SPONSORED:

Fox News legal analyst: There's 'undisputed evidence' Trump abused his power

Fox News legal analyst Andrew NapolitanoAndrew Peter NapolitanoFox's Napolitano says grand jury erred in Taylor case: 'I would have indicted all three of them' Fox's Napolitano: Supreme Court confirmation hearings will be 'World War III of political battles' Fox's Napolitano: 2000 election will look like 'child's play' compared to 2020 legal battles MORE on Wednesday argued that there is "undisputed evidence" that President TrumpDonald John TrumpUSAID administrator tests positive for COVID-19 Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams among nominees for Time magazine's 2020 Person of the Year DOJ appeals ruling preventing it from replacing Trump in E. Jean Carroll defamation lawsuit MORE abused the power of his office in his dealings with Ukraine, asserting that the "remedy of impeachment is acutely needed" because of it. 

"In Mr. Trump’s case, we have undisputed evidence that he abused his power by inviting a foreign government to interfere in the 2020 presidential election and then compounded this by directing subordinates to refrain from giving congressionally commanded evidence of his behavior," Napolitano, a fierce Trump critic, wrote in a Washington Times op-ed ahead of the House vote on articles of impeachment. 

Napolitano's op-ed focuses largely on the rule of law and how it pertains to a sitting U.S. president. While acknowledging that a sitting president cannot be prosecuted in office, he describes impeachment as a constitutional remedy for behavior that "subverts our democratic institutions."

ADVERTISEMENT

He accuses Trump of fitting this description by soliciting foreign interference in an election and obstructing a subsequent congressional inquiry. 

"It is undisputed that Mr. Trump withheld the delivery of the $391 million in military aid to Ukraine that Congress authorized and ordered and that Mr. Trump himself signed into law," Napolitano wrote. "He said he withheld that aid because he first wanted 'a favor' from the president of Ukraine. The favor, requested by others on Mr. Trump’s behalf, was the announcement of a Ukrainian government criminal investigation of Mr. Trump’s potential political adversary, former Vice President Joe BidenJoe BidenHarris says she has 'not yet' spoken to Pence Kamala Harris, Stacey Abrams among nominees for Time magazine's 2020 Person of the Year Obama: Republican Party members believe 'white males are victims' MORE."

He goes on to describe Trump's request of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky as a "shakedown" to serve Trump's own personal goals. He also accuses the president of committing bribery by conditioning military aid on the announcement of the investigations. 

Lastly, Napolitano alleges that Trump committed obstruction by directing subordinates to ignore congressional subpoenas. 

"Everyone who believes in the rule of law should be terrified of a president who thinks and behaves as if it does not apply to him," he wrote. "As the [Department of Justice] has stated repeatedly, impeachment is the proper constitutional remedy for that."

ADVERTISEMENT

Napolitano has repeatedly described Trump's dealings with Ukrainian officials as "criminal" and "impeachable." In late November, he said in an interview that Democrats could unveil articles of impeachment for bribery, high crimes and misdemeanors, and obstruction of justice. 

The House is set to vote on Wednesday on articles of impeachment charging Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. Nearly every Democrat in the lower chamber is expected to vote in favor of the articles, which will make Trump just the third president in U.S. history to be impeached. 

The vote will follow an inquiry focused largely on allegations that Trump pushed Ukraine to open politically beneficial investigations and tied military aid to the announcement of the probes. 

Trump has adamantly dismissed charges of wrongdoing, often describing his conversations with Zelensky as "perfect." Republican lawmakers have also vehemently criticized the impeachment proceedings, repeatedly decrying the process as unfair.