Special Opinion by C. Augustus Landis Esq.
The following commentary is based upon the comments of three of the country’s most prominent Constitutional scholars at the Impeachment hearings/Trial in opposition to conviction. While Democrats quoted Hamilton and Madison in Federalist Papers on need for an impeachment provision in the Constitution, it is regrettable they would not address the fundamental Constitutional issues raised.
The Constitution is the governing document for impeachment the House of Representatives has sole power of impeachment.
The House did not vote to begin the impeachment inquiry as required. Speaker Pelosi (alone) appointed Schiff to initiate an impeachment inquiry.
The House did not authorize Schiff to issue subpoenas as required. (Note. After 20 subpoenas were issued, House voted to authorize but did not make retroactive.) Trump refused to comply based on immunities and privileges pursuant to separation of powers as designed by Constitution and absent required subpoena power.
Schiff/Democrats begat the false narrative that Trunp’s refusal to provide documents and witnesses was obstruction of Congress. (Note. Constitution provides resolution of dispute via courts. Schiff/Democrats decide not to do this.)
Schiff/Democrats sent wo Articles of Impeachment to Senate alleging : 1. Abuse of power and 2. Obstruction of Congress.
Constitution only enumerates bribery, treason, and other high crimes and misdemeanors as impeachable offenses. (Note. Misdemeanors are less serious crimes than felonies but still crimes. No crime is alleged in Articles.
Precedent is, abuse of power is not a crime and not an impeachable offense. It is neither enumerated or defined as such in Constitution. Many presidents have been charged with abuse of power. Washington (Jay’s Treaty), Jefferson (Louisiana Purchase), John Adams (Alien and Sedition Act), Lincoln (suspension of habeas corpus), to name a few. Under Schiff’s/Democrat criteria, they could have been impeached and possibly removed from office.
Obstruction of Congress is nether enumerated or defined in Constitution as impeachable offense. To impeach a President for asserting immunities and privileges given under Constitution and separation of powers provisions would be a very dangerous precedent.
To impeach a President for abuse of power and/or obstruction of Congress would set the dangerous precedent that a majority opposition party in the House could simply define anything they want as abuse or obstruction and impeach. Together with a majority in Senate they could change result of election by removal from office and deny re-election.
Every member of Congress takes an oath to uphold the Constitution. To vote to impeach or convict for any reason other than as provided for by the Constitution is not faithful to oath. There is no asterisk or caveats to the oath. Thus, for example, when Romney says his vote to convict on abuse of power is based on his faith and conscience he was not faithful to oath.
To impeach a President based upon party factions and prejudices was one of the greatest fear of the founders.
About the Author
U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence
The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report by Adam Schiff
However, the Founding Fathers prescribed a remedy for a chief executive who places his personal interests above those of the country: impeachment.
Accordingly, as part of the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in coordination with the Committees on Oversight and Reform and Foreign Affairs, were compelled to undertake a serious, sober, and expeditious investigation into whether the President’s misconduct warrants that remedy.
In response, President Trump engaged in an unprecedented campaign of obstruction of this impeachment inquiry.
Nevertheless, due in large measure to patriotic and courageous public servants who provided the Committees with direct evidence of the President’s actions, the Committees uncovered significant misconduct on the part of the President of the United States.
As required under House Resolution 660, the Intelligence Committee, in consultation with the Committees on Oversight and Reform and Foreign Affairs, has prepared this report to detail the evidence uncovered to date, which will now be transmitted to the Judiciary Committee for its consideration.
PREFACE
This report reflects the evidence gathered thus far by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in coordination with the Committee on Oversight and Reform and the Committee on Foreign Affairs, as part of the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States.
The report is the culmination of an investigation that began in September 2019 and intensified over the past three months as new revelations and evidence of the President’s misconduct towards Ukraine emerged.
The Committees pursued the truth vigorously, but fairly, ensuring the full participation of both parties throughout the probe.
Members of the Intelligence Committee, as well, worked selflessly and collaboratively throughout this investigation.
Finally, I am grateful to Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the trust she placed in our Committees to conduct this work and for her wise counsel throughout.
Constitutional Authority for Congressional Oversight and Impeachment
The House’s Constitutional and legal authority to conduct an impeachment inquiry is clear, as is the duty of the President to cooperate with the House’s exercise of this authority.
Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives the House of Representatives the “sole Power of Impeachment.”
The Framers intended the impeachment power to be an essential check on a President who might engage in corruption or abuse of power.
Congress is empowered to conduct oversight and investigations to carry out its authorities under Article I.
Because the impeachment power is a core component of the nation’s Constitutional system of checks and balances, Congress’ investigative authority is at its zenith during an impeachment inquiry.
The Supreme Court has made clear that Congress’ authority to investigate includes the authority to compel the production of information by issuing subpoenas, a power the House has delegated to its committees pursuant to its Constitutional authority to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”
The President’s Categorical Refusal to Comply
A common theme of his defiance has been his claims that Congress is acting in an unprecedented way and using unprecedented rules.
However, the House has been following the same investigative rules that Republicans championed when they were in control.
Said any other way, at least outside the BELTWAY where a different reality exists that has no resemblance to whatever lurks and skulks and passes for reality inside the BELTWAY, shown on maps as Terra Incognito, this Adam Schiff Impeachment Farce was RINKY-DINK THEATER OF THE ABSURD based on a FARRAGO (a confused mixture, as in “a farrago of fact and myth about the United States Constitution as it applies to impeachments”) that has Adam Schiff displaying what would have to be classed as “supernatural powers,” akin to say, some kind of mental X-ray vision that allows Adam to see right into Trump’s brainwaves so that Adam can then testify in his IMPEACHEMENT CHARGE SHEET that he, Adam Schiff, actually knew what Trump was thinking at any given time, even though nobody else did, because like Superman, only Adam has that power, which is why he was selected by Nancy Pelosi to pout together the FARRAGO that became the Articles of Impeachment Trump was just tried on.
Knowing what Trump was actually thinking then freed up Adam from having to actually prove criminal intent, because Adam knew Trump had criminal thoughts in his mind when he took certain actions, and in an impeachment in the House under the Democrats, that is all that is required – it is a waste of valuable government resources to even think to question Adam Schiff as to his intimate knowledge of the inner thoughts of Donald J. Trump, U.S. president who Adam has oversight responsibility for.
Now, had this IMPEACHMENT FARCE actually been something real, as opposed to RINKY-DINK THEATER OF THE ABSURD, the idea that Adam Schiff could be a credible witness against Trump to testify as to motive, which Schiff clearly did in his CHARGE SHEET, because Schiff can read Trump’s mind would be considered ludicrous, as we see in the following rule for witness in real courtroom proceedings which are not FARCES like this CIRCUS was, to wit:
4. Mental Condition
In general, a witness may not give an opinion on another person’s state of mind or mental processes, such as intent or malice.
Such an opinion would be pure speculation.
Courts do not generally allow a witness to give an opinion concerning intent, guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant.
end quotes
But since this was a FARCE, not a court of any kind, and because it was a Democrat FARCE, those RULES OF RATIONAL PROCEDURE do not apply.