Page:Impeachment of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States — Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives.pdf/205

 merits usurping the will of the electorate. The Majority has attempted to do that by equating a telephone conversation with election tampering. That argument is resoundingly unconvincing. To prove an abuse of power, the accusation and the evidence against a president must ""be sufficiently clear to assure the public that an impeachment is not simply an exercise of partisan creativity in rationalizing a removal of a president." Here, specifie impeachable conduct was not clearly identified because the Majority failed to prove its initial allegations of a quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, and other statutory crimes.

1.Claims About the 2020 Election are Hyperbolic and Misleading

The injury to the national interest alleged against the President is harm to the integrity of the 2020 election. The Majority claims the President has engaged in a pattern of inviting foreign governments to intervene in American elections, and removal is the only option to preserve American democracy. Chairman Adam Schiff said not impeaching is equivalent to saying, "Why not let him cheat in one more election? That claim is hyperbolic and untrue.

First, the basis for the Majority's claimed pattern of conduct is a statement made in 2016 by then-candidate Trump during a public press conference, when he jokingly and mockingly asked Russia to find former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton's infamous 30,000 missing emails. That statement has now been used as a basis to impeach the President because, the Majority argues, he invited a foreign power to intervene in the 2016 election and will do it again. This claim is specious for at least three reasons. First, the President was speaking publicly to fellow Americans. The remark was not, for example, caught on a hot microphone during a private conversation with the Russian president. Second, the remark was made in jest in response to a question at a public press conference, following the news that 30,000 of Clinton's emails potentially incriminating evidence had mysteriously disappeared. Millions of Americans, including then-candidate Trump, were wondering what had happened. Finally, there is no evidence that the President actively sought to conspire with Russia to interfere in the election. The Majority simply does not like the comment.

The last point is particularly relevant. The Majority actively ignores the fact that the FBI and a special counsel spent nearly three years investigating the allegation that the President or his campaign colluded or conspired with the Russian government. Both concluded that the TrumpRussia collusion narrative was baseless. The special counsel found no conspiracy and no collusion. Indeed, on December 9, 2019 the same day the Committee received testimony from Chairman Schiff's staff, rather than Schiff himself-the Inspector General released a report outlining a myriad of egregious errors committed by the FBI during its Russia collusion 9