HRES 1211

Whereas President Trump was wrongfully accused of misconduct in House Resolution 755, 116th Congress, Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high crimes and misdemeanors, as demonstrated by the newly declassified evidence that shows the anonymous whistleblower, whose complaint the Democrats based their case on, had no firsthand knowledge of the events at hand and was politically biased against President Trump;

Whereas the anonymous whistleblower told Intelligence Community Inspector General (ICIG) investigators the whistleblower did not have direct knowledge of President Trump’s July 2019 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky that served as the basis for the 2019 impeachment;

Whereas ICIG investigators discovered the anonymous whistleblower displayed indicia of an arguable political bias against President Trump;

Whereas according to interviews conducted by the ICIG, another biased intelligence community official (Witness 2) helped the anonymous whistleblower craft the complaint against President Trump;

Whereas Witness 2 coauthored the now-debunked 2017 Intelligence Community Assessment that falsely alleged Russia interfered in the 2016 presidential election for the purpose of helping President Trump;

Whereas Witness 2 previously worked alongside disgraced former Federal Bureau of Investigation (FBI) agent Peter Strzok who was removed from the FBI after leading politically biased investigations against the Trump campaign and sending text messages in which he made numerous derogatory remarks about President Trump and conservative Americans and expressed a desire to use his position at the FBI to prevent President Trump from winning the 2016 election;

Whereas the then-Democrat chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence fabricated evidence of President Trump’s phone conversation with President Zelensky in a public hearing;

Whereas the then-Democrat chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence falsely stated that he did not know the identity of the anonymous whistleblower, despite evidence that the whistleblower had met privately with his staff;

Whereas the then-Democrat chairman of the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence refused to allow the anonymous whistleblower to testify during the impeachment proceedings, depriving Members the ability to assess the motivation and credibility of the anonymous whistleblower’s allegations;

Whereas President Trump was denied the right to confront his accusers with the exculpatory evidence contained in the newly declassified documents;

Whereas, on January 13, 2021, the House of Representatives passed H. Res. 24, 117th Congress, Agreeing to Article I of the Resolution Impeaching Donald John Trump, President of the United States, for high Crimes and Misdemeanors, by a vote of 232 Yeas, 197 Nays, and 4 Not Voting;

Whereas the consideration of the Resolution by the House of Representatives failed to follow any meaningful legislative process and denied any semblance of due process;

Whereas not a single evidentiary hearing on the Resolution was held, no witnesses were heard, and no process or opportunity to respond was provided to President Trump;

Whereas no Members of Congress were provided an opportunity to review or amend the Resolution before it came before the full House of Representatives for consideration;

Whereas Democrats on the House Committee on the Judiciary released a staff report, but did not consider, debate, vote on, or issue an official Committee Report, via regular order, for H. Res. 24;

Whereas Democrats on the Committee on the Judiciary, by departing from regular order, prevented the minority from presenting dissenting views on the Resolution;

Whereas House Democrats passed H. Res. 24 only 2 days after it was introduced, without factfinding or meaningful deliberation;

Whereas House Democrats’ snap impeachment ran contrary to fundamental principles of due process;

Whereas unsurprisingly, 31 days passed before the Senate held a vote and refused to convict President Trump, 23 days after he had left office; and

Whereas as further indication of the partisan political motivations behind the Resolution, once the Article of Impeachment was passed by the House of Representatives and transmitted to the Senate, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court refused to serve as the presiding officer for the trial, as required by section 3 of article I of the Constitution, and instead the Senate President pro tempore, Senator Pat Leahy, a Democrat from Vermont, served as the presiding officer, perfecting the entirety of the process as nothing more than an unconstitutional exercise in futility, moot, and fantastical political theater: Now, therefore, be it