LindseyGraham.com




Today, I voted to acquit President Donald Trump on both articles
of impeachment in the United States Senate.











Dear John,

Today, I voted to acquit President Donald Trump on both articles
of impeachment in the United States Senate.

First, I am glad the Senate soundly rejected impeachment and did
not remove President Trump from office.

The articles of impeachment brought to the Senate from the
Democrats in the House of Representatives represent an assault on
the presidency itself and the weaponization of impeachment as a
political tool.

I also believe that the impeachment effort was driven by a level
of partisanship and 'Ends Justify the Means' behavior the
American people have rejected.

The proper way to end this matter was a vote to acquit and allow
the American people to vote for or against President Trump in
November - not to remove him from office and prevent him from
running for reelection.

Finally, I have detailed my views below if you want additional
information about how I reached my decision on this important
vote.

Sincerely,



Lindsey Graham
United States Senator





THE PROCESS USED IN THE HOUSE TO CONSTRUCT THE ARTICLES OF
IMPEACHMENT WAS FLAWED:

I feel compelled to condemn the impeachment process used in the
House of Representatives because I believe it was devoid of
basic, fundamental due process.

This impeachment was completed within 78 days and had a spirit of
partisanship and revenge that, if accepted by the Senate, would
lead to the weaponization of impeachment against future
presidents.

In the House of Representatives:

President Trump was entirely shut out of the evidence gathering
stage in the House Intelligence Committee.

President Trump was denied the right to counsel, right to
cross-examine, and right to call witnesses.

Much of the evidence gathered against President Trump by the
House Intelligence Committee consisted of inadmissible hearsay.

The House Judiciary Committee Impeachment hearings were, for lack
of a better term, a sham.

More importantly, during the Senate trial the House managers
admitted the reason they did not seek testimony from President
Trump's closest advisers - former National Security Adviser John
Bolton, Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, and Acting Chief of Staff
Mick Mulvaney - was because it would have required them to go to
court and slowed their effort to impeach President Trump before
the presidential election began.

It was a calculated decision to deal the courts out of President
Trump's impeachment inquiry due to a political timetable.

With today's Senate vote to acquit President Trump, I hope the
Senate has sent a clear message that this should never, ever
happen again.

THE CASE AGAINST THE ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT:

As to the substance of the allegations against President Trump:

The Obstruction of Congress article is literally impeaching the
President because he chose to follow the advice of the White
House Counsel, the Department of Justice and was willing to use
constitutional privileges in a manner consistent with every other
president.

This article should be soundly rejected, not only in this case,
but also in the future. Whether one likes President Trump or not,
he is the president and has privileges attached to his office. To
impeach him for exercising those privileges is unprecedented.

The Abuse of Power article of impeachment is beyond vague, does
not allege criminal misconduct, and requires the Senate to engage
in a subjective analysis of President Trump's motives and
actions. It also represents an existential threat to the
presidency.

The House managers argued the sole and exclusive purpose of
freezing aid to Ukraine was for the private, political benefit of
President Trump. It is clear to me that there is ample evidence
that the actions of Hunter Biden and Vice President Biden were
inappropriate and undercut American foreign policy.

Moreover, there was evidence in the record that officials in
Ukraine were actively speaking against candidate Trump and were
pulling for former Secretary of State Clinton. Based on the
overwhelming amount of evidence of inappropriate behavior by the
Bidens and statements by State Department officials about certain
Ukrainians' beliefs that one American candidate would be better
than the other would, I found it eminently reasonable for the
President to be concerned about corruption in Ukraine, election
interference, and the behavior of Vice President Biden and his
son, Hunter.

It remains hard for me to believe that Vice President Biden was
an effective messenger for reform efforts in Ukraine while his
son Hunter was receiving $3 million from Burisma, one of
Ukraine's most corrupt companies.

It is obvious to me that after the Mueller Report, President
Trump viewed the House impeachment inquiry as a gross double
standard when it comes to investigations. The House launched an
investigation into his phone call with President Zelensky. At the
same time, the House showed no interest in the actions of Vice
President Biden and Hunter Biden.

The President, in my view, was justified in asking the Ukrainians
to look into the circumstances surrounding the firing of
Ukrainian Prosecutor General Viktor Shokin, who was investigating
Burisma, and whether his termination benefited Hunter Biden and
Burisma.

It is clear to me that the phone call focused on burden sharing,
corruption, and election interference in an appropriate manner.
The most vexing question was how President Trump was supposed to
deal with these legitimate concerns.

THE HOUSE DOUBLE STANDARD:

The House managers suggest that President Trump could not have
asked the Attorney General to investigate these concerns because
that would be equivalent to President Trump asking for an
investigation of a political rival. However, in the next moment,
the House managers declare the proper way for President Trump to
deal with those allegations would have been to ask the Attorney
General to investigate.

They cannot have it both ways.

I believe that it is fair to criticize President Trump's
over-reliance on his private attorney, Rudy Giuliani, to
investigate alleged corruption and conflicts of interest
regarding the Bidens and Burisma. However, I do not find this to
be a remotely impeachable offense and believe it would be
beneficial for the country to find other ways to deal with such
matters in the future.

HOUSE IMPEACHMENT CASE DOES NOT MEET REMOVAL STANDARD:

Assuming the facts - in the light most favorable to the House
managers - that for a period of time the aid was suspended by
President Trump to get Ukraine to investigate the Bidens and
election interference, I find both articles fail as impeachable
offenses.

I find this to be the case even if we assume additional facts
from Mr. Bolton are accurate.

The simple fact is the Ukrainians received the military aid and
did not open the requested investigation.

The allegations contained in this impeachment are not what the
Founding Fathers had in mind as high crimes or misdemeanors. Our
Founding Fathers, in my view, envisioned serious, criminal
misconduct that would shake the foundation of the American
constitutional system.

The Nixon Impeachment had broad, bipartisan support once the
facts were revealed. The Clinton Impeachment started with
bipartisan support in the House and ended with bipartisan support
in the Senate, even though it fell well short of the two-thirds
vote required to remove a president.

I hope my decision to vote not guilty on both articles of
impeachment is seen as a rejection of WHAT the House of
Representatives did and HOW they did it.

To remove a President from office requires conduct that shakes
the very foundation of our constitutional system.

This impeachment effort fell far short of that high standard.






















Paid For By Team Graham, Inc.

This message was intended for: [email protected]
You were added to the system June 27, 2019.
Update your email delivery preferences or opt out:
[link removed]