<snip>
Fallacies about impeachment. In the final section of this Report, we briefly address
six falsehoods about impeachment that have recently drawn public notice.
First, contrary to mistaken claims otherwise, we demonstrate that the current
impeachment inquiry has complied in every respect with the Constitution, the Rules of the
House, and historic practice and precedent of the House.
Second, we address several evidentiary matters. The House impeachment inquiry
has compiled substantial direct and circumstantial evidence bearing on the issues at hand.
Nonetheless, President Trump has objected that some of the evidence gathered by the
House comes from witnesses lacking first-hand knowledge of his conduct. But in the same
breath, he has unlawfully ordered many witnesses with first-hand knowledge to defy House subpoenas.
As we show, President Trump’s assertions regarding the evidence before the
House are misplaced as a matter of constitutional law and common sense.
Third, we consider President Trump’s claim that his actions are protected because
of his right under Article II of the Constitution “to do whatever I want as president.”21 This
claim is wrong, and profoundly so, because our Constitution rejects pretensions to
monarchy and binds Presidents with law. That is true even of powers vested exclusively in
the chief executive. If those powers are invoked for corrupt reasons, or wielded in an
abusive manner harming the constitutional system, the President is subject to impeachment
for “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” This is a core premise of the impeachment power.
Fourth, we address whether the House must accept at face value President Trump’s
claim that his motives were not corrupt. In short, no. When the House probes a President’s
state of mind, its mandate is to find the facts. That means evaluating the President’s account
of his motives to see if it rings true. The question is not whether the President’s conduct
could have resulted from permissible motives. It is whether the President’s real reasons,
the ones in his mind at the time, were legitimate. Where the House discovers persuasive
evidence of corrupt wrongdoing, it is entitled to rely upon that evidence to impeach.
Fifth, we explain that attempted Presidential wrongdoing is impeachable. Mason
himself said so at the Constitutional Convention, where he described “attempts to subvert
the Constitution” as a core example of “great and dangerous offenses.”22 Moreover, the
Judiciary Committee reached the same conclusion in President Nixon’s case. Historical
precedent thus confirms that ineptitude and insubordination do not afford the President a
defense to impeachment. A President cannot escape impeachment just because his scheme
to abuse power, betray the nation, or corrupt elections was discovered and abandoned.
Finally, we consider whether impeachment “nullifies” the last election or denies
voters their voice in the next one. The Framers themselves weighed this question. They
considered relying solely on elections—rather than impeachment—to remove wayward
Presidents. That position was firmly rejected. No President is entitled to persist in office
after committing “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” and no one who voted for him in the
last election is entitled to expect he will do so. Where the President’s misconduct is aimed
at corrupting elections, relying on elections to solve the problem is no safeguard at all.
