Title: Expunging the December 18, 2019, impeachment of President Donald John Trump.
Policy area: Congress

Summary:
This resolution expunges the December 18, 2019, impeachment of President Donald John Trump.

[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>