The Impeachment Theater of the Absurd | |||||||||||
Ironically, by claiming he needs more witnesses, Schumer is admitting that the House impeachment case is insufficient!
| |||||||||||
Mark Alexander | |||||||||||
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." —U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4 (1789) 
In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton outlined the Senate's powers of impeachment, noting: "Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel confidence enough in its own situation, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an individual accused, and the representatives of the people, his accusers."
In 1788, our Founders anticipated that future senators should possess at least a modicum of decency, such that they would be able to judge articles of impeachment on the merits of such charges.
But Hamilton also noted that impeachment would "agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused." He concluded, "In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."
The partisanship that attended the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury (for which he was disbarred) was but a mere shadow of the all-consuming hatred the Democrat Party has for Donald Trump — a partisan hatred fanned and fueled nationwide by their shameless Leftmedia publicists.
And it's within this disgraceful climate that the House of Representatives will vote today, on partisan lines, to refer articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial.
In preparation for that show trial, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared, "I think we're going to get almost entirely partisan impeachment. I would anticipate an almost entirely partisan outcome in the Senate as well."
He added, "Everything I do during this, I'm coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this."
Laughably, McConnell's transparency led a demand from Sen. Chuck Schumer that he "recuse himself" from the entire impeachment proceeding: "Do the American people want Mitch McConnell not to be an impartial juror in this situation? I would ask every one of our Republican colleagues, 'Do you want someone who proudly says they are not impartial to be on a jury, judging high crimes and misdemeanors, serious charges against the president of the United States?' And I would ask every one of my Republican Senate colleagues, 'Are you impartial jurors or are you like Mitch McConnell, proud not to be?'"
McConnell responded to Schumer, "I am not an impartial jury. This is a political process. There's not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision."
Of course, the list of those who most arguably should be recused because of conflict of interest or lack of impartiality starts with the most biased members of the Senate — those Demo candidates hoping to unseat Trump: Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, and Michael Bennet.
Hypothetically, a non-voluntary recusal would require a motion by one senator and would be decided by Chief Justice John Roberts, presiding. His ruling would then be appealed for a full floor vote. But if such a dubious claim were made and a vote called, it would likely result in a domino effect — 99 more votes, with the Republican majority ultimately prevailing by recusing each minority member, one by one.
None of that should happen in the Senate.
But weeks before these howls for McConnell's recusal, I contemplated this recusal issue as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler displayed his historic, long-seething hatred for Trump while presiding over Rep. Adam Schiff's contrived impeachment charges — charges that were devoid of any evidence of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
By "historic," I don't mean since the 2016 election, but since Nadler was in the New York State Assembly 35 years ago.
Back then, their dispute started when Nadler opposed Trump's development of blighted sections of New York, becoming his arch adversary. So contentious was their antipathy for each other that in Trump's 2000 book, The America We Deserve, he singled out Nadler as "one of the most egregious hacks in contemporary politics."
After Trump's election, Nadler posted on his official website a manifesto for the resistance detailing a plan for how to dispose of Trump: "We cannot wait four years to vote Mr. Trump out of office, as members of the GOP Senate and House Majorities have already stated that they will facilitate the Trump agenda. ... So we must do everything we can to stop Trump and his extreme agenda now."
Nadler called for "fierce battles against every regressive action he takes — from personnel appointments to his legislative program — in order to thwart or at least slow them down [and expose] his Republican enablers in Congress, voting them out of office in 2018, with the goal of taking back either the House or the Senate for Democratic control."
"To achieve this," insisted Nadler, "we must keep our eyes on two important goals: depressing Trump's public support and dividing the Congressional GOP from him and from each other."
And Democrats want McConnell to recuse himself?
If the head of the Judiciary Committee were held to a standard even remotely similar to that of a judge, Nadler's vitriolic animus toward Trump would have been grounds for recusal, or even impeachment if necessary. Indeed, a legitimate process would've seen Nadler ousted before the first day's testimony.
In his opening statement last month, Nadler declared: "We cannot rely on an election to solve our problems."
In other words, Nadler and his fellow congressional Democrats cannot rely on the will and the wisdom of the American people. Clearly, they had no intention of doing so — even before Trump took office.
The evidence of their slo-mo coup d'état to take down Trump is now emerging, most notably with the exposure last week of the felonious FBI/FISA fiasco. A handful of Demo deep-state operatives in the FBI and CIA used that subterfuge to seed the Mueller investigation charade, which led to the current double-standard impeachment inquisition parade.
And recall what Nadler said about the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998: "We must not overturn an election and remove a president from office ... without an overwhelming consensus of the American people. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other."
So, after Nadler's predictable party-line committee vote, we now await the next episode of this political theater — a House vote that will most assuredly be a "narrowly voted impeachment ... supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other."
For his part, on the eve of the House vote, Trump issued a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi Tuesday that included the following key points in his typical rhetorical form:
"This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history. The Articles of Impeachment introduced by the House Judiciary Committee are not recognizable under any standard of Constitutional theory, interpretation, or jurisprudence. They include no crimes, no misdemeanors, and no offenses... Your first claim, 'Abuse of Power,' is a completely disingenuous, meritless, and baseless... The second claim, so-called 'Obstruction of Congress,' is preposterous and dangerous. ... Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans of faith by continually saying 'I pray for the President,' when you know this statement is not true... Speaker Pelosi, you admitted just last week at a public forum that your party's impeachment effort has been going on for 'two and a half years,' long before you ever heard about a phone call with Ukraine. ... Before the Impeachment Hoax, it was the Russian Witch Hunt. ... You are the ones interfering in America's elections. You are the ones subverting America's Democracy. You are the ones Obstructing Justice."
Trump continued: "By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on American Democracy. ... You and your party are desperate to distract from America's extraordinary economy, incredible jobs boom, record stock market, soaring confidence, and flourishing citizens. Your party simply cannot compete with our record. ... Any member of Congress who votes in support of impeachment — against every shred of truth, fact, evidence, and legal principle — is showing deeply they revile the voters and how truly they detest America's Constitutional order. ... Our Founders feared the tribalization of partisan politics, and you are bringing their worst fears to life."
And that, fellow Patriots, adequately sums up this sorry affair. And the House vote comes in the same week we learned about the politically motivated FISA court abuses that seeded the whole effort to undermine Trump's presidency.
The House of Representatives has initiated impeachment proceedings more than 60 times since 1789. Of the 19 federal officeholders or officials who've been brought up on impeachment charges, only eight have been convicted — all federal judges. Of the two presidents tried in the Senate — Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton — both had the charges dismissed after the Senate failed to meet its two-thirds majority requirement for conviction.
The Demo charges against Trump will also be dismissed, for the reasons outlined by the president in his letter to Pelosi. But the trivialization of impeachment removes the already low bar on constitutional Rule of Law, creating a menacing threat to Liberty.
In order to keep the Demos' Trump/Russia/Ukraine narrative on life support after the Senate vote, Schumer will continue to claim that Trump is guilty, but that Republicans wouldn't allow his witnesses to prove it. Those would be the same witnesses that the House could have called in its hearings — but didn't in order to provide Schumer his "witness denial" layup. Ironically, by claiming he needs more witnesses, Schumer is admitting that the House impeachment case is insufficient!
In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton described impeachment as a pressure release valve in order to avoid the "crisis of a national revolution." But this round of impeachment, if it were to actually succeed, would most assuredly set up a "crisis of a national revolution."
P.S. Patriots, the most cost-effective investment you can make to ensure the future of Liberty is to support The Patriot Post. We're the Web's most influential grassroots journal for promoting freedom and challenging the dominant Leftmedia narrative. We rely 100% on the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you, so please support our Year-End Campaign today. Thank you.
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776 |
No comments:
Post a Comment