Page:Impeachment of Donald J. Trump, President of the United States — Report of the Committee on the Judiciary, House of Representatives.pdf/38

 Within these parameters, and guided by fidelity to the Constitution, the House must judge whether the President's misconduct is grave enough to require impeachment. That step must never be taken lightly. It is a momentous act, justified only when the President's full course of conduct, assessed without favor or prejudice, is "seriously incompatible with either the constitutional form and principles of our government or the proper performance of constitutional duties of the presidential office." But when that high standard is met, the Constitution calls the House to action—and the House, in turn, must rise to the occasion. In such cases, a decision not to impeach can harm democracy and set an ominous precedent.

It is occasionally suggested that Presidents can be impeached only if they have committed crimes. That position was rejected in President Nixon's case, and then rejected again in President Clinton's, and should be rejected once more. Offenses against the Constitution are different than offenses against the criminal code. Some crimes, like jaywalking, are not impeachable. And some forms of misconduct may offend both the Constitution and the criminal law. Impeachment and criminality must therefore be assessed separately—even though the President's commission of indictable crimes may further support a case for impeachment and removal. Ultimately, the House must judge whether a President's conduct offends and endangers the Constitution itself.

In the final section, we briefly address six falsehoods about impeachment that have recently drawn public notice.

First, contrary to mistaken claims otherwise, we demonstrate that the current impeachment inquiry has complied in every respect with the Constitution, the Rules of the House, and historic practice and precedent of the House.

Second, we address several evidentiary matters. The House impeachment inquiry has compiled substantial direct and circumstantial evidence bearing on the issues at hand. Nonetheless, President Trump has objected that some of the evidence gathered by the House comes from witnesses lacking first-hand knowledge of his conduct. But in the same breath, he has unlawfully ordered many witnesses with first-hand knowledge to defy House subpoenas. As we show, President Trump's assertions regarding the evidence before the House are misplaced as a matter of constitutional law and common sense.

Third, we consider President Trump's claim that his actions are protected because of his right under Article II of the Constitution "to do whatever I want as president." This claim is wrong, and profoundly so, because our Constitution rejects pretensions to monarchy and binds Presidents with law. That is true even of powers vested exclusively in the chief executive. If those powers are invoked for corrupt reasons, or wielded in an abusive manner harming the constitutional system, the President is