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
'Killing Is Normalized': IDF Soldier Speaks Out About Orders to Shoot Civilians in Gaza
The commands are: everyone that comes inside needs to die," the soldier said. "If they're inside, they're dangerous, you need to kill them. No matter who it is."
Jul 07, 2025
Another Israel Defense Forces soldier has spoken out publicly against the IDF's brutalization of civilians in Gaza.
In an interview with the British Sky News Monday, a reservist who has served three tours of duty in Gaza spoke candidly about orders he and other soldiers received to shoot any person arbitrarily who entered defined "no-go zones," regardless of whether they posed a threat.
The soldier gave his testimony anonymously for fear of being labeled a "traitor." However, he identified himself as a reservist from the 252nd Division who was stationed at the Netzarim Corridor, a road which divides North and South Gaza.
The area has been one of the most critical strategic points for Israel's occupation of Gaza, allowing control over the flow of aid and people.
The soldiers, stationed on the edge of a civilian neighborhood in the homes of displaced Palestinians, were ordered by their commanders to kill anyone who passed an "imaginary line" that marked the beginning of the military stronghold, the soldier said.
"We have a territory that we are in, and the commands are: everyone that comes inside needs to die," the soldier said. "If they're inside, they're dangerous, you need to kill them. No matter who it is."
"It was like pretty much everyone that comes into the territory, and it might be like a teenager riding his bicycle," he said.
The soldier said that the prevailing attitude among the troops was that all Palestinians were "terrorists," and that this attitude was reinforced by commanders.
"They say if someone comes here, it means that he knows he shouldn't be there, and if he still comes, it means he's a terrorist," he said. "This is what they tell you. But I don't really think it's true. It's just poor people, civilians, that don't really have too many choices."
He said that when soldiers in the corridor kill civilians, a lot of them "think that they did something good."
That sense of impunity, he said, comes from the higher-ups.
"Some commanders can really decide to do war crimes and bad things and don't face the consequences of that," he said.
"You can't be in this scenario for so long and not normalize it," he said. "Killing is normalized, and you don't see the problem."
This anonymous soldier is the latest of many who have decided to speak out against atrocities their military has committed.
His testimony comes on the heels of a harrowing Haaretz expose, in which several other Israeli soldiers described being ordered to shoot Palestinian aid-seekers, turning the U.S.-Israeli administered Gaza Humanitarian Foundation (GHF) sites into "killing fields." Others provided The Associated Press with video of soldiers bombarding civilians in an aid site with pepper spray and stun grenades.
Others have spoken out against the attacks on civilians near the Israeli stronghold at Netzarim.
In April, a report by the Israeli veterans group Breaking the Silence detailed many more accounts of brutality over the first year-and-a-half of the war. It included accounts of Israeli soldiers razing agricultural land, bulldozing entire city blocks, and designating "large swathes of the land" that "were turned into massive kill zones."
"All of them were wiped off the face of the Earth. Annihilation, expropriation, and expulsion are immoral and must never be normalized or legitimized," the report said.
The soldier who spoke to Sky News said his deployment left a similar stain on his conscience.
"I kind of feel like I took part in something bad, and I need to counter it with something good that I do, by speaking out, because I am very troubled about what I took and still am taking part of, as a soldier and citizen in this country," he said. "I think the war is... a very bad thing that is happening to us, and to the Palestinians, and I think it needs to be over."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Oxfam Says Russian Use of Chemical Weapons in Ukraine Would Be 'Egregious Violation of International law'
"The increasing erosion of the rule of law is deeply concerning," said an Oxfam campaigns manager.
Jul 07, 2025
Anti-poverty organization Oxfam on Monday expressed grave concern over reports that Russia has been increasingly deploying chemical weapons in Ukraine.
The Associated Press reported late last week that two Dutch intelligence agencies are claiming that Russia has been ramping up its use of chemical weapons in its war against Ukraine. Among the chemical weapons allegedly being deployed by Russia are chloropicrin, a banned poison gas that was used by European powers during World War I, and CS gas, which is typically used as a riot control agent.
Sarah Redd, Oxfam's advocacy and campaigns manager in Ukraine, called reports of banned chemical weapons use deeply troubling and called for a full investigation into the matter.
"Oxfam is appalled at the recent intensification of violence against civilians in Ukraine, especially the reports of Russia's use of chemical weapons, which would be an egregious violation of international law," she said. "The increasing erosion of the rule of law is deeply concerning. Such laws were put in place to prevent humanity from sliding back into a darker chapter of history. Oxfam calls for an immediate and independent international investigation into these allegations and to hold those responsible to account."
Russia is a signatory of the Chemical Weapons Convention, a treaty first drafted and enacted in the 1990s that bars the use of both chloropicrin and CS gas in war. This makes Russia subject to potential investigations carried out by the Organization for the Prohibition of Chemical Weapons, although such an investigation can only take place if requested by member states.
Ukraine has claimed that Russia has carried out more than 9,000 chemical weapons attacks ever since it launched its invasion of the country more than three years ago. During the 2024 election campaign, President Donald Trump claimed that he could bring an end to the Ukraine-Russia war within a single day although so far fighting between the two nations has only intensified.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Indefensible': Trump Budget Law Subsidizes Private Jet Owners While Taking Healthcare From Millions
A provision of the budget law that President Donald Trump signed last week will leave taxpayers to "pick up the tab for the private jet industry and billionaire high flyers."
Jul 07, 2025
The Republican budget measure that U.S. President Donald Trump signed into law late last week contains a provision that analysts say will allow private jet owners to write off the full cost of their aircraft in the first year of purchase, a boon to the ultra-rich that comes as millions of people are set to lose healthcare under the same legislation.
FlyUSA, a private aviation provider, gushed in a blog post that with final passage of the unpopular budget reconciliation package, "business jet ownership has never looked more fiscally attractive or more fun to explain to your accountant."
The law, crafted by congressional Republicans and approved with only GOP support, permanently restores a major corporate tax break known as 100% bonus depreciation, which allows businesses to deduct the costs of certain assets in the first year of purchase rather than writing them off over time.
Forbes noted that the bonus depreciation policy "applies to a slew of qualified, physical business expenses which depreciate over time, such as machinery and company cars, but the policy is often associated with big-ticket luxury items, such as private aircraft, and its institution last decade led to a boom in jet sales."
"Trump and congressional Republicans have certainly delivered for the billionaire class."
Chuck Collins, director of the Program on Inequality at the Institute for Policy Studies, called bonus depreciation "a massive tax break for billionaires and centi-millionaires that use the most polluting form of transportation on the planet."
"A corporation purchasing a $50 million private jet could potentially deduct the entire $50 million from their taxes in the year of the purchase, rather than spreading the deduction over many years," Collins wrote. "This amounts to a massive taxpayer subsidy, as ordinary taxpayers pick up the tab for the private jet industry and billionaire high flyers."
"Subsidizing more private jets on a warming planet is reckless and indefensible," he added.
The National Business Aviation Association, a lobbying group for the private aviation industry, celebrated passage of the Republican legislation, specifically welcoming the bonus depreciation policy as "effective for incentivizing aircraft purchase." (The Institute for Taxation and Economic Policy argues that "depreciation tax breaks have never been shown to encourage more capital investment.")
Meanwhile, communities across the United States are bracing for the law's deep cuts to Medicaid and federal nutrition assistance, which are expected to impose damaging strains on state budgets and strip food benefits and health coverage from millions of low-income Americans.
"Trump and congressional Republicans have certainly delivered for the billionaire class," said Robert Weissman, co-president of Public Citizen. "This is certainly one of the cruelest bills in American history, backtracking on the country's painfully slow history of expanding healthcare coverage and, equally remarkably, taking food away from the hungry."
"That's a lot of needless suffering just to make the richest Americans richer," he added.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular