We need your help now
Support from readers like you keeps The Journal open.
You are visiting us because we have something you value. Independent, unbiased news that tells the truth. Advertising revenue goes some way to support our mission, but this year it has not been enough.
If you've seen value in our reporting, please contribute what you can, so we can continue to produce accurate and meaningful journalism. For everyone who needs it.
Sign in. It’s quick, free and it’s up to you.
An account is an optional way to support the work we do. Find out more.
By continuing, you are indicating that you accept our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy.
LAST UPDATE | 10 Dec 2019
DEMOCRATS IN THE US unveiled two articles of impeachment against Donald Trump today in a momentous step asserting that the US president abused his office and deserved to be removed.
If the charges – abuse of power and obstruction of Congress – are approved by the House of Representatives in a vote expected next week, it would make Trump the third US leader ever impeached and placed on trial in the Senate.
An angry Trump dismissed the charges as “ridiculous” but Democrats insisted presidents were not untouchable.
“We must be clear: No one, not even the president, is above the law,” said House Judiciary Committee Jerry Nadler.
“When he betrays that (public) trust and puts himself before country, he endangers the constitution, he endangers our democracy and he endangers our national security.”
Trump is alleged to have wielded the power of the presidency for personal and political gain by pressuring Ukraine to interfere in the 2020 US election.
The Democrats submitted their articles of impeachment in a formal House resolution, which is expected to be voted out of the Judiciary Committee this week before heading to a full House vote.
The articles laid out the Democrats’ case that Trump committed “high crimes and misdemeanors,” warning that he would “remain a threat to the Constitution” if allowed to stay in office.
Trump maintained a fighting posture by blasting the “ridiculous” process and renewing his familiar claim that he is the victim of a “witch hunt.”
‘President king’
The White House meanwhile called the impeachment effort a “pathetic attempt” to overturn the 2016 election result.
“The president will address these false charges in the Senate and expects to be fully exonerated, because he did nothing wrong,” White House spokeswoman Stephanie Grisham said.
Trump’s accusers say he conditioned vital military aid and a White House meeting on Ukraine announcing it would investigate former vice president Joe Biden, the Democratic frontrunner to challenge Trump in 2020.
Trump also pressed his Ukrainian counterpart Volodymyr Zelensky to probe a debunked Kremlin conspiracy theory that it was Kiev, and not Moscow, that interfered in the 2016 US election.
According to the draft of the first article of impeachment, Trump carried out his scheme “corruptly soliciting” the political interference.
Donald J. Trump / Twitter
Donald J. Trump / Twitter / Twitter
“President Trump abused the powers of the presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit,” the draft read.
The second charge focuses on Trump’s efforts to block Congress from fully investigating his actions – which Democrats see as a violation of its constitutional right to conduct oversight of executive action.
Trump has refused to cooperate with any aspect of the inquiry, and key figures in the Ukraine saga, including Secretary of State Mike Pompeo and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, have not testified before lawmakers.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, speaking at a forum in Washington, described the impeachment articles as a sad but necessary move.
“If we allow one president… to go down this path, we are saying goodbye to the republic and hello to a president king,” she said.
‘Overwhelming, uncontested’ evidence
The US has been sharply divided over the removal proceedings against a sitting president.
House Intelligence Committee chairman Adam Schiff oversaw weeks of public hearings in which witnesses including Trump administration officials and US diplomats testified about the pressure on Ukraine.
“The evidence of the president’s misconduct is overwhelming and uncontested,” Schiff said.
Adding to the already extraordinary Washington drama, Democrats showed they could still work with the White House, announcing a bipartisan agreement on a modified North American trade pact.
The impeachment articles also landed just as Russia’s Foreign Minister Sergei Lavrov was in Washington to meet with Trump.
US intelligence has concluded Russia interfered in America’s 2016 election in Trump’s favor.
Pompeo also met with Lavrov and said he warned Russia’s top diplomat of reprisals if Moscow take the “unacceptable” step of interfering in next year’s presidential election.
Congressional Republicans meanwhile have largely remained loyal to Trump, and were quick to describe the impeachment articles as sour grapes by Democrats for losing in 2016.
“Democrats still can’t get over the fact that Trump won the election and they lost,” top House Republican Kevin McCarthy told reporters.
Should Trump be impeached, as expected, he faces a January trial in the US Senate, where Republicans hold a majority.
Removal from office is unlikely, given that conviction requires a two-thirds vote in the 100-member chamber, and no Republicans have yet signaled they would side with Democrats against the president.
To embed this post, copy the code below on your site
Trump will not be impeached he will be elected to a second term
@John gaughan: Was Bill Clinton impeached?
@Francis Mc Carthy: Neither Johnson, nor Clinton were convicted by the Senate. They were impeached in the House of Representatives, but it is a two part process.
@John gaughan: he will be impeached but not removed, because the GOP care more about their jobs than the rule of law
@David A. Murray: but he was impeached,yes?You,my friend ,obviously understand the process. However, a lot of the Trump fans,not so much.
@John gaughan: sadly it could happen
@Francis Mc Carthy: The vote to impeach, or not, is due this week in the House. I read Thursday mentioned. If the vote in House is in favour, then effectively Trump is impeached, but the Senate trial determines his guilt, or innocence.
@David A. Murray: And the Democrats control the House,so it’s looking long odds on that he will be impeached.Also,by being impeached,Trump loses the ability of being pardoned for any offences that he may have committed.Not good news for a fraudster.
@John gaughan:
Would Trump be convicted if he was a regular citizen?
Americans will see a trial and see if the trial is been properly run and what is there view.
The Dems had no choice but to go down this route, this behaviour should not be ignored. Well done to them to Country above Party.
@John gaughan: very possible but due to his health, he won’t last
@John gaughan: I think you are wrong, I certainly hope so.
@John gaughan: in the U.S., to “impeach” is a word with meaning very similar to ‘accuse’. It is similar to indictment. Though a person is ‘impeached’ they are not at that point proven guilty. They may then be brought to trial. Only the House of Representatives (HR) may impeach. The HR may also impeach judges. This is one power that the HR has over other branches of government.
If impeachment is voted on and passed, then ONLY the Senate will hold a trial. This is similar to a trial for any civil or criminal matter. Witnesses are called to give sworn testimony. At the conclusion a vote of the Senators is taken. They can either acquit the person charged or convict him as guilty of the charges.
@Francis Mc Carthy: Justice Salmon Chase was impeached, but he was acquitted, thus he continued in office. I don’t see the point of calling that process a pardon. To impeach is asking the a Senate to conduct a trial and remove from office. There is no pardon.
Well that was clearly always coming.
They’ll vote in the House and approve the Articles of Impeachment.
The Senate trial will result in a less than 2 thirds majority to convict and Trump will remain in office.
@Tricia G: so pointless grandstanding & in turn will directly impact on the Dems credibility.
@M Co: Not sure how you could possibly arrive at that conclusion.
@M Co: Nonsense!
They couldn’t ignore it. Even if he’s not convicted in the Senate (and it’s incredibly unlikely he will be) the Dems did the right thing.
To ignore such blatant behaviour would have reflected incredibly badly on them.
@M Co: or they are highlighting his illegal actions and now showing his party fully condoning his illegal and immoral actions ?? smart move by the Dems in most decent peoples eyes
@Rob Hunt: By watching it without biased eyes.
@Tricia G: Right back at ye…utter nonsense.
@Gordon Hughes: Illegal & immoral?? You do know what this impeachment is for!
@M Co: do you think democratic voters who won the senate seats in the 2018 elections would have been happy to stand by and not expect to take action against trumps blatant abuse if power ? If you think that then You are actually pretty clueless about Americans politics mate -
@M Co:
Holding someone accountable is not grandstanding.
If only FF could stop abstaining during motions, and hold ministers accountable, instead of twiddling their thumbs during votes. In work.
To ignore is to be complicit.
@Dave Hammond: Good man Dave. Predictable response. Over & out.
@M Co: Not pointless grandstanding at all. If they ignore wrong doing that is so much worse for their legislative and democratic process.
@Tricia G: you must have some actual proof of this “behaviour” instead of just the Democrats opinion that we dont know about.
@Gordon Hughes: Which illegal activities specifically and which laws did he break?
It’ll fall in the Senate and rightfully so.
@LowIQJackSimpson: can’t help yourself eh Jack , you hardly need to be Nostradamus to figure out the republicans are not going to vote to remove him from office – Trumpets like yourself are just waiting for the day when he gets impeached but not removed from office to try claim it as some sort of victory – pathetic
@Dave Hammond: “Rightfully so” – Did you listen to the evidence of Jonathan Turley, of the George Washington University School of Law? Turley is an anti Trump democrat and he eloquently explained to the congressional committee why this is a politically motivated witch hunt.
@Fintan O’flaois: Why would you select one opinion from the Republican called witness ( he is not an Anti Trump Democrat ) from 3 weeks of overwhelming evidence that Trump was calling fro an investigation into Biden to somehow think that magically would make impeachment go away. Deluded.
@Fintan O’flaois: Wasn’t he the same guy that wanted to impeach Bill Clinton for getting a BJ :)
Hmmm,i wonder what did Napolitano make of Hurley’s ‘eloquent’ explanations ;)
This will turn out to be a strategic error by the Dems as Trump impeachment won’t meet the Senate requirement to pass and it’ll only shine more light on one of their leading nominees for the ticket, Biden – who’s already having enough troubles of his own.
@jacquoranda: Yeah, I keep hearing that and yet the polls have Americans Support Impeaching Trump at 47.9% so tell me again exactly how the Democrats could have done nothing?
@jacquoranda: And 53.5% of people disapprove of his Presidency with only 41.6% approving.
@Tricia G: Can you illustrate how pursuing impeachment (which is almost certainly bound to fail) will help the Dems switch Trump voters or win currently undecided voters in the states of Florida, Michigan & Wisconsin – the key to winning the 2020 election?
@jacquoranda: Holding the President to account for his abuse of office is not designed to ‘switch Trump voters” – are you really that fking clueless or are you just unable to follow along. The Dems control the House because they were elected the majority there in 2018 – they have an obligation to uphold the law – if Numpty Dumpty wasn’t trying to get interference in the election then they wouldn’t have to deal with impeachment at all , there was s blue wave last time they went to the polls and they couldn’t sit by and no do anything – the dem voters ( not the Trump ) voters are the ones who would punish them at the election. Understand now ??
@jacquoranda: Following the law cannot be described as a ‘strategic error’. Republicans who are not going to vote for removal in the trial will still have to defend their actions in the local states – you don’t seem to have much of as grasp for US politics.
@jacquoranda: What makes you think Dems can switch Trump voters? Sure it’s possible but anyone that would switch has decided long ago to do so.
But there certainly have a chance to pick up undecided voters.
Trump scrapped in in 2016 so the idea that it’s a foregone conclusion is nonsense.
Michigan, Wisconsin and Pennsylvania account for 46 electoral votes. If Clinton had won these states, she’d have won with 274 total electoral votes.
She lost them by 107 thousand votes. 0.09% of the overall vote.
That’s a RAZOR THIN win for Trump.
So what I’d ask you is how on earth could any Democrat justify ignoring Trump’s trying to get an foreign government to investigate his perceived opponent for an electoral advantage and face their voters?
Ignoring it and letting that behaviour not only continue but possibly escalate would be downright dangerous!
@Dave Hammond: Ah, I see The Democratic Party are duty bound to pursue a strategy that will probably cost them votes in the swing states in the 2020 Presidential Election?
https://www.theblaze.com/news/swing_state_polls_impeachment
And if they don’t the Dem voters are the ones who would punish their nominee…by voting for the other candidate…who is Trump?
Yeah. That makes sense.
Sorry, remind me, who was “f***ing clueless” again?
@jacquoranda: “by voting for the other candidate” – or being so disillusioned as to not vote at all or for a third party.
@Tricia G: I would sell my house and car and bet the lot that Trump will be re-elected in 2020.
@Tricia G: 13% of Trump voters in 2016 voted for Obama in 2012. So it’s possible to switch some. And, as you say, the margins are wafer thin so only a small amount is needed.
I never said it was a forgone conclusion that Trump was getting re-elected. Rather this strategy will not help the Dems.
The reason that they could have decided to ignore it is because it will damage the person that may end up getting their nomination. The dirty game of politics.
@Eamon McGowan: Yeah, I don’t believe you would to be honest.
@jacquoranda: they are duty bound to hold the President to account , maybe if you could stop going all over the map and look to the facts you could come to understand why The Buffoon is being impeached in the first place. It is not that complicated.
@Tricia G: I don’t care what you believe.
@Eamon McGowan: you’ve told a falsehood.
You have no intention of selling your house and car and betting on trump winning.
Like Trump, you are talking meaningless bluster to sound good. But you have zero intention behind it.
You are just meaningless hot air and nothing more.
@Eamon McGowan: hopefully you will be homeless and carless in 2020.
Happy Christmas Donald
The beginning of the end for the Dems
Pointless exercise. Totally partisan so the Senate will kill it. American people have little to no interest in this as all polling & viewing figures are showing. In fact due to crap 2020 candidates on top of this nonsense, the Dems are doing everything to get DT re-elected imo.
@M Co: Ignoring blatant impeachable behaviour is NOT something the Democrats in Congress could have done without incurring the wrath of their voters.
To ignore that is to ignore reality.
@Tricia G: The entire point is that it’s not blatant. If it was there would be bipartisan support. There’s never been any impeachment without it. I’m no defender of Trump but this has been a Dem own goal.
@M Co: Now you’re just being deliberately obtuse to say it’s wasn’t blatant.
He literally said on a memo of the transcript that HE released in the section following Zelensky talking about buying more Javelins “I would like you to do us a favour though” and asked for investigations.
Taylor understood that without the public announcement of an investigation the aid wouldn’t be released and the White House meeting wouldn’t happen.
Bolton warned the Ukrainians not to get involved in domestic politics
Sondland made it stunningly clear that everyone understood that the aid wouldn’t be released and the White House meeting wouldn’t happen without the announcement of an investigation.
Even the Constitutional Law Professor Turley that was called by the Republicans didn’t absolve Trump. He said the call wasn’t “perfect” as Trump keeps claiming. HE said they needed to investigate more which due to Trump refusing to allow anyone to testify from the White House makes it incredibly difficult.
Donald Trump has admitted to asking a foreign government to investigate the Bidens. Donald Trump expects to be facing Joe Biden in an election in 2020. Donald Trump would clearly expect to benefit from the announcement of that investigation.
You’re fooling no one with this “The entire point is that it’s not blatant” nor does anyone that’s paid attention to US politics think that “If it was there would be bipartisan support”.
And no one believes the “I’m no defender of Trump” LOL
@M Co: ‘i’m no defender of Trump’……the only people who say that are the Trumpeteers….’there has never been an impeachment without it just shows your lack of understanding of american politics and what and and why impeachment exists at all , you do realise the Dems control the House because they wons the most seats in the 2018 elections and couldn’t ignore Numpty when he started holding up military aid to get dirt on opponent for his own personal gain – you can spin and bluff and bluster all over the map with your partisan nonsense but you are missing the facts mate.
@Tricia G: thanks for your detailed response.
Not intending to be obtuse at all.
From my perspective.
The Ukrainians didn’t even realise the funding was being upheld till the very end of Aug. Was released Sept 11th. Zelensky never investigated either the Biden’s or Burisma or made any claim that he did either then or since. Taylor was really credible imo but was relying on information from Sondland who wasn’t credible in my opinion.
Taylor met Zelensky three times following the call & any talk of monies being upheld or investigations into Hunter/Burisma never even came up.
To be clear, Trump was a complete fool to ask the question. My pt is whether it constitutes an impeachable offence. It has split the house & has completed overshadowed campaigning within the Dem party so a bad play IMO.
@M Co: “The Ukrainians didn’t even realise the funding was being upheld till the very end of Aug. ” – Doesn’t matter. Seriously, that’s irrelevant. The “crime” is the ask and the intent.
“Zelensky never investigated either the Biden’s or Burisma or made any claim that he did either then or since.” – Again, Doesn’t matter. He still asked them.
“Taylor was really credible imo but was relying on information from Sondland who wasn’t credible in my opinion.” – I don’t share this. What of Taylor’s aide that overheard the phone call between Trump & Sondland? Did he lie under oath too? And why would Sondland revisit his testimony to “correct” it? Because he’s under oath and can be convicted. Also, Taylor kept notes, Sondland didn’t. Taylor kept track of everything Sondland said AT THE TIME.
“Trump was a complete fool to ask the question” – Yes, because it’s IMPEACHABLE!
Three separate Constitutional Professors have stated, under oath, it was impeachable: –
“there is overwhelming evidence that President Trump betrayed his oath of office by seeking to use presidential power to pressure a foreign government to help him distort an American election, for his personal and political benefit, at the direct expense of national security interests as determined by Congress. His conduct is precisely the type of threat to our democracy that the Founders feared when they included the remedy of impeachment in the Constitution.”
The forth didn’t actually commit, just said they “needed more evidence,more time to investigate” and actually contradicted the testimony he gave during the Clinton Impeachment. (but sure, he’s totally not partisan, amirite!)
Over 500 law professors and other legal scholars signed an open letter stating that Donald Trump engaged in impeachable conduct.
This didn’t “split the House”, the House, like the Senate is as divided as every other area of politics in the US. Nor has it overshadowed campaigning within the Dem party as every candidate and the vast majority of their voters support it. Quite frankly, trying to suggest otherwise silly.
@Tricia G: Number of items I’d debate there tbh but have to get on with my night. Can sense your frustration though & nice to be able to discuss Trump & US politics or any politics for that matter without constant name calling & accusations of being a Trump ‘fan’.
Still don’t see any way he’ll be impeached. Over & out.
@M Co: I can understand why you’d hate to be accused of being a Trump fan. Imagine.
@Tricia G: Why wasn’t Bush impeached for lying America into the Iraq bloodbath?
It’s just like Brexit. The elites don’t like the way the plebs voted in 2016, so they want to overturn the result.
@Eamon McGowan: Nonsense. It’s nothing like Brexit. Trump abused his position of power to withhold aid from an ally to get a one up on a political rival.
It will, however, be funny watching Trump freak out.
His Twitter feed has been mental recently!
@Sylvia O’Regan: You’ve not been paying attention if you think it hasn’t changed. He retweeted over a 100 times yesterday.
That’s new.
He’s already commented 9 times today.
His Twitter frenzy has gone seriously into overdrive.
@Tricia G:
Wow! This is the first time I’ve ever had a comment deleted. Why? Was it not hard enough on Trump or was it too hard? I’m stunned by that. It was a very mild and measured comment. If that was enough to be deleted, I don’t think I’ll bother with reading/commenting on here anymore.
@Tricia G:
Thanks Tricia. Let’s hope it was an error. If reporting comments is all that’s required to silence someone on theJournal, that’s absolutely going to be taken advantage of. My opinions aren’t always right, but I’d like to think I have as much right as anyone to engage in friendly debate and to risk being right or wrong.
When the Senate votes against impeachment, Trump is going to be more unbearable, dishonest and vindictive than usual. Hopefully public opinion will have turned further against him.
They will need 66 votes in the senate to actually do this , currently 53 republicans control it 2 independents and 45 demos
Very unlikely they get it , it’s not impossible but highly unlikely
This snowflake BS needs to stop
Lock him up wearing an orange jumpsuit… and he will mysteriously vanish.
@Paul Whitehead: How old are the likes of you, 4?
Apparently it is shocking to all right thinking people that another country could interfere in US elections but it is quite right and indeed necessary for the US to interfere in those of other countries.
As directed stated in the Constitution any charges brought against a President in an impeachment hearing cannot be pardoned. If he wins in the Senate he can be charged criminally once he leaves office and there is no one and nothing that can protect him. Also note they only brought two articles against him when they easily have six. If he wins in the Senate and the GOP lose the Senate in November they can always bring the other four then. This move is completely tactical. Trump has no chance and is only prolonging the inevitable.
have your say