This is the third of a series of commentaries on the 2020 election process by C. Augustus Landis.
From the moment of Trump’s election, the priority of the Democrat Socialists, in concert with comrades in main street media, has been to deny the legitimacy of the 2016 election by removal from office and to prevent re-election in 2020. First by allegation of collusion with the Russians and, when that failed, articles of impeachment alleging abuse of power and obstruction of Congress which has also failed.
Irrespective of the lacuna of reason or evidence of impeachable offense, in the final analysis, we are witnessing the worst fears of founders as written by Hamilton and Madison and opined in Federalist Papers… passions of factions. I watched at least 90-95% of the House and Senate proceedings… ad hominin, ad infinitum, ad nauseum. Because the Constitution is the governing document for impeachment, I decided my focus would be on constitutional issues.
After the 2016 election, the Democrat party asserted the election of Trump was not legitimate and the Washington Post instantly proclaimed in headline… “The campaign to impeach Trump has begun.” It was, therefore, necessary to revisit some of the books in my library that would be helpful in understanding the broader and particular Constitutional issues that would arise; a from Burke to Kirk kind of approach and including newer Constitutional scholars such as Akhil Amar (America’s Unwritten Constitution), Eric Foner (The Second Founding), and (of course) the Federalist Papers with commentary of Edward Earle of Institute for advanced Study at Princeton, 1937, which I bought in 1958 when involved in a McCarty era issue. A must read for the Jacobin/Taliban wing of the Democrat party.
At Senate trial, President’s defense was largely based on Constitutional issues of due process and alleged offenses in Articles were not impeachable. Here, I set aside all issues related to Democrats assertion of “ overwhelming and convincing evidence” of guilt for the simple reason that if the impeachment was Constitutionally flawed, ipso facto, the argument for impeachment was flawed.
Preeminent Constitutional scholars, Professors Alan Dershowitz, Kenneth Starr, and Jonathan Turley, made the case the Democrat case for impeachment is fatally flawed and acquittal:
First, the framers of the Constitution greatest fear was of the passions of a majority faction in the legislature. The Trump impeachment was totally partisan from beginning to end and as evidenced from every vote cast at hearings.
Second, the Constitution gives the House power to impeach, but Speaker Pelosi only announced at a press conference that she had appointed Rep. Adam Schiff to begin an impeachment inquiry. The House did not vote on this as required nor did the House grant Schiff power to issue subpoenas for witnesses and documents. When White House, DOJ, Dept. of State, and Office of Management and Budget refused to comply with subpoenas based upon the flaw of failure to comply with Constitutional requirement and Supreme Court opinions that advisors were immune from subpoenas, Democrats falsely established the narrative of Trump abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. In effect, the Democrats were asserting the privileges and immunities provided by the Constitution for the Executive branch were obstruction of Congress. In fact this was an abuse by Congress, as charged by Constitutional law authority, professor Jonathan Turley. The Constitution provides remedy by courts but Schiff, unsuccessfully, decided to shift that burden to Senate at trial.
Third, due process. In both Schiff’s and Nadler’s (Judiciary) hearings, President’s/Republican right to due process was denied: witnesses for President, counsel for President, and right of cross examination denied. Depositions were in a secret bunker in basement of Capitol where attendance was restricted and selected leaks were provided by Schiff to favored media.
Fourth. While Starr made a convincing case that the House Articles were “dripping” with flaws, and Turley established that House was abusing power exactly as they alleged against Trump, it was Dershowitz who made the most succinct and salient case against impeachment.
Dershowitz asserted that House Articles were “dangerous and wrong” and “neither of the Articles alleging an abuse of power or obstruction of Congress were even remotely close to impeachable offences as the framers intended.” Further, Manager Adam Schiff picked “ the most dangerous possible criteria to serve as precedent” for impeachment. Further explaining “all future presidents who serve with opposing legislative majorities face the threat of enduring vague charges of abuse and obstruction.” He produced a long list of Presidents who had been accused of abuse of power and under Schiff’s criteria would have been impeached: Washington ( Jay’s Treaty), Jefferson (Louisiana Purchase), John Adams (Alien and Sedition Act), Lincoln (suspension of habeas corpus), to name a few.
Whereas the Constitution speaks to treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors, the Democrat argument is that abuse of power and obstruction of Congress is equivalent even though no crime is alleged and the Johnson, Nixon, and Clinton impeachments did charge crimes. The noted Constitutional scholars (Dershowitz, Starr, and Turley) asserted that absent enumeration and definition of these allegations in the Constitution, or commission of a crime, the impeachment is fatally flawed.
If there was conviction by Senate, this would set the precedent that any opposing majority in the legislative branch could define an abuse or obstruction, remove a President from office, fundamentally alter the balance in the tree branches, and shred the Constitution.
From the beginning, it was known that the Impeachment was a totally partisan initiative by Democrats and a Republican majority in Senate would prevent conviction. This, together with Democrats demand for more documents and witnesses, gives credibility to belief that purpose was to keep the game going throughout the 2 020 election process. Pelosi and Schumer say the do not accept acquittal. Schiff says the 2020 election is presumptively invalid and believes Trump will sell Alaska back to the Russians for their help in his re-election.
The leitmotif of the Democrat party is contumelious…ad hominem, ad nauseum, ad infinitum.
As Reagan said, with all the guano that has piled up, there has to be a pony in there some place; yes,…four more years and one more Supreme Court appointment.
Paul Plante says
Very interesting commentary, but in some ways incomplete, or mistaken, especially with regard to the subject of due process of law, which truly does not exist in the case of a presidential impeachment by the House of Representatives as was made incandescently clear in the impeachment of Democrat Andy Johnson in 1868 by the Radical Republicans then in control of the House of Representatives.
On Feb. 21, 1868, it was alleged that Johnson violated the Tenure of Office Act when he issued an order without consent of Congress to remove Edwin Stanton from the office of Secretary of War, and on that very same day, Republican U.S. Rep. John Covode of Pennsylvania stood up in the House of Representatives and introduced a resolution to impeach the president by saying I impeach Andrew Johnson!”
As our long-forgotten American history (it did happen before this morning, afterall) tells us, or used to, anyway, back when we actually had a history, Covode’s resolution was introduced on a Friday and when Congress reconvened after the weekend on Feb. 24, they voted for the first time in U.S. history to impeach the president.
BANG!
Just like that.
A president, or political party, for that matter, gets no “due process” of law in the House than does a person accused of a crime gets in the grand jury chambers.
Due process starts once the indictment or Articles of Impeachment are handed down, not before, and yes, I am very familiar with criminal procedure law.
The House could have impeached Trump in about two minutes or less by just one congressperson like John Covode standing up to blurt out “I impeach Donald J. Trump,” followed by the vote of the House, just the same way a district attorney can get a ham sandwich indicted by the grand jury for murdering a pig,
I’m surprised they didn’t charge Trump with stealing chickens, myself.
As to impeachment, in the Preface to HISTORY OF THE IMPEACHMENT OF ANDREW JOHNSON PRESIDENT OF THE UNITED STATES BY THE HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES AND HIS TRIAL BY THE SENATE FOR HIGH CRIMES AND MISDEMEANORS IN OFFICE 1868 by Edmund G. Ross, David B. Hill writes thusly:
Little is now known to the general public of the history of the attempt to remove President Andrew Johnson in 1868, on his impeachment by the House of Representatives and trial by the Senate for alleged high crimes and misdemeanors in office, or of the causes that led to it.
Yet it was one of the most important and critical events, involving possibly the gravest consequences, in the entire history of the country.
The constitutional power to impeach and remove the President had lain dormant since the organization of the Government, and apparently had never been thought of as a means for the satisfaction of political enmities or for the punishment of alleged executive misdemeanors, even in the many heated controversies between the President and Congress that had theretofore arisen.
Nor would any attempt at impeachment have been made at that time but for the great numerical disparity then existing between the respective representatives in Congress of the two political parties of the country.
A new generation is now in control of public affairs and the destinies of the Nation have fallen to new hands.
New issues have developed and will continue to develop from time to time; and new dangers will arise, with increasing numbers and changing conditions, demanding in their turn the same careful scrutiny, wisdom and patriotism in adjustment.
But the principles that underlie and constitute the basis of our political organism, are and will remain the same; and will never cease to demand constant vigilance for their perpetuation as the rock of safety upon which our federative system is founded.
To those who in the study of the country’s past seek a broader and higher conception of the duties of American citizenship, the facts pertaining to the controversy between the Executive and Congress as to the restoration and preservation of the Union, set out in the following pages, will be interesting and instructive.
end quotes
In the book itself, the author, Edmund Gibson Ross, December 7, 1826 – May 8, 1907, a politician who represented Kansas after the American Civil War and was later governor of the New Mexico Territory, and whose vote as the seventh of seven Republican U.S. Senators to break with his party against convicting President Andrew Johnson of “high crimes and misdemeanors” allowed Johnson to stay in office by the margin of one vote, stated thusly as to his opinion as to why Andy Johnson was impeached by the House in this short sentence, to wit:
This (Johnson’s views on reconstruction after Lincoln was assassinated) did not comport with the purposes of the Congressional faction (Radical Republicans) that had opposed Mr. Lincoln’s plans, which faction, under the pressure of the general indignation over his murder, quickly rose to the absolute control of Congress.
end quotes
In CHAPTER 1. — THE PROBLEM OF RECONSTRUCTION – MR. LINCOLN’S PLAN, the author who was alive at the time wrote as follows:
As to the success of Mr. Lincoln’s plans, had they been sanctioned, or even had they not been repudiated by Congress, Mr. Blaine, in his book, asserts that Mr. Lincoln, “By his four years of considerate and successful administration, by his patient and positive trust in the ultimate triumph of the Union, realized at last as he stood upon the edge of the grave — he had acquired so complete an ascendancy over the public, control in the loyal states, that ANY POLICY MATURED AND ANNOUNCED BY HIM WOULD HAVE BEEN ACCEPTED BY A VAST MAJORITY OF HIS COUNTRYMEN.”
It was indicative of the sagacious foresight of Mr. Lincoln that he did not call the Congress into special session at the close of the war, as would have been natural and usual, before attempting the establishment of any method for the restoration of the revolted States.
The fact that he did not do so, but was making preparations to proceed immediately in that work on his own lines and in accordance with his own ideas, and with the hearty accord of his entire Cabinet, of itself affords proof that he was apprehensive of obstruction from the same element of his party that subsequently arose in opposition to Mr. Johnson on that question, and that he preferred to put his plans into operation before the assembling of Congress in the next regular winter session, in order that he might be able then to show palpable results, and induce Congress to accept and follow up a humane, peaceful and satisfactory system of reconstruction.
Mr. Lincoln undoubtedly hoped thus to avoid unnecessary friction.
Having the quite unlimited confidence of the great mass of the people of the country, of both parties and on both sides of the line of hostilities, there seem to be excellent reasons for believing that he would have succeeded, and that the extraordinary and exasperating differences and local turmoils that followed the drastic measures which were afterward adopted by Congress over the President’s vetoes, would have been in a very large degree avoided, and THERE WOULD HAVE BEEN NO IMPEACHMENT — either of Mr. Lincoln had he lived, or of Mr. Johnson after him.
It was the misfortune of the time, and of the occasion, which determined Mr. Lincoln to institute a plan of restoration during the interim of Congress, that the Republican party, then in absolute control of Congress, was in no sense equipped for such a work.
end quotes
Are there any lessons for us in our times in any of that?
Charle Landis says
My reference to “due process” was as repeatedly asserted by Republicans in House hearings, not as to a criminal indictment or trial…process according to House rules or precedents… process that allows for representation of president, witnesses, and cross examination.
Yr. obt. svnt.
Paul Plante says
Except, Mr. Landis, there is no such thing in the House of Representatives as process according to House rules or precedents that allows for representation of president, witnesses, and cross examination, and with all due respect to yourself, Sir, the concept in a NATION OF LAWS with a Constitution which guarantees We, the People, SEPARATION OF POWERS, the concept that there would be such rules in the House is frankly ludicrous, as it would imply that the executive in fact answers to the House of Representatives, and more specifically, Hollywood, California Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff, who is actually making a blatant attempt right out in plain sight of everybody in the nation, including these so-called “Preeminent Constitutional scholars,” Professors Alan Dershowitz, Kenneth Starr, and Jonathan Turley, to subvert OUR Constitution and PERVERT its meaning and intent so as to strip the executive of executive authority granted to the executive by OUR Constitution, and instead, vest the House of Representatives with that power, which would make the president a eunuch and the House all powerful in OUR federal government.
As to usurpation of power by Adam Schiff in violation of OUR Constitutional SEPARATION OF POWERS, or arrogating power unto himself, let us go to his formal prosecutorial “charge sheet” which got this IMPEACHMENT CIRCUS formally started, where CHIEF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Schiff detailed to the House what he believed Trump’s many high crimes and misdemeanors were, and what evidence in the record thus assembled supported those charges, to wit:
The President’s Scheme Unraveled
By early September, President Zelensky was ready to make a public announcement of the two investigations to secure a White House meeting and the military assistance his country desperately needed.
He proceeded to book an interview on CNN during which he could make such an announcement, but other events soon intervened.
On September 9, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committees on Oversight and Reform, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs announced an investigation into the scheme by President Trump and his personal attorney, Mr. Giuliani “to improperly pressure the Ukrainian government to assist the President’s bid for reelection.”
The Committees sent document production and preservation requests to the White House and the State Department related to the investigation.
NSC staff members believed this investigation might have had “the effect of releasing the hold” on Ukraine military assistance because it would have been “potentially politically challenging” to “justify that hold.”
Later that day, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) sent a letter to Chairman Schiff and Ranking Member Nunes notifying the Committee that a whistleblower had filed a complaint on August 12 that the ICIG had determined to be both an “urgent concern” and “credible.”
end quotes
And WHOA, hold on, can we get a read-back, Your Honor?
And my goodness, yes, Adam Schiff did indeed state there that on 9 September 2019, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) had sent a letter to him, Congressman Adam Schiff, notifying Adam, a Congressman, that a whistleblower had filed a complaint on August 12 that the ICIG had determined to be both an “urgent concern” and “credible.”
Which has me personally, and this is as an American citizen who never had his mind twisted or perverted at Harvard by “constitutional scholars” such as JURIS doctor Larry tribe, saying HMMMMMM to myself, because according to its website, the IG of the Intelligence Community DOES NOT report to Adam Schiff, to wit:
The Inspector General Act of 1978 created Inspectors General for federal agencies and provides broad authorities for overseeing programs, promoting efficiencies, and detecting fraud, waste, and mismanagement throughout the federal government.
The 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act formally established the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.
In accordance with Title 50 U.S.C.A. Section 3033, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) conducts independent and objective audits, investigations, inspections, and reviews to promote economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and integration across the Intelligence Community.
The ICIG does so with integrity, professionalism, and independence.
We conduct our mission free of external influence and provide objective assessments, findings, and conclusions, regardless of political or personal consequence.
end quotes
Ah, yes, I see, I see, but what I don’t yet see is the part where the Inspector General runs to Adam Schiff with anonymous gossip about the executive right when Adam Schiff was getting ready to investigate the same executive, but let’s keep looking, in case I missed something, and we can best do that by referring to 50 U.S.C.A. § 3033, Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, effective: December 18, 2015, to wit:
(c) Inspector General of the Intelligence Community
(1) There is an Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, who shall be the head of the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.
end quotes
HUH?
Wow, I thought he was appointed by Adam Schiff to keep watch over the president and to report to Adam all the dirt he was able to gather on Trump in order to help Adam get rid of Trump so Adam can be president.
So what it is the IG of the Intelligence Community is supposed to be doing when he isn’t gathering dirt on Trump for Adam Schiff?
Let’s go back to the law and see:
(b) Purpose
The purpose of the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community is–
(1) to create an objective and effective office, appropriately accountable to Congress, to initiate and conduct independent investigations, inspections, audits, and reviews on programs and activities within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence;
(2) to provide leadership and coordination and recommend policies for activities designed–
(A) to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration and implementation of such programs and activities; and
(B) to prevent and detect fraud and abuse in such programs and activities;
(3) to provide a means for keeping the Director of National Intelligence fully and currently informed about–
(A) problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of programs and activities within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence; and
(B) the necessity for, and the progress of, corrective actions; and
(4) in the manner prescribed by this section, to ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept similarly informed of–
(A) significant problems and deficiencies relating to programs and activities within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence; and
(B) the necessity for, and the progress of, corrective actions.
end quotes
Except the programs and activities within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence are as follows according to its website as follows:
The Director of National Intelligence serves as the head of the Intelligence Community, overseeing and directing the implementation of the National Intelligence Program budget and serving as the principal advisor to the President, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council for intelligence matters related to national security.
Working together with the Principal Deputy DNI and with the assistance of Mission Managers and Deputy Directors, the Office of the DNI’s goal is to effectively integrate foreign, military and domestic intelligence in defense of the homeland and of United States interests abroad.
LEADING THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY
The U.S. Intelligence Community is a coalition of 17 agencies and organizations, including the ODNI.
The IC agencies fall within the Executive Branch, and work both independently and collaboratively to gather and analyze the intelligence necessary to conduct foreign relations and national security activities.
IC elements
The IC’s mission is to provide timely, insightful, objective, and relevant intelligence to inform decisions on national security issues and events.
The DNI executes the IC’s mission through decision making bodies, IC strategies, IC budget and resource management, development of IC capabilities, information sharing and safeguarding, and partnering with domestic and international partners.
end quotes
So, the IC agencies fall within the Executive Branch, and work both independently and collaboratively to gather and analyze the intelligence necessary to conduct foreign relations and national security activities.
Then what was the IG of the Intelligence Community doing then running to Adam Schiff with gossip about a whistleblower having the goods on Trump?
Which question in my mind takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 65 by Alexander Hamilton titled “The Powers of the Senate Continued” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 7, 1788, where we had as follows concerning the House of Representatives, the most DANGEROUS part of OUR federal government because it is unstable, and roiled by passion and emotion, while being devoid of reason and common sense, and impeachment, to wit:
A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective.
The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.
They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.
The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.
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 delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves.
The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.
The convention, it appears, thought the Senate the most fit depositary of this important trust.
end quotes
Which is why the due process argument of the so-called, but quite underwhelming, preeminent Constitutional scholars, Professors Alan Dershowitz, Kenneth Starr, and Jonathan Turley, that in both Schiff’s and Nadler’s (Judiciary) hearings, the President’s/Republican right to due process was denied with witnesses for President, counsel for President, and right of cross examination denied is ridiculous, and amounts to a SELL-OUT of OUR Constitution by implying that the House of Representatives has some kind of constitutional authority to command the attendance of an American president, when it is quite the other way around, according to OUR Constitution.
So what if depositions were in a secret bunker in basement of Capitol where attendance was restricted and selected leaks were provided by Schiff to favored media?
And that serves as proof positive that when the founders gave the House no further power beyond filing charges to be heard and adjudicated not in the House, but in the Senate, they were in fact acting in our best interests, which takes us back to Federalist No. 65, to wit:
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?
end quotes
The House of Representatives are merely the accusers, not the jury, and well it should be that way, which takes us to FEDERALIST No. 66 by Alexander Hamilton titled “Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Tuesday, March 11, 1788 for confirmation of that fact, to wit:
And it may, perhaps, with no less reason be contended, that the powers relating to impeachments are, as before intimated, an essential check in the hands of that body upon the encroachments of the executive.
The division of them between the two branches of the legislature, assigning to one the right of accusing, to the other the right of judging, avoids the inconvenience of making the same persons both accusers and judges; and guards against the danger of persecution, from the prevalency of a factious spirit in either of those branches.
end quotes
And yes, people, there is in the House of Representatives since the Democrats took control in January 2019 a very factious spirit which has crippled the functioning of our federal government and made it into a mockery around the world to our detriment as citizens, and that takes us to the main requisite of due process, which is an impartial body hearing the charges.
That impartial body DID NOT exist in the House of Representatives under Nancy Pelosi, and I doubt there is a soul in the nation who was not aware of the fact that in January of 2019, the Democrats had publicly denounced Trump in the media as a “MOTHER******” that they intended to impeach, period.
So why were these underwhelming, preeminent Constitutional scholars, Professors Alan Dershowitz, Kenneth Starr, and Jonathan Turley, wasting our time bleating to us about Trump getting no due process of law in the House of Representatives, where it simply does not exist, because of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, who do not believe in OUR laws, or OUR Constitution, nor OUR Republican form of government which they intend to replace with their democracy, if only they can influence the 20209 elections sufficiently to gain control over the Senate and presidency as well as the House, and what a sad day for the nation that will be, if we are STUPID enough to allow it to happen.
Paul Plante says
And seriously, people, why on earth are we pretending this IMPEACHMENT FARCE was anything other than what it really was – that being THEATER OF THE ABSURD staged by the Democrats and scripted by the best screenwriters in Hollywood Adam Schiff was able to assemble, including some who were said to have helped Mel Brooks put together “Blazing Saddles,” plus notable Doctors of JURIS (the art of wrapping pure bull**** in a fancy wrapping) like Larry Tribe, the Carl M. Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard University and the co-author, most recently, of “To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment,” who laid out the game plan followed by Nancy Pelosi in a “Special to The Washington Post” entitled “Laurence H. Tribe: Impeach Trump, but don’t necessarily try him in Senate” published June 07, 2019, to wit:
It is possible to argue that impeaching President Donald Trump and removing him from office before the 2020 election would be unwise, even if he did cheat his way into office, and even if he is abusing the powers of that office to enrich himself, cover up his crimes and leave our national security vulnerable to repeated foreign attacks.
end quotes
I don’t know about anyone else, but this ignorant horse**** above here from Larry tribe makes me throw up in my mouth it is so stupid sounding.
Getting back to Larry’s inane gibbering, which inane gibbering was then adopted by Nancy Pelosi and her rabid pack of snarling, snapping, foam-at-the-mouth Democrats as their impeachment game plan to influence the 2020 presidential elections in their favor, given they can’t beat Trump any other way, we have:
Those who make this argument rest their case either on the proposition that impeachment would be dangerously divisive in a nation as politically broken as ours, or on the notion that it would be undemocratic to get rid of a president whose flaws were obvious before he was elected.
Rightly or wrongly – I think rightly – much of the House Democratic caucus, at least one Republican member of that chamber (Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan), and more than a third of the nation’s voters, disagree.
They treat the impeachment power as a vital constitutional safeguard against a potentially dangerous and fundamentally tyrannical president and view it as a power that would be all but ripped out of the Constitution if it were deemed unavailable against even this president.
That is my view, as well.
end quotes
And the view of the authors of the Federalist Papers is that you Democrats, Larry, are a grave threat to OUR Republic and I agree with them as an American citizen.
Getting back to Larry’s spew of lawyerly gibberish:
Still, there exists concern that impeachment accomplishes nothing concrete, especially if the Senate is poised to quickly kill whatever articles of impeachment the House presents.
This apprehension is built on an assumption that impeachment by the House and trial in the Senate are analogous to indictment by a grand jury and trial by a petit jury: Just as a prosecutor might hesitate to ask a grand jury to indict even an obviously guilty defendant if it appeared that no jury is likely to convict, so, it is said, the House of Representatives might properly decline to impeach even an obviously guilty president – and would be wise to do so – if it appeared that the Senate was dead set against convicting him.
end quotes
Now, how stupid is that, people, besides very stupid, or stupid in the extreme?
Because if the House is going to impeach a president for cause, they do it – they don’t go ask the Senators who will be the jury to approve impeachment before the Articles are brought.
And Larry’s assertion about a district attorney not asking a grand jury to indict because he somehow knows beforehand that a jury won’t convict is pure rubbish, since until a jury has been picked, nobody knows how they will decide, which takes us back to more of Larry’s mindless blathering, to wit:
But to think of the House of Representatives as akin to a prosecutor or grand jury is misguided.
end quotes
Actually, what is really misguided is lawyer Larry Tribe asking us to think that thinking of the House of Representatives as akin to a prosecutor or grand jury is misguided, when in fact, in a nation of laws, that is exactly what they are.
But here is Larry Tribe’s goofy version of reality as he teaches it over there at Harvard, to wit:
The Constitution’s design suggests a quite different allocation of functions: The Senate, unlike any petit (or trial) jury, is legally free to engage in politics in arriving at its verdict.
end quotes
Now, from where, besides from outer space, is Larry pulling that mindless crap from?
First of all, FEDERALIST No. 62, The Senate, by either Hamilton or Jemmy Madison, for the Independent Journal to the People of the State of New York, states as follows concerning the caliber of the members of that body as opposed to the House of Representatives, to wit:
HAVING examined the constitution of the House of Representatives, and answered such of the objections against it as seemed to merit notice, I enter next on the examination of the Senate.
A senator must be thirty years of age at least; as a representative must be twenty-five.
And the former must have been a citizen nine years; as seven years are required for the latter.
The propriety of these distinctions is explained by the nature of the senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of information and stability of character, requires at the same time that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages; and which, participating immediately in transactions with foreign nations, ought to be exercised by none who are not thoroughly weaned from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education.
end quotes
The “Senatorial Trust,” people – unlike the House of Representatives under Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, the Senate is not supposed to be a clown show as goofy Larry Tribe of Harvard would have us believe.
Getting back to Federalist No. 62:
It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust.
end quote
There, they are clearly talking about Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and the rest of the House Democrats.
Getting back to Federalist No. 62:
In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government.
It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient.
end quotes
Tells quite a different story from the horse**** Larry Tribe from Harvard is peddling, doesn’t it?
Federalist No. 62 then goes further, as follows:
The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions.
Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the United States, as well as from the history of other nations.
end quotes
And we have yet another case of the House of Representatives yielding to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and being seduced by factious leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff into intemperate and pernicious resolutions like this IMPEACHMENT CIRCUS which has been nothing more than a huge waste of our taxpayer dollars.
In FEDERALIST. No. 63, The Senate Continued, for the Independent Journal to the People of the State of New York, the founders continued as follows with respect to the purpose of the Senate in OUR national government, to wit:
Thus far I have considered the circumstances which point out the necessity of a well-constructed Senate only as they relate to the representatives of the people.
To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions.
As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.
In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?
What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions?
Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next.
end quotes
So, Larry Tribe of Harvard is either an ignorant moron who knows nothing of real American history, which would not surprise me, or he is simply lying to us through his teeth about the Senate being able to play politics with an impeachment, which would also not surprise me in the least, which takes us back to his Washington Post op-ed, to wit:
And the House, unlike any grand jury, can conduct an impeachment inquiry that ends with a verdict and not just a referral to the Senate for trial – an inquiry in which the target is afforded an opportunity to participate and mount a full defense.
end quotes
And on top of the mountain of bull**** Larry has already piled up here, there he adds some more to make it higher and deeper, and here he tries to put a bow on it to make it pretty, to wit:
It seems fair to surmise, then, that an impeachment inquiry conducted with ample opportunity for the accused to defend himself before a vote by the full House would be at least substantially protected, even if not entirely bullet-proofed, against a Senate whitewash.
The House, assuming that an impeachment inquiry leads to a conclusion of Trump’s guilt, could choose between presenting articles of impeachment even to a Senate precommitted to bury them and dispensing with impeachment as such while embodying its conclusions of criminality or other grave wrongdoing in a condemnatory “Sense of the House” resolution far stronger than a mere censure.
The resolution, expressly and formally proclaiming the president impeachable but declining to play the Senate’s corrupt game, is one that even a president accustomed to treating everything as a victory would be hard-pressed to characterize as a vindication.
A House resolution finding the president “impeachable” but imposing no actual legal penalty would avoid the Constitution’s ban on Bills of Attainder, despite its deliberately stigmatizing character as a “Scarlet ‘I’ ” that Trump would have to take with him into his reelection campaign.
The point would not be to take old-school, House impeachment leading to possible Senate removal off the table at the outset.
Instead, the idea would be to build into the very design of this particular inquiry an offramp that would make bypassing the Senate an option while also nourishing the hope that a public fully educated about what this president did would make even a Senate beholden to this president and manifestly lacking in political courage willing to bite the bullet and remove him.
By resolving now to pursue such a path, always keeping open the possibility that its inquiry would unexpectedly lead to the president’s exoneration, the House would be doing the right thing as a constitutional matter.
It would be acting consistent with its overriding obligation to establish that no president is above the law, all the while keeping an eye on the balance of political considerations without setting the dangerous precedent that there are no limits to what a corrupt president can get away with as long as he has a compliant Senate to back him.
And pursuing this course would preserve for all time the tale of this uniquely troubled presidency.
end quotes
Yes, people, it is a game, this IMPEACHMENT CIRCUS, and that is all it ever was – a blatant attempt as we see from the above by Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Larry Tribe and the Democrats to influence the 2020 presidential election in favor of the Democrats by totally perverting the impeachment process as it is laid out in the Federalist papers by this nation’s founders to protect OUR liberty and OUR Republic from clear and present dangers like Nancy Pelosi, Larry Tribe, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and the Democrats!
To treat it as otherwise is to spite ourselves as citizens and to mock our own intelligence.
Paul Plante says
For the record, due process “rights,” a commodity the legal trade markets at a pretty penny to those with the coin and political clout to purchase them with, exist IF AND ONLY IF they can be vindicated, as “in show or prove to be right, reasonable, or justified,” which is to say, go to a court and obtain an order requiring those rights to be granted you, usually in the form of an appeal after the fact of you having had them stripped from you in a prior tribunal.
Given that, there are no “due process rights” in the House of Representatives, because who is going to issue an order requiring the House of Representatives to recognize that someone they are impeaching has any rights at all in the process?
A federal judge?
That’s not going to happen, because a federal judge has absolutely no Constitutional authority in the case of an impeachment by the House.
Well, what about the Senate then?
And that is not going to happen, either, given that the Senate has no Constitutional authority over the House of Representatives.
What about the Attorney General, then?
To which I reply, what about the attorney general?
He or she is totally irrelevant here, given he or she has no authority to demand the House of Representatives do anything.
Well, then, how about the president?
Can’t the president order the House to treat him a certain way when they’re impeaching him?
In a word NO, because the president has no control over the House of Representatives when they are impeaching him.
It’s called SEPARATION OF POWERS meets CHECKS AND BALANCES head on.
So, again it was to me a waste of time our time as citizens as well as a demonstration of ignorance and weakness of wits on their part for these so-called “preeminent” Constitutional scholars, Professors Alan Dershowitz, Kenneth Starr, and Jonathan Turley, to be whining and bleating about Trump not getting something in the House of Representatives that he was never entitled to in the first place, that being fairness.
But enough about them, because they are now an irrelevancy, which takes us back to the formal prosecutorial “charge sheet” of Disneyland Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff which got this IMPEACHMENT CIRCUS formally started, where CHIEF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Schiff made this following statement, to wit;
The President’s Scheme Unraveled
Later that day, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) sent a letter to Chairman Schiff and Ranking Member Nunes notifying the Committee that a whistleblower had filed a complaint on August 12 that the ICIG had determined to be both an “urgent concern” and “credible.”
end quotes
Is it just a “stylistic exercise” on the part of Adam Schiff to create some much-needed drama here, to make this FARCE look far more serious than it actually was, and to make Adam Schiff seem a whole lot more important than he really is, that he breathlessly uses the words “ICIG had determined to be both an ‘urgent concern’ and ‘credible,’” as in “OMG, Trump is hiding a Russian Army unit in the White House basement, run for your lives,” or do those words actually have some legal meaning, as they would if this were a NATION of LAWS, as opposed to a Democracy, where everything is mutable and changes by the minute depending on whether Nancy Pelosi has intestinal gas that day, or not?
Since I still believe we are a NATION of LAWS, I of the learned opinion that those words do have meaning, and to demonstrate that, let’s simply go back to 50 U.S.C.A. § 3033, Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, effective: December 18, 2015, where we find as follows, to wit:
(3) The Inspector General shall report directly to and be under the general supervision of the Director of National Intelligence.
(4) The Inspector General may be removed from office only by the President. The President shall communicate in writing to the congressional intelligence committees the reasons for the removal not later than 30 days prior to the effective date of such removal.
end quotes
So, people, at least according to the law as written, and yes, I know, I know, we are dealing with Democrats here, and they do not believe in our laws, nor believe themselves subject to them, we have a chain of command here, and it does not include Adam Schiff.
But, we need to go a bit further to see what’s up with this “WHISTLE BLOWER” Report the IG of the Intelligence Committee told Adam Schiff about in a letter, to wit:
e) Duties and responsibilities
It shall be the duty and responsibility of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community–
(2) to keep the Director of National Intelligence fully and currently informed concerning violations of law and regulations, fraud, and other serious problems, abuses, and deficiencies relating to the programs and activities within the responsibility and authority of the Director, to recommend corrective action concerning such problems, and to report on the progress made in implementing such corrective action;
end quotes
Did this happen in the case of the Trump whistle-blower – did the IG report to the DNI that Trump was engaged in illegal and criminal conduct endangering our national security before he sent his incriminating letter to Schiff?
The answer is we just do not know, because in his voluminous report, Schiff never said.
Getting back to the law, itself:
(f) Limitations on activities
(1) The Director of National Intelligence may prohibit the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community from initiating, carrying out, or completing any investigation, inspection, audit, or review if the Director determines that such prohibition is necessary to protect vital national security interests of the United States.
end quotes
My reading of that, and no, I have to confess I never went to Harvard Law School, which is seen more and more by people out here in the countryside as a breeding ground for all sorts of lunatics and imbeciles and just plain fools, and neither do I possess a degree saying I’m a doctor of JURIS, but nonetheless, the words are simple English intended to be read by the COMMON MAN, not some Harvard lawyer, is that the DNI is the superior of the IG, not Adam Schiff.
Of course, I think Adam has been to Harvard, so of course, he reads it quite differently, but again, he is a Democrat, and that is what they do.
Getting back to the law, and here we are getting into the proper ballpark, so to speak, to wit:
(3) The Inspector General is authorized to receive and investigate, pursuant to subsection (h), complaints or information from any person concerning the existence of an activity within the authorities and responsibilities of the Director of National Intelligence constituting a violation of laws, rules, or regulations, or mismanagement, gross waste of funds, abuse of authority, or a substantial and specific danger to the public health and safety.
(C) Not later than 30 days after the date of receipt of a report under subparagraph (A), the Director shall transmit the report to the congressional intelligence committees together with any comments the Director considers appropriate. The Director shall transmit to the committees of the Senate and of the House of Representatives with jurisdiction over a department of the United States Government any portion of the report involving a component of such department simultaneously with submission of the report to the congressional intelligence committees.
(2)(A) The Inspector General shall report immediately to the Director whenever the Inspector General becomes aware of particularly serious or flagrant problems, abuses, or deficiencies relating to programs and activities within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence.
(B) The Director shall transmit to the congressional intelligence committees each report under subparagraph (A) within 7 calendar days of receipt of such report, together with such comments as the Director considers appropriate. The Director shall transmit to the committees of the Senate and of the House of Representatives with jurisdiction over a department of the United States Government any portion of each report under subparagraph (A) that involves a problem, abuse, or deficiency related to a component of such department simultaneously with transmission of the report to the congressional intelligence committees.
(B) Not later than the end of the 14-calendar-day period beginning on the date of receipt from an employee of a complaint or information under subparagraph (A), the Inspector General shall determine whether the complaint or information appears credible. Upon making such a determination, the Inspector General shall transmit to the Director a notice of that determination, together with the complaint or information.
end quotes
So, if we were in fact a NATION OF LAWS, which we aren’t, but if we were, when he got the Trump whistle-blower complaint, the IG as required to first submit that notice to the DNI.
Did that happen in this case with the Trump whistle-blower?
SHHHHHH, it’s a secret!
So if the law had been followed, what would have happened next?
Let’s look and see, to wit:
(C) Upon receipt of a transmittal from the Inspector General under subparagraph (B), the Director shall, within 7 calendar days of such receipt, forward such transmittal to the congressional intelligence committees, together with any comments the Director considers appropriate.
end quotes
Interesting!
So according to the law as written, not the verbal, mutable version they use, it should have been the DNI notifying Schiff of the Trump whistle-blower complaint, not the IG.
Maybe the dude who is IG just never read that part of the law, so he didn’t know it existed, thinking he reported to Adam Schiff as his superior, instead, which is what Adam himself seems to think.
Getting back to the law:
(D)(i) If the Inspector General does not find credible under subparagraph (B) a complaint or information submitted under subparagraph (A), or does not transmit the complaint or information to the Director in accurate form under subparagraph (B), the employee (subject to clause (ii)) may submit the complaint or information to Congress by contacting either or both of the congressional intelligence committees directly.
(ii) An employee may contact the congressional intelligence committees directly as described in clause (i) only if the employee-
(I) before making such a contact, furnishes to the Director, through the Inspector General, a statement of the employee’s complaint or information and notice of the employee’s intent to contact the congressional intelligence committees directly; and
(II) obtains and follows from the Director, through the Inspector General, direction on how to contact the congressional intelligence committees in accordance with appropriate security practices.
end quotes
But we know none of that happened, at least according to Adam Schiff’s own version of events, which is that it was the IG who informed him of the Trump whistle-blower, not the whistle-blower him or herself.
So why was the IG reporting this to Schiff, as opposed to the DNI?
No answers presently forthcoming, and likely, the way these COVER-UPS go in Washington. D.C., we never will, which takes us back once again to the law as written, to wit:
(G) In this paragraph, the term “urgent concern” means any of the following:
(i) A serious or flagrant problem, abuse, violation of law or Executive order, or deficiency relating to the funding, administration, or operation of an intelligence activity within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence involving classified information, but does not include differences of opinions concerning public policy matters.
end quotes
And stop the presses right there, people, because in this case of the Trump whistle-blower, it was based on nothing other than differences of opinion concerning public policy matters, so that by the law, as written, the IG could not have found the complaint to be an “urgent concern,” because it wasn’t according to the law as written, and therefore, Schiff is heaping bull**** on our heads when in his impeachment report, he reports that the concern was otherwise.
Should we be surprised at that?
Of course not!