office Act;
Whereas President Nixon's resignation from office in 1974 followed extensive,
and provable, instances of criminal conduct, including multiple felony
crimes;
Whereas President Clinton was impeached in 1998 for the Federal crime of lying
under oath to deny justice to a fellow American;
Whereas, to substantiate the charge of ``Abuse of Power'', Article I of the
Resolution is the first circumstance in American history in which
Articles of Impeachment considered, and passed by the House of
Representatives, lack any allegation of any crime, no less the ``high
Crimes and Misdemeanors'' standard required by Section Four of Article
II of the United States Constitution;
Whereas Article I of the Resolution alleges President Trump's actions were taken
``in pursuit of personal political benefit . . . and thus ignored and
injured the interests of the Nation'';
Whereas Article I of the Resolution fails to provide a modification for,
definition of, or guidance to measure, that which qualifies as a
``personal political benefit,'' or ``injury to the interests of the
Nation'';
Whereas proper consideration of whether ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' were
committed cannot justly take place without properly defining the conduct
at issue, particularly when such conduct must meet Congress' burden of
``clear and convincing evidence'';
Whereas Article I of the Resolution submits, as indisputable proof of the
commission of an ``Abuse of Power'', a subjective analysis of a July 25,
2019, ``Memorandum of a Telephone Conversation'' between President Trump
and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Oleksandrovych Zelensky;
Whereas, by the standards set forth in Article I of the Resolution, any action
that may affect an election could be potentially construed as an ``Abuse
of Power'', an action taken for ``personal political benefit'', or a
solicitation to ``intervene'' in an election;
Whereas all past Presidential Impeachments in American history were based on
well-defined and specific criminal acts, not subjective accusations of
intent, and circumstances in which the primary allegations were not
proven;
Whereas the anonymous ``whistleblower complaint'', which served as the impetus
for the December 18, 2019, Impeachment of President Trump, was based
entirely on secondhand knowledge, and hearsay;
Whereas both the charge of ``Abuse of Power'' in Article I, and the charge of
``Obstruction of Congress'' in Article II, are built on presumptions
contrary to facts and evidence;
Whereas the transcript of the July 25, 2019, call between President Trump and
President Zelensky showed no conditionality for any official act by
President Zelensky, such as an announcement that both a corruption
investigation into the Biden family, and a 2016 United States
Presidential election interference investigation, had begun;
Whereas neither President Zelensky, nor his aides, had any knowledge that the
$391,000,000 in Ukrainian military and security assistance was on hold
for further review;
Whereas, from the beginning, despite the rabid impeachment fervor led by House
and Senate Democrats, media personalities, and the liberal elite class,
both President Trump and President Zelensky maintained that there was no
pressure, no quid pro quo, and no linkage between the $391,000,000, and
the announcement of Ukrainian investigations;
Whereas the $391,000,000 in Ukrainian military and security assistance was
released without Ukraine announcing an investigation of any kind;
Whereas President Trump invited President Zelensky to meet with him at the White
House on three occasions without any conditions, particularly no
condition(s) of any announcement(s) of an investigation into the Biden
family's corrupt practices and influence-peddling in Ukraine;
Whereas President Trump and President Zelensky met on September 25, 2019, with
no Ukrainian announcement(s) of any investigation(s) into the Biden
family's corrupt practices and influence-peddling in Ukraine;
Whereas skepticism of Ukrainian leaders and high-level officials was and is
entirely reasonable, and advised, given Ukraine's well-documented
history as one of the most corrupt nations in the world;
Whereas skepticism of the Biden family based on strong evidence of a history of
corruption and influence-peddling in Ukraine, as well as Hunter Biden's
role on the Board of Directors at Burisma Holdings Limited, is entirely
reasonable and advised;
Whereas witnesses called by House Democrats during the impeachment proceedings
testified that Burisma Holdings Limited has an extensive history of
controversy in Ukraine;
Whereas the founder of Burisma Holdings, Ukrainian oligarch Mykola Zlochevsky,
was Ukraine's Minister of Ecology and Natural Resources from 2010 to
2012, and allegedly granted licenses to Burisma Holdings for the
development of gas fields in which he had a significant personal
interest;
Whereas Hunter Biden, alongside well-connected Democrat operative and now-
convicted fraudster Devon Archer, joined Burisma's Board of Directors at
a time when the company faced criticism, and at a time when Joe Biden,
then Vice President of the United States, acted as President Obama's
primary advisor on Ukraine;
Whereas it defies reason to assert that Hunter Biden was at all independently
qualified for such a position, especially given his complete lack of
experience, and self-admitted long history as a ne'er-do-well drug
addict;
Whereas the Obama State Department knew that Hunter Biden's involvement in
Ukraine was a point of ethical vulnerability, and took steps to
thoroughly prepare and instruct United States Ambassador to Ukraine
Marie L. Yovanovitch how best to answer questions thereon, at her June
21, 2016, confirmation hearing before the Senate Committee on Foreign
Relations;
Whereas, on January 23, 2018, during a Council on Foreign Relations discussion,
then-Vice President Joe Biden bragged about a March 2016 encounter in
which he bribed Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko, by proclaiming to
Poroshenko that the United States would not release $1,000,000,000 in
loan guarantees unless Poroshenko fired Prosecutor General Victor
Shokin, who was conducting an anti-corruption investigation into Burisma
Holdings Limited, Hunter Biden, and, by extension, Joe Biden himself;
Whereas, following his description of the particulars of the bribe, Joe Biden
gleefully celebrated the success of his bribe before those in
attendance, specifically stating ``Well, son of a bitch, [Shokin] got
fired'';
Whereas the United States is just, and acting as a good steward of taxpayer
dollars when it can, and often does, delay awarding such defense aid for
various reasons, most notably skepticism based on a historical pattern
of corruption, particularly when that historical pattern implicates
bribery committed by individuals at the highest levels of American
Government, such as then-Vice President Joe Biden;
Whereas a key and widely understood aspect of the Trump administration's foreign
policy platform was to scrutinize, and closely evaluate defense
assistance programs to foreign nations;
Whereas one of President Trump's central campaign promises was to ensure that
each country that receives defense assistance from the United States
must first prove themselves worthy beneficiaries thereof;
Whereas United States taxpayer-funded assistance to foreign governments is not
considered an entitlement or welfare program, or that which is ``owed''
to any one recipient nation;
Whereas a United States President enjoys broad authority to direct the foreign
policy of the United States, and pausing United States security
assistance to Ukraine for further scrutiny and analysis, for 55 days,
was not and is not presumptive or prima facie evidence of misconduct, or
a ``quid pro quo'' exchange, as characterized by congressional Democrats
before, and throughout, the impeachment proceedings;
Whereas, on December 18, 2019, the House of Representatives passed House
Resolution 755, Agreeing to Article II of the Resolution Impeaching
Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and
misdemeanors, by a vote of 229 Ayes, a bipartisan coalition of 198 Noes,
1 Present, and 3 Not Voting;
Whereas the ``Obstruction of Congress'' allegations in Article II do not meet
the impeachable standard set forth in Section Four of Article II of the
United States Constitution;
Whereas, to substantiate the charge of ``Obstruction of Congress'', Democrats
submitted the fact that President Trump chose to assert executive
privilege in response to partisan subpoenas issued by the House of
Representatives;
Whereas Article II asserts that President Trump's assertion of executive
privilege, and his unwillingness to participate in a politically
motivated effort to unseat him, is further irrefutable evidence of the
commission of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'';
Whereas the House of Representatives has no power to determine executive
privileges to which a President is entitled;
Whereas President Trump took every reasonable measure to ensure that which
transpired between the White House and Ukraine was as transparent as
possible to lawmakers and the public alike;
Whereas, on September 25, 2019, after questions arose about the contents of the
phone call with President Zelensky, President Trump chose to declassify
and release the transcript in the interest of full transparency;
Whereas President Trump further released a redacted version of the anonymous
whistleblower complaint so that all Americans could read it for
themselves;
Whereas House Democrats had ample opportunity to defend their partisan subpoenas
in court, but chose to withdraw those subpoenas, citing the fact that
litigation would ``take too long'', holding themselves to a self-
imposed, and politically motivated, deadline of Christmas break;
Whereas, taken as a whole, both Articles in the Impeachment Resolution, as well
as the hearings and investigations in the weeks preceding final passage
by the full House of Representatives, are thinly veiled, desperate, and
unsuccessful attempts to grasp at any statement, public or private,
based on presumption or hearsay, that might remotely resemble evidence
that President Trump engaged in a ``quid-quo-pro'' with President
Zelensky; and
Whereas by so flippantly exercising one of the gravest and most consequential
powers with which the House of Representatives is charged, Democrats
have committed the sin about which the Founding Fathers of the United
States warned, that being the use of presidential impeachment in a
partisan fashion to settle political scores, and relitigate election
results with which they disagree, in this case, the 2016 Presidential
election of Donald Trump: Now, therefore, be it
Resolved, That the December 18, 2019, impeachment of President
Donald John Trump is expunged, as the facts and circumstances upon
which the Articles of Impeachment were based did not meet the burden of
proving the commission of ``high Crimes and Misdemeanors'' as set forth
in Section Four of Article II of the United States Constitution.
<all>