and Foreign Affairs conducted their witness examinations ably and transparently, working within their subject matter areas of expertise. Furthermore, to the extent Judiciary Committee members wished to probe the evidentiary record, they had opportunities to do so when HPSCI's Majority and Minority counsels presented evidence before the Committee.
Finally, the Minority has repeatedly suggested that the House's impeachment inquiry has been rushed. The House's investigation of the President's conduct regarding Ukraine began in early September and has proceeded for more than three months. In addition, that investigation followed extensive investigations into the President's having welcomed foreign assistance from Russia during the 2016 United States Presidential election and then obstructing the law enforcement investigation that ensued. President Trump's efforts to enlist the assistance of another foreign government for the 2020 United States Presidential election therefore raised immediate alarm and required prompt action. As HPSCI's report states, "[w]ith this backdrop, the solicitation of new foreign intervention was the act of a president unbound."[1]
The House's investigation of President Trump's misconduct—which occupied a time frame commensurate with that for the impeachment inquiry against President Clinton—was fair and thorough. The Investigating Committees assembled a comprehensive record that was more than sufficient to provide them with a thorough picture of the facts. To the extent gaps remained, they resulted from President Trump's obstruction of Congress. The urgency posed by the President's abuse of his office, his invitation of foreign interference in the 2020 United States Presidential election, and his disregard for any mechanisms of accountability required concerted action by the House, not further delay.
V.Conclusion
The House conducted a thorough and fair inquiry regarding President Trump's misconduct, notwithstanding the unique and extraordinary challenges posed by the President's obstruction. The Investigating Committees amassed thorough and irrefutable evidence that the President abused his office by pressuring a foreign government to interfere in the next election. When committees of the House—rather than a grand jury, a Senate committee, or an Independent Counsel—must serve as primary investigators in an impeachment inquiry, they have an obligation to balance investigative needs and best practices for collecting evidence with the President's interest in telling his story and the public interest in transparency. But that does not entitle the President to inject himself at each and every stage of the proceedings, thus confounding the House's inquiry.
Here, consistent with historical practice, the House divided its impeachment inquiry into two phases, first collecting evidence and then bringing that evidence before the Judiciary Committee for its consideration of articles of impeachment. The Judiciary Committee then evaluated the evidence in a process that afforded President Trump the same or more privileges of his predecessors who have faced impeachment inquiries. The President's refusal to comply with or participate in these proceedings only confirmed his intent to obstruct Congress in the performance of its essential constitutional functions.
- ↑ Id. at 10.
27
