17 Former Watergate Special Prosecutors Pen Op-Ed On Why Trump Should Be Impeached

Seventeen Watergate special prosecutors have together for one purpose; to tell the American people why President Trump should be impeached. 

The authors are mostly Democrats, and include a CNN Legal Analyst, former officials in the Clinton and Carter administrations (one of whom got the Illinois Attorney General to assign a special prosecutor to investigate her veterinarian after her Dalmatian died), a DNC donor, a Dianne Feinstein donor, a Mitt Romney donor who had lots of misguided thoughts on the Mueller investigation, and others whose politics are quite clear.

Their argument? 

Trump has "demonstrated serious and persistent abuses of power that, in our view, satisfy the constitutional standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors.”"

In largely unsupported broad brush strokes, they offer a polished version of several Democrat talking points - many of which are incorrect or have been debunked by a simple reading of the underlying evidence.

For example, the authors write that Trump "appears to have demanded that Ukraine investigate a potential 2020 political opponent and pursue the conspiracy theory that Ukraine had interfered in the 2016 presidential election, despite the unanimous conclusion of the U.S. intelligence community that it was Russia that had interfered.

Apparently they didn't read the Trump-Zelensky transcript which makes crystal clear nothing was "demanded." Zelensky himself has said as much multiple times, including a Thursday statement that there  was "no blackmail" which occurred during the call with Trump. Moreover, Zelensky says he had no idea the United States withheld nearly $400 million in military aid while the Trump administration investigated Ukrainian corruption. The authors, all 17 of them, fail to mention this. 

They then repeat the notion that a well-documented effort by a Clinton/DNC operative to harm the Trump campaign with the assistance of a Ukrainian official and US journalist Michael Isikoff, which was deemed illegal by a Ukrainian court, is a "conspiracy theory." 

And in a serious case of misdirection, the authors imply that only one country can meddle in an election at the same time. 

The authors then point to 'evidence laid out in the Mueller report' that Trump engaged in multiple acts of obstruction of justice - and committed further obstruction by 'systematically withholding evidence and directing government agencies and employees to refuse to cooperate' with what the authors deem "legitimate oversight by Congress" (led by Rep. Adam Schiff, whose office worked with a CIA officer 'whistleblower' that worked with Joe Biden and flipped out when they learned that Trump wanted Biden investigated for corruption). 

Oh, and the whistleblower was assisted by a former staffer to Obama's Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper. 

Read their arguments below: 

● Trump conditioned protection of the military security of the United States and of an ally (Ukraine) on actions for his personal political benefit.

● Trump subordinated the integrity of our national electoral process to his own personal political interest by soliciting and encouraging foreign government interference in our electoral process, including by Russia and China. He also appears to have demanded that Ukraine investigate a potential 2020 political opponent and pursue the conspiracy theory that Ukraine had interfered in the 2016 presidential election, despite the unanimous conclusion of the U.S. intelligence community that it was Russia that had interfered.

● According to the evidence laid out in the Mueller report, Trump engaged in multiple acts of obstruction of justice in violation of federal criminal statutes and of his oath of office to “take care that the laws be faithfully executed.” Because Mueller viewed Justice Department policy as precluding him from filing criminal charges against the president, the special counsel appropriately stated that these abuses are for Congress to address.

● Trump obstructed lawful congressional investigations by systematically withholding evidence and by directing government agencies and employees to refuse to cooperate with legitimate oversight by Congress. Most significantly, the president’s blanket refusal to honor requests for relevant information sought by House members conducting an impeachment inquiry constitutes impeachable contempt and obstruction. The public is entitled to know the facts, and Congress is the body our democracy has entrusted with uncovering them. -Washington Post

Perhaps they can opine on why Nancy Pelosi hasn't called a formal impeachment inquiry vote, if the evidence is so overwhelming.