December, 15 2019, 11:00pm EDT
Democracy 21 Supports Articles of Impeachment, Essential Need to Hold President Trump Accountable for Gross Abuse of his Powers
Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer released a statement today supporting the passage of the two Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee and scheduled to be voted on by the full House this week.
The Wertheimer statement concluded:
WASHINGTON
Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer released a statement today supporting the passage of the two Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee and scheduled to be voted on by the full House this week.
The Wertheimer statement concluded:
It is incumbent on the House of Representatives to renounce and reject President Trump's irresponsible, indefensible, un-American, unpatriotic actions by passing Article I and Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.
The House must affirm that President Trump is unfit to serve as President.According to the statement:The evidence presented in the House impeachment inquiry, including testimony by courageous public servants, is essentially uncontroverted and establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that the President's wrongful conduct warrants his impeachment.
The starting point in this case is the President's obvious goal: he wanted the President of Ukraine to announce a corruption investigation of Joe Biden in order to damage Biden's chances of defeating Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Biden has been leading in national polls to be the Democratic nominee to oppose Trump in the 2020 presidential election.
In other words, Trump wanted a foreign country to intervene in our elections in order to damage a political opponent and thereby serve Trump's personal political benefit. All of the events at issue flowed from Trump's goal of using a foreign country to inflict political harm on a political opponent.The statement continued:It is beyond question that Trump wanted to damage a potentially strong opponent in the 2020 presidential election and that he used the powers of the presidency to try to achieve this result.
In short, Trump used the presidency to attempt to rig the 2020 presidential election for his personal political benefit.According to the statement:Trump's campaign to get a corruption investigation of Biden involved:
The House must affirm that President Trump is unfit to serve as President.According to the statement:The evidence presented in the House impeachment inquiry, including testimony by courageous public servants, is essentially uncontroverted and establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that the President's wrongful conduct warrants his impeachment.
The starting point in this case is the President's obvious goal: he wanted the President of Ukraine to announce a corruption investigation of Joe Biden in order to damage Biden's chances of defeating Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Biden has been leading in national polls to be the Democratic nominee to oppose Trump in the 2020 presidential election.
In other words, Trump wanted a foreign country to intervene in our elections in order to damage a political opponent and thereby serve Trump's personal political benefit. All of the events at issue flowed from Trump's goal of using a foreign country to inflict political harm on a political opponent.The statement continued:It is beyond question that Trump wanted to damage a potentially strong opponent in the 2020 presidential election and that he used the powers of the presidency to try to achieve this result.
In short, Trump used the presidency to attempt to rig the 2020 presidential election for his personal political benefit.According to the statement:Trump's campaign to get a corruption investigation of Biden involved:
- Gross abuse of his powers by attempting to extort Ukraine to conduct a corruption investigation against a political opponent for Trump's personal political benefit;
- Gross abuse of his powers by misusing taxpayer money appropriated by Congress for Ukraine for his own personal political benefit;
- Illegally soliciting a foreign country to intervene in U.S. elections by violating the statutory ban on any person soliciting "a thing of value" from a foreign country in connection with any U.S election; and
- Endangering our national security and the national security of our ally, Ukraine, by withholding for his own personal political benefit military funds appropriated by Congress for Ukraine.
The statement continued:In engaging in these activities, President Trump violated a cardinal principle that is fundamental to our democracy, our constitutional system of government and our sacred right to vote: Only Americans are permitted to participate in and decide our elections, not foreign countries, and not foreign interests. Period. No exceptions.
President Trump, however, personally and directly solicited a foreign country to interfere in our presidential election to benefit his personal political interests.
This was a frontal attack on our democracy.
The record is irrefutable that President Trump engaged in impeachable actions as set forth in Article I of the Impeachment Articles.The statement said:The President also directly attacked and engaged in obstruction of the impeachment powers provided to Congress in Article I of the Constitution.
Trump ordered his entire Administration to refuse to cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry. He directed Executive Branch agencies and officials to ignore subpoenas, refuse to testify and refuse to turn over any documents to Congress regarding the House impeachment inquiry. The President even directed private citizens who are no longer in government to refuse to cooperate with the proceeding. (Fortunately for the country, a number of courageous public servants defied his order to ignore congressional subpoenas and testified before the House Intelligence Committee.)The Wertheimer statement said:The conduct of President Trump in the Ukraine affair flagrantly contradicted our democratic norms and values and attacked the integrity of our elections. President Trump's actions cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged, since failing to formally do so would establish the actions as precedents for future conduct and be used to validate future attempts by Trump to rig the 2020 elections.
The President must be held formally accountable by the House, regardless of what the Senate does.Read the full statement below or here.
Passage of Impeachment Articles is Essential to Holding President Trump Accountable for Gross Abuse of His Powers and Violation of His Oath
Statement of Democracy 21 President Fred Wertheimer
Democracy 21 supports the passage of the two Articles of Impeachment approved by the House Judiciary Committee and scheduled to be voted on by the full House this week. Passage of the Articles is essential to holding President Trump accountable for his gross abuse of his presidential powers and for violation of his oath of office.
Contrary to the President's absurd claim, Article II of the Constitution does not give him "the right to do whatever I want as president." The Founders established the powers of Congress first, in Article I, for a reason. They gave Congress the constitutional right to oversee the President and executive branch and to remove the President from office for impeachable offenses.
The evidence presented in the House impeachment inquiry, including testimony by courageous public servants, is essentially uncontroverted and establishes beyond any reasonable doubt that the President's wrongful conduct warrants his impeachment.
The starting point in this case is the President's obvious goal: he wanted the President of Ukraine to announce a corruption investigation of Joe Biden in order to damage Biden's chances of defeating Trump in the 2020 presidential election. Biden has been leading in national polls to be the Democratic nominee to oppose Trump in the 2020 presidential election.
In other words, Trump wanted a foreign country to intervene in our elections in order to damage a political opponent and thereby serve Trump's personal political benefit. All of the events at issue flowed from Trump's goal of using a foreign country to inflict political harm on a political opponent.
Trump withheld a White House meeting and $400 million in military assistance appropriated by Congress and desperately needed by our ally Ukraine to defend itself from a military incursion by our adversary, Russia. At the same time, in what amounts to extortion, Trump pressured Ukraine President Zelensky to announce a corruption investigation of Biden. Trump engaged his personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, European Union Ambassador Gordon Sondland and others to help carry out his goal.
Trump was clearly holding military assistance to Ukraine and a White House meeting hostage until Ukraine "paid" Trump with the Biden corruption investigation in order to get those important benefits freed up.
In a moment of candor, the President's own White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney, stated that the Trump's actions involved a "quid pro quo" effort by the President to obtain the Biden investigation he sought. Although Mulvaney later tried to walk back his claim, the die had been cast in his original comment.
Sondland, operating as President Trump's agent to obtain the Biden investigation, also described the withholding of a White House meeting and military assistance as a "quid pro quo" effort by Trump to get President Zelensky to announce the Biden corruption investigation.
Trump released the military assistance to Ukraine only after the whistleblower complaint unleashed an impeachment inquiry, although Ukraine still hasn't received all of the funds appropriated by Congress.
It is beyond question that Trump wanted to damage a potentially strong opponent in the 2020 presidential election and that he used the powers of the presidency to try to achieve this result.
In short, Trump used the presidency to attempt to rig the 2020 presidential election for his personal political benefit.
It is also clear that the President's efforts to accomplish this went far beyond his one phone call to President Zelensky on July 25 requesting "a favor," but instead was an ongoing effort over a period of months to get Ukraine to announce a corruption investigation of Biden. It is questionable whether Trump even cared if the investigation was ever carried out, since all he needed politically was the ability to say that Biden was under investigation for corruption.
Trump's campaign to get a corruption investigation of Biden involved:
- Gross abuse of his powers by attempting to extort Ukraine to conduct a corruption investigation against a political opponent for Trump's personal political benefit;
- Gross abuse of his powers by misusing taxpayer money appropriated by Congress for Ukraine for his own personal political benefit;
- Illegally soliciting a foreign country to intervene in U.S. elections by violating the statutory ban on any person soliciting "a thing of value" from a foreign country in connection with any U.S election; and
- Endangering our national security and the national security of our ally, Ukraine, by withholding for his own personal political benefit military funds appropriated by Congress for Ukraine.
In engaging in these activities, President Trump violated a cardinal principle that is fundamental to our democracy, our constitutional system of government and our sacred right to vote: Only Americans are permitted to participate in and decide our elections, not foreign countries, and not foreign interests. Period. No exceptions.
President Trump, however, personally and directly solicited a foreign country to interfere in our presidential election to benefit his personal political interests.
This was a frontal attack on our democracy.
The record is irrefutable that President Trump engaged in impeachable actions as set forth in Article I of the Impeachment Articles.
The President also directly attacked and engaged in obstruction of the impeachment powers provided to Congress in Article I of the Constitution.
Trump ordered his entire Administration to refuse to cooperate with the House impeachment inquiry. He directed Executive Branch agencies and officials to ignore subpoenas, refuse to testify and refuse to turn over any documents to Congress regarding the House impeachment inquiry. The President even directed private citizens who are no longer in government to refuse to cooperate with the proceeding. (Fortunately for the country, a number of courageous public servants defied his order to ignore congressional subpoenas and testified before the House Intelligence Committee.)
According to Impeachment Article II, President Trump "sought to arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety, scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his own conduct, as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny any and all information to the" House. Impeachment Article II states that "In the history of the Republic, no President has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry."
The conduct of President Trump in the Ukraine affair flagrantly contradicted our democratic norms and values and attacked the integrity of our elections. President Trump's actions cannot be allowed to stand unchallenged, since failing to formally do so would establish the actions as precedents for future conduct and be used to validate future attempts by Trump to rig the 2020 elections.
The President must be held formally accountable by the House, regardless of what the Senate does.
It is incumbent on the House of Representatives to renounce and reject President Trump's irresponsible, indefensible, un-American, unpatriotic actions by passing Article I and Article II of the Articles of Impeachment.
The House must affirm that President Trump is unfit to serve as President.
Democracy 21 is a nonprofit, nonpartisan organization dedicated to making democracy work for all Americans. Democracy 21, and its education arm, Democracy 21 Education Fund, work to eliminate the undue influence of big money in American politics, prevent government corruption, empower citizens in the political process and ensure the integrity and fairness of government decisions and elections. The organization promotes campaign finance reform and other related political reforms to accomplish these goals.
(202) 355-9600LATEST NEWS
Watchdog Warns Crypto Bill Could Be Major Tax Giveaway to Ultrarich—Including Trump Family
“The cryptocurrency industry has facilitated the Trump family’s corruption at every turn. Lawmakers should be wary of creating new tax loopholes to benefit the Trump family and their donors in the crypto industry."
Jun 22, 2026
A government watchdog is warning that new cryptocurrency policies being considered in the House of Representatives would be a major boon to the ultrawealthy, including President Donald Trump's family.
In an analysis published on Monday, the Revolving Door Project (RDP) highlighted new crypto-related tax bills being discussed in the House Ways and Means Committee, including one that "would create a functional subsidy for cryptocurrency firms by allowing them to defer taxes owed on their mined coins indefinitely and without interest, so long as the firms do not sell the coins."
This would allow coin owners to raise money by borrowing against these assets without having paid a cent of taxes on them, the analysis explains, which could be particularly beneficial for Trump's two eldest sons.
"Eric and Donald Trump Jr. reportedly hold a 20% stake in the bitcoin mining firm American Bitcoin, which mined 817 bitcoin in Q1 of 2026 alone," RDP writes. "At current prices, this represents a value of more than $50 million, while the company has stated that it already intends to hold assets it mines. If passed, this loophole could mean millions of dollars in taxes owed by the Trump sons’ firm could be deferred endlessly."
RDP also published a list of crypto donations to lawmakers on the House Ways and Means Committee. Rep. Steven Horsford (D-Nev.) has received nearly $2 million in support from the industry since 2023, more than any other committee member.
Other top recipients of crypto cash include Reps. Tom Suozzi (D-NY), Jimmy Gomez (D-Calif.), Adrian Smith (R-Neb.), and Jason Smith (R-Mo.), chairman of the committee.
Jeff Hauser, executive director of RDP, said that the bills currently under consideration in the House are essentially a return on the crypto industry's investment in political campaigns.
"The cryptocurrency industry believes it is owed massive tax loopholes and functional subsidies," said Hauser, "because it has bought the president, paid for his ballroom project, and has funded dozens of congressional campaigns. The lack of campaign finance reform is the principal reason that the ludicrously corrupt Trump family is set to enjoy yet another tax loophole to exploit."
Timi Iwayemi, assistant director at RDP, said that "the cryptocurrency industry has facilitated the Trump family's corruption at every turn," while warning members of Congress against doing the industry's bidding.
"Lawmakers should be wary of creating new tax loopholes to benefit the Trump family and their donors in the crypto industry," said Iwayemi. "Rewarding this behavior will embolden the crypto industry and other corporate lobbies eager to seize on our elected representatives’ prioritization of donor interests at public expense."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Abelardo de la Espriella, Far-Right Millionaire Backed by Trump, Claims Presidential Victory
US President Donald Trump, who was accused of interfering in Colombia's runoff election, falsely declared that De la Espriella won "BIG" as he led by less than a percentage point.
Jun 22, 2026
Abelardo de la Espriella, a far-right millionaire backed by US President Donald Trump, declared victory in Colombia's presidential runoff late Sunday as preliminary results showed him leading by less than one percentage point with more than 99% of the vote tallied.
Despite the narrow margin, Trump—who is notorious for lying about elections—falsely declared on Truth Social that De la Espriella won "BIG" as the far-right candidate's opponent, leftist Sen. Iván Cepeda, said the results were "unofficial." Both Cepeda and incumbent Colombian President Gustavo Petro signaled that they would challenge vote counts.
"It is an abuse to declare a president through the media when the scrutiny is still ongoing," Petro wrote on X as interim results showed De la Espriella with 49.66% of the vote to Cepeda's 48.7%.
In the run up to Sunday's contest, Petro, international observers, and Democratic lawmakers in the US sounded alarm about the Trump administration's interference in the race on behalf of De la Espriella, who has pledged to "disembowel the left," cut corporate taxes, and dismantle Petro's social and economic policies, which slashed poverty and boosted the country's minimum wage.
"President Trump has... implied that if Mr. De la Espriella loses, Colombia may lose the support of the United States, its most important trade and security partner," a group of US lawmakers wrote in a letter to to Trump administration officials last week. "This direct interference by US officials in another country’s democratic elections is inconsistent with longstanding principles of national sovereignty and non-interference, as well as international law."
US Secretary of State Marco Rubio wrote on social media that he called De la Espriella late Sunday to "congratulate him on his electoral victory."
"The Trump administration looks forward to working closely with your incoming administration to advance regional security cooperation, end illegal immigration to the United States, and strengthen our economic ties," Rubio added.
NPR noted that De la Espriella "has built a lucrative legal and media empire around his reputation."
"He owns a fleet of luxury cars, including a Rolls Royce, and frequently travels by private jet," the outlet added. "He has also cultivated a conspicuous public image as a businessman and influencer, launching a fashion brand, De La Espriella Style, which markets high-end accessories such as luxury watches and sneakers priced at over $1,000 a pair."
De la Espriella's declaration of victory sparked protests in the streets of Colombia's capital, Bogotá. Barron's reported that "roaring motorbike engines and shouts of 'resistance!' filled the air" in the capital city as thousands took to the streets in opposition to De la Espriella.
"We're going to see many more demonstrations," one student demonstrator predicted.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Good Riddance': Keir Starmer Resigns as UK Prime Minister
"Getting rid of Keir Starmer is not enough. We need to get rid of the politics he represents: corporate greed, anti-migrant rhetoric, and endless war," said former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn.
Jun 22, 2026
UK Prime Minister Keir Starmer announced his resignation on Monday, less than two years after his Labour party swept into power in a landslide election.
In his resignation speech, Starmer said that he was stepping down because members of his party did not feel he was the best choice to lead them into the next general election, with polls showing the far-right anti-immigration Reform party currently on track to receive the most votes.
Starmer also said that whomever is chosen as his successor "will inherit a Britain that is far stronger and fairer than the one I inherited two years ago, better prepared for the challenges ahead and better able to ensure the Labour party secures a second term in office."
Starmer's progressive critics disputed this characterization of his governance, which they said has done little more than legitimize the far right.
Specifically, critics pointed to the Labour government's continued support of Israel in its genocidal assault on Gaza, its decision to proscribe Palestine Action as a terrorist group, and its efforts to court far-right voters by restricting immigration as some of its most destructive actions.
Former Labour leader Jeremy Corbyn said that Starmer had wasted the large majority that Labour had won and had done little if anything to improve the lives of the UK working class.
"Keir Starmer could have ended child poverty, homelessness and the grotesque levels of inequality in this country," Corbyn wrote. "Instead, he abandoned those in need, destroyed our civil liberties, and facilitated genocide in Gaza. That is how this prime minister will be remembered—and that is the legacy of moral and political bankruptcy he leaves behind."
Corbyn added that "getting rid of Keir Starmer is not enough," as "we need to get rid of the politics he represents: corporate greed, anti-migrant rhetoric, and endless war."
Member of Parliament Zarah Sultana, a former Labour MP who has since joined Corbyn's Your party, noted after watching the prime minister's speech that "the most emotion Keir Starmer has shown is over losing his job, not enabling the genocide of the Palestinian people."
"Good riddance," Sultana said. "His next stop should be The Hague."
Zack Polanski, leader of the Green party, predicted that Starmer's premiership would be remembered entirely negatively.
"Bills up. Wages too low," Polanski wrote, summarizing life in the UK under Starmer's leadership. "Record profits for oil and gas. Fifty richest families with more wealth than 50% of population. Shit in our rivers. Pensioners jailed for protesting. Migrants thrown under the bus. Supporting a genocide. That's Starmer's legacy."
Journalist Owen Jones delivered a similarly scathing assessment.
"Keir Starmer lied through his teeth to become Labour leader," Jones wrote. "He justified Israeli war crimes, arrested opponents of genocide, attacked pensioners, disabled people, and migrants, pocketed freebies, crushed dissent, and threw others under the bus to save himself. History damns him."
Economist Yanis Varoufakis delivered a lengthy rundown of Starmer's failures as prime minister, arguing he "was not merely a disappointment" but "a mendacious figure of ethical decrepitude, a man who won the Labour party leadership based on promises that he jettisoned five seconds after winning."
"History will remember Mr. Starmer as a man without conviction," Varoufakis wrote, "a prime minister who offers not a shred of honesty, but merely the cruel illusion of change. He is ethically decrepit because he had chosen, consciously, to abandon principle for power. And for that, history will indict him. Good riddance, I say."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular


