THE IMPEACHMENT OF A TYRANT PRESIDENT

If you click your mouse on the underlined words, you will get more information.

In the United States Congress, the House of Representatives is the same as the House of Commons in Canada and other similar countries that are members of the British Commonwealth of nations.

When a president or federal judge is to be removed from office, it is the responsibility of the members of the House of Representatives to conduct inquiries as to the conduct of the above mentioned officials and to later present their findings to the Senate that will determine if the accusations are valid or not valid. If valid, the accused president or judge will be dismissed from office.

a

On September 24^th  2019, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced that the House would launch an impeachment inquiry into President Donald Trump and his dealings with the Ukraine.

Trump is only the third American president to face the threat of being forced from the White House viatheir impeachment.

Trump was accused of withholding $391 million in congressionally approved military aid in order to pressure Ukraine's new president into launching an inquiry into his 2020 Democratic rival Joe Biden and Mr. Biden's son.

The whistleblower complaint was at the the center of the burgeoning scandal involving President Donald Trump and his dealings with Ukraine that was made public on September 11^th  2019. It contained a number of serious charges that was scrutinized in the House's impeachment investigation.

The complaint centered on Trump's conversations and actions regarding the Ukraine, including a 30-minute phone call on July 25^th 2019 between the president and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy in which Trump asked the Ukrainian leader to further probe the Biden family's business dealings in the Ukraine.

Since the former vice president Joe Biden was running for the presidency of the United States, asking a foreign power to dig up dirt of a competitor for the presidency is a definite no no.

However, what was worse was that Trump made it clear that the Ukraine would not get what was part of the National Defense Authorization Act for fiscal year, the  $391 million in military aid to the Ukraine Security Assistance Initiative.

Trump was in effect, bribing the leader of Ukraine to dig up the dirt on Joe Biden and his son, Hunter with money that was already approved by Congress. 

As far as I am concerned, Joe Biden`s son, Hunter was dishonest. By using his father`s reputation, he accepted the position of being a board member of a Ukraine gas company called  Burisma Holdings that was known to be highly crooked in its dealings. Hunter Biden was being paid as much as $5o,000 per month as a board member of Burisma Holdings that totaled  more than $3 million for his entire tenure when he was  on  board as a member.  

Although he was a lawyer, he had no experience in the field of gas production. He was picked to be a member of the board because he was the second son of the former vice president of the United States and Hunter Biden`s position as a board member would add legitimacy to that corrupt firm.

Joe Biden  diplomatic efforts in the Ukraine was to bolster the country’s fledgling democracy and root out corruption after mass protests ousted a Russian-backed president. He specifically called for the removal of Viktor Shokin, the Ukraine prosecutor general who was widely believed to be corrupt. 

The removal of the prosecutor was then U.S. government policy at the time, and widely agreed to among the international community as the right move. In his closed-door testimony, Kent testified that the International Monetary Fund, the European Union countries and the U.S. agreed that Shokin should be removed as prosecutor general.

Obviously this was a feather in Joe Boden`s cap. So this makes me wonder why Trump wanted the president of the Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden’s role in the Ukraine.

Here are 10 of the most important points from the complaint:

1.    Trump was "using the power of his office to solicit interference from a foreign country" in the 2020 election.

2.   The interference includes, among other things, pressuring a foreign country to investigate one of the president's main domestic political rivals. The president's personal lawyer, Mr. Rudolph Giuliani, iswas a central figure in this effort. Attorney General William Barr appeared to be involved as well.

3.   The White House was so concerned, it moved to "lock down" the transcript of the July phone call and removed it from a computer system typically used to store such call records and put it in a more secure system where prying eyes couldn’t find it.

4.   According to White House officials, the whistleblower spoke with, that was "not the first time the Trump administration placed a presidential transcript into this codeword-level system solely for the purpose of protecting politically sensitive information  rather than national security sensitive  information."

5.   The whistleblower, whose identity and gender is not known, was not a "direct witness" to most of what was described, relying instead on what others in the White House and administration told him or her.

6.   Trump's actions posed "risks" to national security, undermined efforts to counter foreign interference, and constituted a serious or flagrant problem, abuse, or violation of law or Executive Orders.

7.   Multiple U.S. officials told the whistleblower that Ukrainian leadership believed that a phone call or meeting between Zelenskiy and Trump was contingent on the Ukrainian president's willingness to "play ball" on the issues that could prove politically beneficial to Trump.

8.   Giuliani, is not a government official but is Trump's personal lawyer. The whistleblower wrote that beginning in mid-May, "I heard from multiple U.S. officials that they were deeply concerned by what they viewed as Mr. Giuliani's circumvention of national security decision-making processes to engage with Ukrainian officials and relay messages back and forth between" Ukrainian leaders and Trump.”

9.   Officials told the whistleblower that State Department officials spoke with Giuliani "in an attempt to 'contain the damage' to U.S. national security.

10.                  The whistleblower wrote of learning about a "sudden change of policy with respect to U.S. assistance for Ukraine" in mid-July that executive branch officials could not explain.

Rep. Frank Pallone Jr. (D-N.J.) has described President Trump’s public call for a foreign government to investigate former vice president Joe Biden’s family as an “abuse of power.”

I will remind my readers that Trump publicly stated that he could do anything he wants because he is the president of the United States. He even said that if he shot someone on fifth Avenue, he could get away with it. Hitler could get away with murder when he was in power because he could do what he wanted to do without consequences. Hitler also said  that h could do what he wanted without consequences.

Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) has characterized Trump’s recent conduct  including his July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s president as a “brazen effort to pressure foreign powers to intervene in the 2020 elections,” adding that “continued efforts to hide the truth of the President’s abuse of power from the American people would  be regarded as further evidence of obstruction.” which is an offence against theA merican Constitution.

For congressional Democrats considering impeachment, there was  a case to be made that the Constitution’s reference to “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” that applieg to Trump’s Ukraine plot and  charges of a coverup or possible obstruction of justice. And there would be nothing unusual about Congress considering several articles of impeachment since the House previously voted on four articles against President Bill Clinton — obstruction passed, abuse of power failed — and 11 against President Andrew Johnson. The Senate ultimately voted on two articles against Clinton and three against Preidence Johnson.

Amid a series of House investigations, however, and several public, potentially incriminating admissions by Trump, Democrats hadn’t settled on a core legal rationale for impeachment, which is striking, considering the Constitution’s answer was staring them in the face. Trump’s statements and actions with regard to Ukraine appear to fit one of the few offenses the Constitution specifically lists as impeachable to wit:  Bribery. This is because Trump offered to have the president of Ukraine as a guest in the White House which would convince Putin, the dictator of Russia that Ukraine has Trump’s support with respect to the Ukraine’s fight against Putin’s entrenchment of part of the Ukraine.

Along with treason, it’s the only impeachable offense expressly listed in Article II, Section 4 before the catchall category, “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” as a reason to impeach federal officials, who “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” (serious crimes and minor offences)

The legal case would be that Trump sought a bribe. He encouraged Ukraine’s President Volodymyr Zelensky “to do us a favor” and look into, among other things, the Biden family. Trump would later acknowledge that goal, telling reporters on October. 3^rd that he wanted Zelensky to “start a major investigation into the Bidens.”

Evidence and testimony from inside the Trump administration, meanwhile, suggests that the sought after benefit--an investigation of Trump’s rival that was conditioned on U.S. government action.

Administration officials have referenced apparent conditions on both a coveted White House meeting between the two leaders, and on disbursement of millions in military aid, pending Ukraine’s government announcing an investigation of the Bidens.

Even though the process would likely call for additional evidence and details, that’s the logical thrust of the argument that Trump used his office to seek a bribe: corruptly soliciting something of value “in exchange for official action.” As it stands, the case appears straightforward, and, unlike most legal or political issues, several key underlying facts that weren’t even in dispute.

A focus on bribery would distinguish this case from the two presidential impeachments in history, neither of which resulted in conviction in the Senate and removal from office. The Johnson and Clinton cases were bogged down by a difficult question: What defines a high crime or misdemeanor in the Constitution?

At Johnson’s trial, the Senate was not convinced by articles of impeachment that fixated on whether he made an illegal recess appointment for the war secretary position, or whether he brought a generalized sense of “ridicule and disgrace” to the presidency, being a matter of opinion. For Clinton, even some of his Republican opponents were not convinced a president should be convicted of a “high crime” for alleged perjury and obstruction that did not involve official duties.

By contrast, no one can deny that bribery is impeachable, because the Constitution says it is.

Invoking the Founders’ text also preempts efforts to turn impeachment into a technical debate over federal law. A Senate trial on bribery would evaluate impeachment the way the Constitution does: As a violation so grave, it merits removal, without parsing the statutes that Congress passed decades after the Constitution was ratified.

As former Justice Department lawyer, Ben Berwick argued, “The concept of high crimes and misdemeanors can’t be limited by statutes” since, until the mid-20^th  century, criminal law “followed the common law model” and the “same goes for bribery,” since “there was no general federal bribery statute at all until 1853.” There’s not much logic, then, to invoking contemporary laws to resolve whether the president’s conduct is impeachable, when the conduct fits within an impeachable offense already spelled out in the Constitution’s text.

If the president or other officials separately committed a felony, that is a matter for prosecutors. The outlook there is mixed. On the one hand, the Supreme Court recently raised the bar for what it takes to convict a public official for bribery, in a unanimous ruling knocking down the conviction of former Virginia governor, Bob McDonnell. The “official act” required a return for a bribe? The Court ruled it must involve deploying “governmental power,” not just setting up a meeting. That could be good news for any official who may have arranged Ukraine meetings, but it probably doesn’t help an official who may have corruptly altered foreign aid such as what Trump did.

On the other hand, when a plot involves a United States official such as Trump demanding a benefit, strict bribery and extortion rules can kick in. Public officials can be found guilty of federal bribery or extortion even without fulfilling a promised quid pro quo. (a favor or advantage granted for something in  return)

As the Court stressed in that same case, “an official can commit bribery even if he does not actually take an action to fulfill his goal, “it is enough that the official agree to do so.” In other words, demanding something of value while merely suggesting you will take future government action, such as delaying military aid, might constitute a crime, even if you don’t follow through with the proposed action.

There is a range of evidence against President Trump, including what is known in legal circles as his “voluntary confession,” but he has more than one defense: On his conduct toward Ukraine, Trump argued that regardless of what he requested or hoped for, he didn’t offer any explicit action in exchange for an investigation. “When this came out, it was ‘quid pro quo’ — well, there is none,” Trump told reporters on earlier.

I don’t know why he believed that description of considering the fact that he told Zelensky that if he gave Trump what he wanted, Zelensky would get the military aid to fight the Russians.  That is clearly a quid pro quo.

Trump had no other choice but to give Zelensky the funds because by then, his misconduct became public and he wanted  everyone to believe that he always intended to give the Ukraine what Congress said it should have.

In a White House press briefing room, acting White House chief of staff, Mick Mulvaney conceded that military aid for Ukraine was conditioned on a political probe, saying “that was why we held up the money” hat was an admission so blunt that Trump’s personal lawyer rushed to distance himself from the statement. Ultimately, though, the Constitution’s bribery prohibition doesn’t turn exclusively on whether officials said the conduct occurred, but rather on Congress’s view of what the evidence could prove.

While that argument was about what Trump offered, there was another defense based on what he sought it being that  Trump could argue that whatever personal benefit might accrue from a Biden investigation, he genuinely thought an investigation was in the interest of the country. (the USA) Trump took this tack on October 4^th, arguing that he had “a duty” to push a foreign investigation of Joe Biden because “we are looking for corruption.” Legitimately demanding something for the United States does not amount to a benefit for a bribe, which makes his intent the real  issue.

If Biden Senior wasn’t running for the presidency, Trump’s request would be legitimate. But it is obvious that he wanted to besmirch the character of Joe Biden in order to defeat him in the upcoming presidential election. That is an impeachable offence by seeking to bribe to Zelensky to helpTrump get enough dirt on his competitor running  for the presidency.

There  are also institutional defenses: Whatever one thinks of this alleged plot, there’s a question of whether the Senate should set a precedent for indicting, and potentially ousting a president over what some consider only diplomatic “hardball.” Throughout history, the argument goes, presidents have wielded foreign policy powers with an eye on re-election.  Perhaps that’s what Mulvaney was trying to get at with his now infamous comments in the briefing room, declaring “we do that all the time” and telling everyone to “get over it".

“Yeah sure and everyone lies so get over it.”  That doesn’t make it right.

If Congress, pursued impeachment, it would begin with the Constitution’s text, and in doing so, it may find bribery is the right place to focus. That’s true especially because of evidence drawn from Trump’s own words.

Trump who spent years successfully resisting an interview with special counsel Robert Mueller finds an impeachment probe rapidly escalating, in part, because of interviews he’s given, freely, sometimes while standing on the White House lawn.

Secretary of State Mike Pompeo personally asked Rudy Giuliani (the president’s personal lawyer) to turn over whatever political dirt he had on Joe Biden and the Ukraine so that the State Department could conduct its own investigation. That was  evidence  that a top Trump official was intimately involved in the shady operation that sparked the impeachment inquiry.

Speaking to the Daily News over the phone, Giuliani said Pompeo asked him in March ( 2019) to submit the information he had come across over the course of a self-styled investigation into Joe Biden’s ties to Ukraine and unproven allegations that the former vice president shielded his son, Hunter, from being prosecuted in the Ukraine.

Giuliani’s records which comprised unproven allegations that Hunter Biden took illegal kickbacks in a Ukrainian energy company scheme and that his vice president father protected him had surfaced when the inspector general of the State Department turned them over to the House committees conducting the impeachment inquiry.

Nevertheless there may be proof in the allegations against the Bidens if Hunter Biden was using him father’s reputation to sit on the board of a corrupt company in the Ukraine while  his father did nothing to get his son off the board while his son was getting the alleged millions of dollars in income while doing nothing to earn that money. Joe Biden’s inaction may be the reason why he is not doing well in the presidential election thus far.

Giuliani, the former New York mayor, who had conducted his Ukraine dirt-digging probe since the fall of 2018, said he compiled the documents in an envelope and gave them to Pompeo with the impression that the State Department would launch an investigation into his unsubstantiated claims.

However. Secretary Pompeo never promised Rudy Giuliani that he would look in the envelope or that he would investigate anything related to Ukraine,” a source told The News.

Giuliani said, referring to Pompeo. “I was very happy when they said they were going to investigate it.” It’s unclear if an investigation by Zelensky was ever launched.

In my opinion, if Zelensky had ordered an investigation into Joe Biden and found evidence that Joe Biden was corrupt, then Trump’s request would have been acceptable.

When it appeared to Trump that Zelensky wasn’t doing anything re an investigation of Joe Biden, he then said that he would be satisfied if it became public that Zelensky was going to conduct an investigation into Joe Biden. That latest demand makes Trump’s action smell l like that of a skunk.

Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-Md.), a member of the House Oversight Committee and one of the key persons in the impeachment probe, ripped Giuliani’s records as “rather amateurish.”

"

He said, “It is a packet of propaganda and disinformation spreading conspiracy theories.” Those conspiracy theories have been widely debunked and discredited,” Raskin said after leaving a briefing with the State Department’s inspector general. “It looks like a collection of some newspaper articles that appear to have been coordinated, some emails and which is basically a lot of conspiracy theories.”

It’s unclear if Pompeo ever acted on Giuliani’s documents, though the Inspector General (IG)  told lawmakers that the papers were being circulated among the top ranks of the State Department, according to people in the room.

The IG testified that he felt the need to turn over the documents to Congress after the anonymous whistleblower filed a complaint about Trump’s attempt during a July 25^th phone call to get Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate some of the baseless claims about Biden that Giuliani and others have been floating about. Democrats said that Trump’s request of Zelensky’s assistance constitutes an attempt to solicit foreign interference in the 2020 election and argued it as grounds for the impeachment of Trump.

A familiar pattern was emerging. Trump, like Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton before him, was striking back at his accusers, though Trump does it with more bite, force and relentless volume like Nixon had done,  that is  until Nixon  resigned in disgrace.

 Trump also has near-lockstep support from his Republican party.  What is most interesting to ponder is whether or not   Trump would have received support from the Republicans if he was elected as a Democrat President?

As far as the Republicans are concerned, Trump can do no wrong. That became obvious when you consider that the republicans in the Senate with the exception of one, voted to vote in favor of keeping their fellow Republican in the Office of the President of the United States.

In closing, I want to quote the statement of Mit Romny just before he voted in the Senate.  Below is his remarks on Donald Trump and the 2016 presidential race.  as delivered as a speech at the University of Utah. Here is his speech.

I would like to offer my perspective on the nominating process of my party. In 1964, days before the presidential election which, incidentally, we lost, Ronald Reagan went on national television and challenged America saying that it was a "Time for Choosing. He saw two paths for America, one that embraced conservative principles dedicated to lifting people out of poverty and helping create opportunity for all, and the other, an oppressive government that would lead America down a darker, less free path. I'm no Ronald Reagan and this is a different moment but I believe with all my heart and soul that we face another time for choosing, one that will have profound consequences for the Republican Party and more importantly, for the country. I say this in part because of my conviction that America is poised to lead the world for another century. Our technology engines, our innovation dynamic, and the ambition and skill of our people will propel our economy and raise our standard of living. America will remain as it is today, the envy of the world. Warren Buffett was 100% right when he said last week that "the babies being born in America today are the luckiest crop in history.

That doesn't mean we don't have real problems and serious challenges. At home, poverty persists and wages are stagnant. The horrific massacres of Paris and San Bernardino, the nuclear ambitions of the Iranian mullahs, the aggressions of Putin, the growing assertiveness of China and the nuclear tests of North Korea confirm that we live in troubled and dangerous times But if we make the right choices, America's future will be even better than our past and better than our present. On the other hand, if we make improvident choices, the bright horizon I foresee will never materialize. Let me put it plainly, if we Republicans choose Donald Trump as our nominee, the prospects for a safe and prosperous future are greatly diminished.

Let me explain why. First, the economy: If Donald Trump's plans were ever implemented, the country would sink into a prolonged recession. Here are          few examples: His proposed 35% tariff-like penalties would instigate a trade war that would raise prices for consumers, kill export jobs, and lead entrepreneurs and businesses to flee America. His tax plan, in combination with his refusal to reform entitlements and to honestly address spending would balloon the deficit and the national debt. So even as Donald Trump has offered very few specific economic plans, what little he has said is enough to know that he would be very bad for American workers and for American families.

But wait, you say, isn't he a huge business success that knows what he's talking about? No he isn't. His bankruptcies have crushed small businesses and the men and women who worked for them. He inherited his business, he didn't create it. And what ever happened to Trump Airlines? How about Trump University? And then there's Trump Magazine and Trump Vodka and Trump Steaks, and Trump Mortgage? A business genius he is not.

                                                                                                       What Trump has floated is bad. He wants to repeal and replace Obamacare. He wants to bring jobs home from China and Japan. But his prescriptions to do these things are flimsy at best. At the last debate, all he could remember about his healthcare plan was to remove insurance boundaries between states. Successfully bringing jobs home requires serious policy and reforms that make America the place businesses want to plant and grow. You can't punish business into doing the things you want. Frankly, the only serious policy proposals that deal with the broad range of national challenges we confront, come today from Ted Cruz, Marco Rubio, and John Kasich. One of these men should be our nominee.

I know that some people want the race to be over. They look at history and say a trend like Mr. Trump's isn't going to be stopped.

The rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign. If the other candidates can find common ground, I believe we can nominate a person who can win the general election and who will represent the values and policies of conservatism. Given the current delegate selection process, this means that I would vote for Marco Rubio in Florida, for John Kasich in Ohio, and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state.

Let me turn to national security and the safety of our homes and loved ones. Trump's bombast is already alarming our allies and fueling the enmity of our enemies. Insulting all Muslims will keep many of them from fully engaging with us in the urgent fight against ISIS. And for what purpose? Muslim terrorists would only have to lie about their religion to enter the country.

What he said on “60 Minutes” about Syria and ISIS has to go down as the most ridiculous and dangerous idea of the campaign season: Let ISIS take out Assad, he said, and then we can pick up the remnants. Think about that: Let the most dangerous terror organization the world has ever known take over a country? This is recklessness in the extreme.

Donald Trump tells us that he is very, very smart. I'm afraid that when it comes to foreign policy he is very, very not smart.

I am far from the first to conclude that Donald Trump lacks the temperament of be president. After all, this is an individual who mocked a disabled reporter, who attributed a reporter's questions to her menstrual cycle, who mocked a brilliant rival who happened to be a woman due to her appearance, who bragged about his marital affairs, and who laces his public speeches with vulgarity.

Donald Trump says he admires Vladimir Putin, while has called George W. Bush a liar. That is a twisted example of evil trumping good.

There is dark irony in his boasts of his sexual exploits during the Vietnam War while John McCain, whom he has mocked, was imprisoned and tortured.

Dishonesty is Trump's hallmark: He claimed that he had spoken clearly and boldly against going into Iraq. Wrong, he spoke in favor of invading Iraq. He said he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating 9/11. Wrong, he saw no such thing. He imagined it. His is not the temperament of a stable, thoughtful leader. His imagination must not be married to real power.

The President of the United States has long been the leader of the free world. The president and yes the nominees of the country's great parties help define America to billions of people. All of them bear the responsibility of being an example for our children and grandchildren.

Think of Donald Trump's personal qualities, the bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third grade theatrics. We have long referred to him as "The Donald." He is the only person in America to whom we have added an article before his name. It wasn't because he had attributes we admired.

Now imagine your children and your grandchildren acting the way he does. Will you welcome that? Haven't we seen before what happens when people in prominent positions fail the basic responsibility of honorable conduct? We have, and it always injures our families and our country.

Watch how he responds to my speech today. Will he talk about our policy differences or will he attack me with every imaginable low road insult? This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president.

Trump relishes any poll that reflects what he thinks of himself. But polls are also saying that he will lose to Hillary Clinton.

On Hillary Clinton's watch at the State Department, America's interests were diminished in every corner of the world. She compromised our national secrets, dissembled to the families of the slain, and jettisoned her most profound beliefs to gain presidential power.

For the last three decades, the Clintons have lived at the intersection of money and politics, trading their political influence to enrich their personal finances. They embody the term “crony capitalism.” It disgusts the American people and causes them to lose faith in our political process.

A person so untrustworthy and dishonest as Hillary Clinton must not become president. But a Trump nomination enables her victory. The audio and video of the infamous Tapper-Trump exchange on the Ku Klux Klan will play a hundred thousand times on cable and who knows how many million times on social media.

There are a number of people who claim that Mr. Trump is a con man, a fake. There is indeed evidence of that. Mr. Trump has changed his positions not just over the years, but over the course of the campaign, and on the Ku Klux Klan, daily for three days in a row.

We will only really know if he is the real deal or a phony if he releases his tax returns and the tape of his interview with the New York Times. I predict that there are more bombshells in his tax returns. I predict that he doesn't give much if anything to the disabled and to our veterans. I predict that he told the New York Times that his immigration talk is just that: talk. And I predict that despite his promise to do so, first made over a year ago, he will never ever release his tax returns. Never. Not the returns under audit, not even the returns that are no longer being audited. He has too much to hide. Nor will he authorize the Times to release the tapes. If I'm right, you will have all the proof you need to know that Donald Trump is a phony.

Attacking me as he surely will won't prove him any less of a phony. It's entirely in his hands to prove me wrong. All he has to do is to release his back taxes like he promised he would, and let us hear what he said behind closed doors to the New York Times.

Ronald Reagan used to quote a Scottish philosopher who predicted that democracies and civilizations couldn't last more than about 200 years. John Adams wrote this: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." I believe that America has proven these dire predictions wrong for two reasons.

First, we have been blessed with great presidents, with giants among us. Men of character, integrity and selflessness have led our nation from its very beginning. None were perfect: each surely made mistakes. But in every case, they acted out of the desire to do what was right for America and for freedom.

The second reason is because we are blessed with a great people, people who at every critical moment of choosing have put the interests of the country above their own.

These two things are related: our presidents time and again have called on us to rise to the occasion. John F. Kennedy asked us to consider what we could do for our country. Lincoln drew upon the better angels of our nature to save the union.

I understand the anger Americans feel today. In the past, our presidents have channeled that anger, and forged it into resolve, into endurance and high purpose, and into the will to defeat the enemies of freedom. Our anger was transformed into energy directed for good.

Mr. Trump is directing our anger for less than noble purposes. He creates scapegoats of Muslims and Mexican immigrants, he calls for the use of torture and for killing the innocent children and family members of terrorists. He cheers assaults on protesters. He applauds the prospect of twisting the Constitution to limit first amendment freedom of the press. This is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss.

Here's what I know. Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He's playing the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat.

His domestic policies would lead to recession. His foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president. And his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill.

America has greatness ahead. This is a time for choosing. God bless us to choose a nominee who will make that vision a reality.

I know that some people want the race to be over. They look at history and say a trend like Mr. Trump's isn't going to be stopped.

But the rules of political history have pretty much all been shredded during this campaign. If the other candidates can find common ground, I believe we can nominate a person who can win the general election and who will represent the values and policies of conservatism. Given the current delegate selection process, this means that I would vote for Marco Rubio in Florida, for John Kasich in Ohio, and for Ted Cruz or whichever one of the other two contenders has the best chance of beating Mr. Trump in a given state.                                                                                             

Let me turn to national security and the safety of our homes and loved ones. Trump's bombast is already alarming our allies and fueling the enmity of our enemies. Insulting all Muslims will keep many of them from fully engaging with us in the urgent fight against ISIS. And for what purpose? Muslim terrorists would only have to lie about their religion to enter the country.

What he said on “60 Minutes” about Syria and ISIS has to go down as the most ridiculous and dangerous idea of the campaign season: Let ISIS take out Assad, he said, and then we can pick up the remnants. Think about that: Let the most dangerous terror organization the world has ever known take over a country? This is recklessness in the extreme.

Donald Trump tells us that he is very, very smart. I'm afraid that when it comes to foreign policy he is very, very not smart.

I am far from the first to conclude that Donald Trump lacks the temperament of be president. After all, this is an individual who mocked a disabled reporter, who attributed a reporter's questions to her menstrual cycle, who mocked a brilliant rival who happened to be a woman due to her appearance, who bragged about his marital affairs, and who laces his public speeches with vulgarity.

Donald Trump says he admires Vladimir Putin, while has called George W. Bush a liar. That is a twisted example of evil trumping good.

There is dark irony in his boasts of his sexual exploits during the Vietnam War while John McCain, whom he has mocked, was imprisoned and tortured.

Dishonesty is Trump's hallmark: He claimed that he had spoken clearly and boldly against going into Iraq. Wrong, he spoke in favor of invading Iraq. He said he saw thousands of Muslims in New Jersey celebrating 9/11. Wrong, he saw no such thing. He imagined it. His is not the temperament of a stable, thoughtful leader. His imagination must not be married to real power.

The President of the United States has long been the leader of the free world. The president and yes the nominees of the country's great parties help define America to billions of people. All of them bear the responsibility of being an example for our children and grandchildren.

Think of Donald Trump's personal qualities, the bullying, the greed, the showing off, the misogyny, the absurd third grade theatrics. We have long referred to him as "The Donald." He is the only person in America to whom we have added an article before his name. It wasn't because he had attributes we admired.

Now imagine your children and your grandchildren acting the way he does. Will you welcome that? Haven't we seen before what happens when people in prominent positions fail the basic responsibility of honorable conduct? We have, and it always injures our families and our country.

Watch how he responds to my speech today. Will he talk about our policy differences or will he attack me with every imaginable low road insult? This may tell you what you need to know about his temperament, his stability, and his suitability to be president.

Trump relishes any poll that reflects what he thinks of himself. But polls are also saying that he will lose to Hillary Clinton.

On Hillary Clinton's watch at the State Department, America's interests were diminished in every corner of the world. She compromised our national secrets, dissembled to the families of the slain, and jettisoned her most profound beliefs to gain presidential power.

For the last three decades, the Clintons have lived at the intersection of money and politics, trading their political influence to enrich their personal finances. They embody the term “crony capitalism.” It disgusts the American people and causes them to lose faith in our political process.

A person so untrustworthy and dishonest as Hillary Clinton must not become president. But a Trump nomination enables her victory. The audio and video of the infamous Tapper-Trump exchange on the Ku Klux Klan will play a hundred thousand times on cable and who knows how many million times on social media.

There are a number of people who claim that Mr. Trump is a con man, a fake. There is indeed evidence of that. Mr. Trump has changed his positions not just over the years, but over the course of the campaign, and on the Ku Klux Klan, daily for three days in a row.

We will only really know if he is the real deal or a phony if he releases his tax returns and the tape of his interview with the New York Times. I predict that there are more bombshells in his tax returns. I predict that he doesn't give much if anything to the disabled and to our veterans. I predict that he told the New York Times that his immigration talk is just that: talk. And I predict that despite his promise to do so, first made over a year ago, he will never ever release his tax returns. Never. Not the returns under audit, not even the returns that are no longer being audited. He has too much to hide. Nor will he authorize the Times to release the tapes. If I'm right, you will have all the proof you need to know that Donald Trump is a phony

Attacking me as he surely will won't prove him any less of a phony. It's entirely in his hands to prove me wrong. All he has to do is to release his back taxes like he promised he would, and let us hear what he said behind closed doors to the New York Times.

Ronald Reagan used to quote a Scottish philosopher who predicted that democracies and civilizations couldn't last more than about 200 years. John Adams wrote this: "Remember, democracy never lasts long. It soon wastes, exhausts, and murders itself. There never was a democracy yet that did not commit suicide." I believe that America has proven these dire predictions wrong for two reasons.

First, we have been blessed with great presidents, with giants among us. Men of character, integrity and selflessness have led our nation from its very beginning. None were perfect: each surely made mistakes. But in every case, they acted out of the desire to do what was right for America and for freedom.

The second reason is because we are blessed with a great people, people who at every critical moment of choosing have put the interests of the country above their own.

These two things are related: our presidents time and again have called on us to rise to the occasion. John F. Kennedy asked us to consider what we could do for our country. Lincoln drew upon the better angels of our nature to save the union.

I understand the anger Americans feel today. In the past, our presidents have channeled that anger, and forged it into resolve, into endurance and high purpose, and into the will to defeat the enemies of freedom. Our anger was transformed into energy directed for good.

Mr. Trump is directing our anger for less than noble purposes. He creates scapegoats of Muslims and Mexican immigrants. He calls for the use of torture and for killing the innocent children and family members of terrorists. He cheers assaults on protesters. He applauds the prospect of twisting the Constitution to limit first amendment freedom of the press. This is the very brand of anger that has led other nations into the abyss.

Here's what I know. Donald Trump is a phony, a fraud. His promises are as worthless as a degree from Trump University. He's playing the American public for suckers: He gets a free ride to the White House and all we get is a lousy hat

His domestic policies would lead to recession. His foreign policies would make America and the world less safe. He has neither the temperament nor the judgment to be president. And his personal qualities would mean that America would cease to be a shining city on a hill.

America has greatness ahead. This is a time for choosing. God bless us to choose a nominee who will make that vision a reality.

That was the end of his statement he gave in 2016

He spoke of Trump being a liar. As I said in my article on February 5^th, Trump lied as many as 6,241 times since he has been in office. Would you want to do business with a man who as lied that many times over a period of four years?

Sen. Mitt Romney voted on the charge of abuse of power, becoming the only Republican to break with the president and his party. 

What follows is his latest statement on Trump.

The Constitution is at the foundation of our Republic’s success, and we each strive not to lose sight of our promise to defend it. The Constitution established the vehicle of impeachment that has occupied both houses of Congress for these many days. We have labored to faithfully execute our responsibilities to it. We have arrived at different judgments, but I hope we respect each other’s good faith.

The allegations made in the articles of impeachment are very serious. As a Senator-juror, I swore an oath, before God, to exercise “impartial justice.” I am a profoundly religious person. I take an oath before God as enormously consequential. I knew from the outset that being tasked with judging the President, the leader of my own party, would be the most difficult decision I have ever faced. I was not wrong.

The House Managers presented evidence supporting their case; the White House counsel disputed that case. In addition, the President’s team presented three defenses: first, that there can be no impeachment without a statutory crime; second, that the Bidens’ conduct justified the President’s actions; and third that the judgement of the President’s actions should be left to the voters. Let me first address each of those defenses.

The historic meaning of the words “high crimes and misdemeanors,” the writings of the Founders and my own reasoned judgement convince me that a president can indeed commit acts against the public trust that are so egregious that while they are not statutory crimes, they would demand removal from office. To maintain that the lack of a codified and comprehensive list of all the outrageous acts that a president might conceivably commit renders Congress powerless to remove a president defies reason.

The President’s counsel noted that Vice President Biden appeared to have a conflict of interest when he undertook an effort to remove the Ukrainian Prosecutor General. If he knew of the exorbitant compensation his son was receiving from a company actually under investigation, the Vice President should have recused himself. While ignoring a conflict of interest is not a crime, it is surely very wrong.

With regards to Hunter Biden, taking excessive advantage of his father’s name is unsavory but also not a crime. Given that in neither the case of the father nor the son was any evidence presented by the President’s counsel that a crime had been committed, the President’s insistence that they be investigated by the Ukrainians is hard to explain other than as a political pursuit. There is no question in my mind that were their names not Biden, the President would never have done what he did.

The defense argues that the Senate should leave the impeachment decision to the voters. While that logic is appealing to our democratic instincts, it is inconsistent with the Constitution’s requirement that the Senate, not the voters, try the president. Hamilton explained that the Founders’ decision to invest senators with this obligation rather than leave it to voters was intended to minimize—to the extent possible—the partisan sentiments of the public.

This verdict is ours to render. The people will judge us for how well and faithfully we fulfilled our duty. The grave question the Constitution tasks senators to answer is whether the President committed an act so extreme and egregious that it rises to the level of a “high crime and misdemeanor. “Yes, he did.”

The President asked a foreign government to investigate his political rival. The President withheld vital military funds from that government to press it to do so. The President delayed funds for an American ally at war with Russian invaders.

The President’s purpose was personal and political. Accordingly, the President is guilty of an appalling abuse of the public trust.

What he did was not “perfect”— No, it was a flagrant assault on our electoral rights, our national security interests, and our fundamental values. Corrupting an election to keep oneself in office is perhaps the most abusive and destructive violation of one’s oath of office that I can imagine.

In the last several weeks, I have received numerous calls and texts. Many demand that, in their words, “I stand with the team.” I can assure you that that thought has been very much on my mind. I support a great deal of what the President has done. I have voted with him 80% of the time. But my promise before God to apply impartial justice required that I put my personal feelings and biases aside. Were I to ignore the evidence that has been presented, and disregard what I believe my oath and the Constitution demands of me for the sake of a partisan end, it would, I fear, expose my character to history’s rebuke and the censure of my own conscience.

I am aware that there are people in my party and in my state who will strenuously disapprove of my decision, and in some quarters, I will be vehemently denounced. I am sure to hear abuse from the President and his supporters. Does anyone seriously believe I would consent to these consequences other than from an inescapable conviction that my oath before God demanded it of me?

I sought to hear testimony from John Bolton not only because I believed he could add context to the charges, but also because I hoped that what he said might raise reasonable doubt and thus remove from me the awful obligation to vote for impeachment.

Like each member of this deliberative body, I love our country. I believe that our Constitution was inspired by Providence. I am convinced that freedom itself is dependent on the strength and vitality of our national character. As it is with each senator, my vote is an act of conviction. We have come to different conclusions, fellow senators, but I trust we have all followed the dictates of our conscience.

I acknowledge that my verdict will not remove the President from office. The results of this Senate Court will in fact be appealed to a higher court: the judgement of the American people. Voters will make the final decision, just as the President’s lawyers have implored. My vote will likely be in the minority in the Senate. But irrespective of these things, with my vote, I will tell my children and their children that I did my duty to the best of my ability, believing that my country expected it of me. I will only be one name among many, no more or less, to future generations of Americans who look at the record of this trial. They will note merely that I was among the senators who determined that what the President did was wrong, grievously wrong.

We’re all footnotes at best in the annals of history. But in the most powerful nation on earth, the nation conceived in liberty and justice, that is distinction enough for any citizen

This was a statement of an honest and sincere politician. He is not one of those Republican senators who like lap dogs; prefer to kiss Trump’s ass so that they will get Trump’s attention.  Mit Romney will also get Trump’s attention but not because he too kissed Trump’s ass but because he kicked Trump’s ass not once but twice.

 I feel sorry for Romney because he isn’t up for re-election for another four years. What is the lone wolf hoping to accomplish when he is surrounded in the Senate by Trump’s toothless lap dogs who and their Senate leader will ignore him?