January, 23 2020, 11:00pm EDT

Editorial Board Memorandum: Fate of a Fair Impeachment Trial Rests with a Handful of Senators
To: Editorial Board Editors & Writers
From: Karen Hobert Flynn, Common Cause President
Paul S. Ryan, Common Cause VP Litigation and Policy
Aaron Scherb, Common Cause Director of Legislative Affairs
Re: Background Memorandum: Fate of a Fair Impeachment Trial Rests with a Handful of Senators
WASHINGTON
To: Editorial Board Editors & Writers
From: Karen Hobert Flynn, Common Cause President
Paul S. Ryan, Common Cause VP Litigation and Policy
Aaron Scherb, Common Cause Director of Legislative Affairs
Re: Background Memorandum: Fate of a Fair Impeachment Trial Rests with a Handful of Senators
Americans expect and deserve a fair impeachment trial of President Trump. The charges that led to the President's impeachment are serious and the Senate owes the American people a fair trial. The House found that the President withheld military aid to Ukraine, an imperiled U.S. ally, in order to extort personal political favors to aid Trump's reelection efforts. But to date, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) has made no secret of the fact that he is working hand-in-glove with the White House counsel's office to coordinate strategy during the impeachment trial. This is the equivalent of a jury foreman coordinating with a defense attorney on how best to acquit a defendant. A number of Senators have expressed publicly and privately their concerns with the Majority Leader's work with the President's defense team. One stated outright that she was "disturbed" by McConnell's comments and actions to coordinate with the White House.
But on January 21st and into the morning of the 22nd, every Republican in the United States Senate voted 11 times to block first-hand witnesses from testifying and to prevent relevant evidence from being included. There have been numerous reports that over the course of the trial a number of GOP Senators are troubled enough by the rush to judgement that they may break ranks and vote to call witnesses and take other steps to allow a fair trial. That dissent within the GOP echoes overwhelming support in this nation for the Senate trial to include witness testimony. According to a recent Monmouth poll, more than 75% of Americans say that Trump officials, as well as the president himself, should be invited to testify at the Senate trial. A similar CNN poll found that 69% of Americans, including 48% of Republicans, say that the impeachment trial should include testimony from new witnesses who did not testify in the House trial.
There is still time for a fair impeachment trial. We strongly encourage you to write or editorialize to urge your Senators to put their country before their party and cast votes to ensure a fair impeachment trial. Americans expect and are entitled to the facts. This nation deserves far better than a show trial that attempts to whitewash President Trump's impeachment for his withholding of vital military aid to Ukraine in an attempt coerce the U.S ally into launching an unnecessary investigation of his political rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter. A Government Accountability Office (GAO) investigation found the Trump Administration violated the law by withholding aid to Ukraine.
Your commentary is particularly important as the full Senate is expected vote on whether to call witnesses and allow evidence in the next week.
Every United States Senator swears an oath to "support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic; ... and that I will well and faithfully discharge the duties of the office on which I am about to enter[.]" In addition, every senator sitting as a juror in an impeachment trial swears to "do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws[.]"
Each and every senator, regardless of party affiliation, must fulfill their oaths to "support and defend the Constitution" and "do impartial justice" by meeting the following basic requirements for a fair Senate trial - including all the available evidence and firsthand witnesses to the events in question relating to the withholding of aid to Ukraine.
Every effort is being made by to predetermine the outcome of the trial and limit what Americans can see and hear of the proceedings. President Trump has even sought to influence the jury by ramping up fundraising for Republican Senators ahead of he trial. Those Senators who benefitted from the President's fundraising should either return those funds or they should recuse themselves from serving as jurors in the impeachment trial.
The Majority Leader has even taken extreme and unprecedented steps to restrict media coverage of the impeachment trial and insisted that it drag on into the night when many Americans are already asleep. Reporters are even kept in pens and denied their normal access allowing Senators to avoid questions. Cameras are prohibited. Even the ever-present C-SPAN cameras have been shut down so that Senator McConnell controls all video - providing only a single angle and no crowd shots to show sleeping Senators or empty seats.
In the weeks since the U.S. House of Representatives formally impeached President Trump, there has been a series of new revelations that confirm what multiple witnesses testified during the House's impeachment investigation. Much of this new information has added significantly to a compelling case laid out by witnesses in the House impeachment proceedings showing a consistent pattern of abuse of power and obstruction of investigations by President Trump. The new information points toward President Trump's directing the White House efforts to withhold military aid to force an imperiled U.S. ally to do the President political "favors" to aid his own reelection efforts.
The American people deserve, and the Senate must demand, testimony from the witnesses from President Trump's inner-circle who witnessed the President's repeated efforts to coerce Ukraine into doing political dirty work in exchange for military aid already appropriated by Congress. The President stonewalled and obstructed the House investigation, so it is now the Senate's obligation to the rule of law to ensure it hears the testimony of those who witnessed the acts in question.
Former National Security Advisor John Bolton has stated that he will testify before the impeachment trial if subpoenaed. The Senate should also hear from Acting White House Chief of Staff Mick Mulvaney, who admitted repeatedly on live television, that the White House withheld military aid to the Ukraine as a quid pro quo until the country launched an unwarranted investigation into Joe Biden and his son. The Senate should also hear from Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, Attorney General William Barr, Rudy Giuliani business associate Lev Parnas, and a number of other officials with critical first-hand information concerning the President's Ukraine bribery scheme.
The constitutional questions presently being weighed by the Senate extend far beyond President Trump and the current circumstances. Allowing any White House to block witness testimony, evidence, and transparency in a presidential impeachment trial sets a dangerous precedent for any future Congress attempting to hold a President accountable to the Constitution of the United States. Today it is a Republican ignoring the Constitution, but if these abuses of presidential power are permitted to stand, then the day will inevitably come when a Democratic president follows the lead set by President Trump and refuses to cooperate with the United States Congress, a coequal branch of our system of national government.
It falls to the Senate to get to the bottom of this evolving scandal, to get the facts and to render judgement accordingly. Members of both parties must put their duty to their country before their duty to their party.
We urge you to editorialize to encourage your United States Senators to vote to call the necessary witnesses to fully and fairly investigate the abuse of the powers of the presidency by Donald Trump for personal political gain. It is time for every member of the United States Senate to take a deep breath and put their duty to their nation before their fealty to their political party. Their constituents and the nation are watching closely.
Common Cause is a nonpartisan, grassroots organization dedicated to upholding the core values of American democracy. We work to create open, honest, and accountable government that serves the public interest; promote equal rights, opportunity, and representation for all; and empower all people to make their voices heard in the political process.
(202) 833-1200LATEST NEWS
National Team Member Becomes at Least 265th Palestinian Footballer Killed by Israel in Gaza
Muhannad al-Lili's killing by Israeli airstrike came as the world mourned the death of Portugal and Liverpool star Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva in a car crash in Spain.
Jul 04, 2025
Muhannad Fadl al-Lili, captain of the Al-Maghazi Services Club and a member of Palestine's national football team, died Thursday from injuries suffered during an Israeli airstrike on his family home in the central Gaza Strip earlier this week, making him the latest of hundreds of Palestinian athletes killed since the start of Israel's genocidal onslaught.
Al-Maghazi Services Club announced al-Lili's death in a Facebook tribute offering condolences to "his family, relatives, friends, and colleagues" and asking "Allah to shower him with his mercy."
The Palestine Football Association (PFA) said that "on Monday, a drone fired a missile at Muhannad's room on the third floor of his house, which led to severe bleeding in the skull."
"During the war of extermination against our people, Muhannad tried to travel outside Gaza to catch up with his wife, who left the strip for Norway on a work mission before the outbreak of the war," the association added. "But he failed to do so, and was deprived of seeing his eldest son, who was born outside the Gaza Strip."
According to the PFA, al-Lili is at least the 265th Palestinian footballer and 585th athlete to be killed by Israeli forces since they launched their assault and siege on Gaza following the October 7, 2023 Hamas-led attack on Israel. Sports journalist Leyla Hamed says 439 Palestinian footballers have been killed by Israel.
Overall, Israel's war—which is the subject of an International Court of Justice (ICJ) genocide case—has left more than 206,000 Palestinians dead, maimed, or missing, and around 2 million more forcibly displaced, starved, or sickened, according to Gaza officials.
The Palestine Chronicle contrasted the worldwide press coverage of the car crash deaths of Portuguese footballer Diogo Jota and his brother André Silva with the media's relative silence following al-Lili's killing.
"Jota's death was a tragedy that touched millions," the outlet wrote. "Yet the death of Muhannad al-Lili... was met with near-total silence from global sports media."
Last week, a group of legal experts including two United Nations special rapporteurs appealed to the Fédération Internationale de Football Association, the world football governing body, demanding that its Governance Audit and Compliance Committee take action against the Israel Football Association for violating FIFA rules by playing matches on occupied Palestinian territory.
In July 2024, the ICJ found that Israel's then-57-year occupation of Palestine—including Gaza—is an illegal form of apartheid that should be ended as soon as possible.
During their invasion and occupation of Gaza, Israeli forces have also used sporting facilities including Yarmouk Stadium for the detention of Palestinian men, women, and children—many of whom have reported torture and other abuse at the hands of their captors.
Keep ReadingShow Less
'Highly Inspiring' Court Ruling Affirms Nations' Legal Duty to Combat Climate Emergency
"While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections," said one observer.
Jul 04, 2025
In a landmark advisory opinion published Thursday, the Inter-American Court of Human Rights—of which the United States, the world's second-biggest carbon polluter, is not a member—affirmed the right to a stable climate and underscored nations' duty to act to protect it and address the worsening planetary emergency.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change," a summary of the 234-page ruling states. "Any rollback of climate or environmental policies that affect human rights must be exceptional, duly justified based on objective criteria, and comply with standards of necessity and proportionality."
"The court also held that... states must take all necessary measures to reduce the risks arising, on the one hand, from the degradation of the global climate system and, on the other, from exposure and vulnerability to the effects of such degradation," the summary adds.
"States must refrain from any conduct that reverses, slows down, or truncates the outcome of measures necessary to protect human rights in the face of the impacts of climate change."
The case was brought before the Costa-Rica based IACtHR by Chile and Colombia, both of which "face the daily challenge of dealing with the consequences of the climate emergency, including the proliferation of droughts, floods, landslides, and fires, among others."
"These phenomena highlight the need to respond urgently and based on the principles of equity, justice, cooperation, and sustainability, with a human rights-based approach," the court asserted.
IACtHR President Judge Nancy Hernández López said following the ruling that "states must not only refrain from causing significant environmental damage but have the positive obligation to take measures to guarantee the protection, restoration, and regeneration of ecosystems."
"Causing massive and irreversible environmental harm...alters the conditions for a healthy life on Earth to such an extent that it creates consequences of existential proportions," she added. "Therefore, it demands universal and effective legal responses."
The advisory opinion builds on two landmark decisions last year. In April 2024, the European Court of Human Rights ruled that the Swiss government violated senior citizens' human rights by refusing to abide by scientists' warnings to rapidly phase out fossil fuel production.
The following month, the International Tribunal for the Law of the Sea found in an advisory opinion that greenhouse gas emissions are marine pollution under the United Nations Convention on the Law of the Sea and that signatories to the accord "have the specific obligation to adopt laws and regulations to prevent, reduce, and control" them.
The IACtHR advisory opinion is expected to boost climate and human rights lawsuits throughout the Americas, and to impact talks ahead of November's United Nations Climate Change Conference, or COP30, in Belém, Brazil.
Climate defenders around the world hailed Thursday's advisory opinion, with United Nations High Commissioner for Human Rights Volker Türk calling it "a landmark step forward for the region—and beyond."
"As the impact of climate change becomes ever more visible across the world, the court is clear: People have a right to a stable climate and a healthy environment," Türk added. "States have a bedrock obligation under international law not to take steps that cause irreversible climate and environmental damage, and they have a duty to act urgently to take the necessary measures to protect the lives and rights of everyone—both those alive now and the interests of future generations."
Amnesty International head of strategic litigation Mandi Mudarikwa said, "Today, the Inter-American Court affirmed and clarified the obligations of states to respect, ensure, prevent, and cooperate in order to realize human rights in the context of the climate crisis."
"Crucially, the court recognized the autonomous right to a healthy climate for both individuals and communities, linked to the right to a healthy environment," Mudarikwa added. "The court also underscored the obligation of states to protect cross-border climate-displaced persons, including through the issuance of humanitarian visas and protection from deportation."
Delta Merner, lead scientist at the Science Hub for Climate Litigation at the Union of Concerned Scientists, said in a statement that "this opinion sets an important precedent affirming that governments have a legal duty to regulate corporate conduct that drives climate harm."
"Though the United States is not a party to the treaty governing the Inter-American Court of Human Rights, this opinion should be a clarion call for transnational fossil fuel companies that have deceived the public for decades about the risks of their products," Merner added. "The era of accountability is here."
Markus Gehring, a fellow and director of studies in law at Hughes Hall at the University of Cambridge in England, called the advisory opinion "highly inspiring" and "seminal."
Drew Caputo, vice president of litigation for lands, wildlife, and oceans at Earthjustice, said that "the Inter-American Court's ruling makes clear that climate change is an overriding threat to human rights in the world."
"Governments must act to cut carbon emissions drastically," Caputo stressed. "While the United States and some other major polluters have chosen to ignore climate science, the rest of the international community is advancing protections for all from the realities of climate harm."
Climate litigation is increasing globally in the wake of the 2015 Paris climate agreement. In the Americas, Indigenous peoples, children, and green groups are among those who have been seeking climate justice via litigation.
However, in the United States, instead of acknowledging the climate emergency, President Donald Trump has declared an "energy emergency" while pursuing a "drill, baby, drill" policy of fossil fuel extraction and expansion.
Keep ReadingShow Less
Trump Admin Quietly Approves Massive Crude Oil Expansion Project
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest," said one environmental attorney.
Jul 04, 2025
The Trump administration has quietly fast-tracked a massive oil expansion project that environmentalists and Democratic lawmakers warned could have a destructive impact on local communities and the climate.
As reported recently by the Oil and Gas Journal, the plan "involves expanding the Wildcat Loadout Facility, a key transfer point for moving Uinta basin crude oil to rail lines that transport it to refineries along the Gulf Coast."
The goal of the plan is to transfer an additional 70,000 barrels of oil per day from the Wildcat Loadout Facility, which is located in Utah, down to the Gulf Coast refineries via a route that runs along the Colorado River. Controversially, the Trump administration is also plowing ahead with the project by invoking emergency powers to address energy shortages despite the fact that the United States for the last couple of years has been producing record levels of domestic oil.
Sen. Michael Bennet (D-Colo.) and Rep. Joe Neguse (D-Colo.) issued a joint statement condemning the Trump administration's push to approve the project while rushing through environmental impact reviews.
"The Bureau of Land Management's decision to fast-track the Wildcat Loadout expansion—a project that would transport an additional 70,000 barrels of crude oil on train tracks along the Colorado River—using emergency procedures is profoundly flawed," the Colorado Democrats said. "These procedures give the agency just 14 days to complete an environmental review—with no opportunity for public input or administrative appeal—despite the project's clear risks to Colorado. There is no credible energy emergency to justify bypassing public involvement and environmental safeguards. The United States is currently producing more oil and gas than any country in the world."
On Thursday, the Bureau of Land Management announced the completion of its accelerated environmental review of the project, drawing condemnation from climate advocates.
Wendy Park, a senior attorney at the Center for Biological Diversity, described the administration's rush to approve the project as "pure hubris," especially given its "refusal to hear community concerns about oil spill risks." She added that "this fast-tracked review breezed past vital protections for clean air, public safety and endangered species."
Landon Newell, staff attorney for the Southern Utah Wilderness Alliance, accused the Trump administration of manufacturing an energy emergency to justify plans that could have a dire impact on local habitats.
"This thinly analyzed decision threatens the lifeblood of the American Southwest by authorizing the transport of more than 1 billion gallons annually of additional oil on railcars traveling alongside the Colorado River," he said. "Any derailment and oil spill would have a devastating impact on the Colorado River and the communities and ecosystems that rely upon it."
Keep ReadingShow Less
Most Popular