No Images? Click here 20 NOVEMBERWhite House uses Twitter to criticise National Security Council officialThe White House used its official Twitter account on Tuesday to criticise the judgement of National Security Council official Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman as he publicly testified about President Donald Trump's July phone call with Ukraine's president. Vindman was appearing before the House Intelligence Committee to kick off the second week of public impeachment hearings. "What I heard was inappropriate and I reported it. I did so out of a sense of duty," Vindman told the committee. "It was improper for the president of the United States to demand a foreign government investigation of a US citizen and a political opponent.” NEWS WRAPThe Buttigieg bump
![]() The fact of the matter is that, in waging a scorched-earth, no-holds-barred war of ‘resistance’ against this administration, it is the left that is engaged in the systematic shredding of norms and the undermining of the rule of law. US Attorney General William Barr ![]() ANALYSISMalfeasance: A third article of impeachment?Bruce Wolpe It has been clear for some time that the House Intelligence Committee will recommend at least two articles of impeachment against President Trump:
The record the Intelligence Committee is building is formidable and establishes that the president attempted to condition US-Ukraine relations on Ukraine’s direct involvement in activities designed to benefit Trump’s re-election by targeting his chief political opponent. While these two articles of impeachment would capture a substantial part of the activities of President Trump that are subject to examination under the impeachment inquiry resolution adopted by the House in October, they do not reach to one further critical area of activity by the president in violation of his oath of office: The corruption of proper government processes by the establishment of a parallel, shadow foreign policy structure through Rudy Giuliani – a private citizen and personal attorney to Trump – that by-passed and overrode the execution of formal US foreign policy with respect to Ukraine. This is repeatedly documented in the depositions and testimony of Ukraine Acting Ambassador William Taylor, EU Ambassador Gordon Sondland, former ambassador Kurt Volker, national security staff Lt. Col. Arthur Vindman, State Department officer David Holmes (“Our diplomatic policy… became overshadowed by a political agenda being promoted by Rudy Giuliani”) and others. The displacement of the State Department officials and diplomats by the president's personal attorney, and his associates, constitutes malfeasance in office. An article of impeachment on malfeasance would address the corruption of the US government’s official foreign policy processes with respect to Ukraine – all the things Trump, Mulvaney, Secretary of State Pompeo and Secretary of Energy Perry did that were irregular in the conduct of foreign policy towards Ukraine – and capture the activities of Rudy Giuliani, which were expressly encouraged by President Trump (“I will have Mr Giuliani give you a call,” Trump said to Zelensky). A hallmark of aggressive oversight by Congress is to uncover malfeasance by public officials holding high office. From the deliberations of the Founders, “high crimes and misdemeanors” – part of the basis in the Constitution for impeachment – certainly included maladministration of office. While further testimony before the Intelligence and Judiciary Committees will amplify this issue, assessment of an article of impeachment on President Trump’s malfeasance in the conduct of the foreign policy of the United States merits consideration by the Intelligence Committee. DIARYThe week ahead
Manage your email preferences | Forward this email to a friend United States Studies Centre ![]() |