Congresswoman Sheila Jackson Lee, a senior member of the House Committees on Judiciary, Homeland Security, and Budget, issued this statement after hosting an impeachment discussion, following revelations that the President solicited a foreign power for the purposes of manufacturing or procuring derogatory political information against his political rival, Joe Biden:

“On Wednesday evening, I held an impeachment discussion for my constituents, the residents of the Eighteenth Congressional District, entitled Remember the Constitution: The Constitutional Basis for Impeachment. The purpose of the meeting was simple—to highlight the egregious and seemingly endless abuses of power from this president and to discuss the constitutional remedies in the face of such an abuse of power. My guests at the impeachment discussion were two lawyers with deep knowledge of the impeachment process, and constitutional law: Professor Martin Levy, a professor of Law at the Thurgood Marshall School of Law at Texas Southern University; and, John Dean, former White House Counsel during the administration of President Richard M. Nixon.

“The goal of the evening was to communicate with my constituents and share with them the insight I have as a Senior Member of the House Judiciary Committee, and as one of a select handful of members who participated in the 1998 impeachment proceedings and one who will be among the first to consider and declare whether this president betrayed his oath of office, thereby warranting removal. The event was heavily attended and heard the words that were first uttered by Benjamin Franklin so many years ago, after the adoption of the Constitution: that the framers of the Constitution had formed a republic—if we could keep it. I held yesterday’s impeachment discussion because I believe we are at an inflection point in our nation. This admonition was prescient because it is the responsibility of this republic’s citizens to safeguards the provisions of the constitution to ensure that this government remains one of, by and for the people. This is an important point because, as I remarked at the impeachment discussion, much of our federal Constitution is a response to life under monarchy, in England, from which we declared independence. The experience of our nation’s founders and the Framers of the Constitution compelled them to place within our national charter a provision to remove an executive who abused his power.

“Professor Martin Levy is a scholar in legal academia who gave an invaluable perspective to many constitutional concepts which form the basis of our current predicament. First and foremost was the immediate task of giving parameters and contours to the term of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which Professor Levy artfully explained to mean an abuse of power. With the insight of former White House Counsel John Dean, my constituents heard from a lawyer who knows all too well of the perils that a corrupt president can have on the office of the President, and can have on a nation. Mr. Dean has been generous with his insight, and has appeared before the House Judiciary Committee to offer his insight. He appeared yesterday evening to offer his perspective and offer the parallels between the impeachment inquiry enveloping the current president, with what he saw as a cancer on the presidency during the 1970s. Mr. Dean contributed greatly to our understanding of a White House’s response to the House’s Impeachment inquiry. Earlier this week, the White House sent a rambling, eight-page letter to the House of Representatives, castigating the House’s impeachment inquiry as illegitimate. To that, Mr. Dean correctly remarked that the letter was an “embarrassing document.” He further remarked that the substances of the arguments were both “weak and inflammatory.”

“As has been the tradition of our republic, we have enshrined a first amendment, which permits the free exercise of speech. And yesterday, that tradition was alive and well, as the event was also attended by a very small number of individuals who dissent from the House’s decision to hold an impeachment inquiry. Fortunately, relying on my expertise as a scholar and student of constitutional law, I was able to explain to these dissenters that, as per the Constitution, the House of Representatives enjoys the sole power of impeachment and, accordingly, the inquiry could proceed without the strictures of a vote at the beginning. Moreover, as further support of the position that the White House’s claim is specious, Mr. Dean underscored that the House enjoys the sole power of impeachment and that it was not for a branch of government, the Executive, to dictate to another coordinate coequal branch, the Legislature, as to how to conduct an inquiry whose sole power the Legislature enjoys.

“As the impeachment inquiry of this president who believes he is above the law and does not believe in the rule of law unfolds and proceeds, I intend to host more dialogues like the one from yesterday evening, which was attended by hundreds of my constituents, and viewed online by many thousands more. As this impeachment inquiry takes shape, I will be returning to Washington to continue vigorous oversight of this president to definitely conclude whether this president committed the abuse of power of which Professor Levy spoke, and whether removal from office is the appropriate remedy, as was determined for the president under whom John Dean served, before that president resigned in disgrace.”