November 1, 2019 - Issue: Vol. 165, No. 174 — Daily Edition116th Congress (2019 - 2020) - 1st Session

[Extensions of Remarks]
[Page E1394]
From the Congressional Record Online through the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]




 DIRECTING CERTAIN COMMITTEES TO CONTINUE ONGOING INVESTIGATIONS INTO 
  WHETHER SUFFICIENT GROUNDS EXIST FOR THE IMPEACHMENT OF DONALD JOHN 
                 TRUMP, PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES

                                 ______
                                 

                               speech of

                       HON. ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON

                      of the district of columbia

                    in the house of representatives

                       Thursday, October 31, 2019

  Ms. NORTON. Madam Speaker, to its credit, the House is demonstrating 
the seriousness of steps that could lead to the impeachment of a 
president. In my judgment, shameful breaches of conduct (and Trump has 
committed many), such as President Clinton's affair with Monica 
Lewinsky, were not impeachable because official duties were not 
implicated. For impeachment, the Constitution requires ``high Crimes 
and Misdemeanors.'' An affair with an intern is disgraceful, not 
criminal.
  The people are ahead of the Congress on impeaching this President, or 
at least on the inquiry we formalize, if consistent indications from 
polls can be counted as evidence. The House is taking the right step in 
ratifying the inquiry process that will lead to the necessary open 
hearings.
  As a member of the Oversight and Reform Committee, I have been 
sitting in on closed hearings from witnesses whose testimony is part of 
the prescribed process. The prosecutor, the House, is conducting an 
inquiry, which is like a grand jury proceeding or a U.S. Attorney 
investigation to determine if there has been a violation of law. These 
procedures are always closed to protect the innocent parties in case 
the decision is made that there is not enough evidence to move forward. 
So far, witnesses have come forward to corroborate evidence indicating 
that Trump used his office as president to seek ``a favor,'' an 
investigation of his most prominent opponent in the forthcoming 
election, by a foreign power who had life or death dependence on the 
appropriated U.S. funds.
  Was there an attempt made to hold security funding hostage to the 
president's concern about a political rival? If this question is deemed 
not to be worthy of the inquiry--investigation--we authorize today, it 
would be difficult to ever again define any conduct that deserves an 
impeachment inquiry.

                          ____________________