President Trump has been impeached for “Abuse of Power” and Obstruction of Congress.”
The abuse charge resulted from an unidentified whistleblower claiming he was told by another source that Trump was going to withhold military aid to the Ukraine if it did not investigate Joe Biden and his crackhead son Hunter for corruption. The alleged threat was made in a phone call to Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky.
The obstruction charge was brought because Trump refused to let administration officials appear before the House committees investigating him.
I have always maintained that Trump has not met the constitutional “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors” grounds for impeachment. However, by doing some extensive research on impeachment, I found out that I was wrong.
Over the years, Congress has interpreted “high crimes and misdemeanors” to include acts that are not criminal. And in 1970, then House Minority Leader Gerald Ford defined an impeachable offense as: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”
So, let’s assume that Trump did abuse his power and obstruct congress. Do those offenses rise to a level calling for the ouster of the President? I say, no way! No way because Trump has been impeached by the Democrats strictly for political reasons.
Hillary Clinton and the Democrats laughed themselves sick on June 16, 2015, when Trump officially became a candidate for president. They kept laughing and laughing until the night of November 9, 2016, when Hillary, in disbelief, burst into tears upon learning she would not achieve her life-long dream of becoming the first woman president of the United States. The Democratic laughter had finally stopped.
From the time that Trump took office, the Democrats, abetted by a Trump-hating media, have been relentless in attempts to destroy the Trump presidency and to nullify the 2016 election. Trump could hardly take a breath without the media making something ugly of it.
And the impeachment of Trump is a purely political move by Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and the rest of the House Democrats to nullify the election and drive Trump out of office. Failing that, the Demoncrats (oops, typo) hope that the impeachment proceedings will turn the 2020 election into their favor.
While I have to admit that Adam Schitt (oops, another typo) made a compelling case for convicting Trump, I do not think the transgressions he committed rise to the level of ousting the President from office, especially since the impeachment proceedings were nothing more than a partisan political attack on Trump.
The impeachment circus started with a whistleblower’s hearsay complaint about the president making an inappropriate phone call. Inappropriate it may have been, but inappropriateness is not what the founding fathers had in mind when they included the impeachment process in the Constitution.
Fortunately for Trump, it will take a two-thirds majority of Senators present to convict him. Currently there are 53 Republican senators, 45 Democratic senators and 2 independents. The independents are expected to join the Democrats in convicting Trump. That means 20 Republican senators would have to join the Democrats in order to reach the 67-vote threshold for conviction … and that ain’t about to happen.
Daily Mail columnist Piers Morgan thinks that when the Senate fails to convict him, Trump will point to it as further ‘evidence’ that he is the most unfairly attacked president in history. And that he is!
At the Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia the framers gave this particular matter a lot of thought. They seriously considered adding what was at the time called “maladministration” to the list of impeachable offenses. In the end they DECLINED to do so. It was just too fuzzy, could not be defined clearly and was open to too much interpretation. It was feared it could easily be used to go after a President who the House of Representatives just plain didn’t like. Turns out the framers were right.
The first impeachment trial in the Senate was in 1804, when U.S. District Judge John Pickering, a Washington appointee, was tried on charges of drunkenness and making bad rulings in a case before him. Federalists charged Democratic-Republicans of trying to usurp the Constitution to remove Pickering from office although he had not committed “high crimes or misdemeanors.” At least two of the senators had been members of the Constitutional Convention.
Pickering was convicted in the Senate by a vote of 19-7.
In 1873, another federal judge, Mark W. Delahay, was impeached for drunkenness but he resigned before the Senate trial. The only allegations against Delahay was that he was drunk both on and off the bench.
From the earliest days of the Republic, impeachment was used to remove people from office even though they had not committed crimes. And, if making incorrect rulings in cases was a crime, the federal prisons would be full of federal judges.
Howie: I keep hearing from you and others that the impeachment is an effort by Democrats to overturn the 2016 election. While it’s a given that most Democrats have no use for the president, if he’s convicted and removed Hillary Clinton won’t become president. Vice President Mike Pence will. Hillary’s days are over and good riddance. She was an awful candidate.
You are correct that there is almost zero chance that the president will be convicted by the Senate. But a bunch of senators may be in political trouble if the Senate doesn’t hear witnesses, especially John Bolton. The New York Times has gotten ahold of the manuscript of his book in which Bolton says the president in a conversation with him directly tied the aid to Ukraine to an investigation of the Bidens. For instance, I can see MJ Hager making a big thing about refusing to hear evidence in the senate race this fall.
This impeachment was never about removal. It is about winning back the Senate. Pelosi knew that holding the articles for three weeks would allow more information to come out and spotlight those Senators who refused to allow testimony and documents. And she was right. Look what happened this weekend with the Bolton book revaluation and the Parnas video of Trump ordering him to “take her out” referring to ambassador Yovanovitch. Well played Madam Speaker.
One more thing Howie. For you to refer to Adam Schiff as Adam Schitt is beneath you and should be called out, just like when Trump tweets it. Adam Schiff is a profile in courage. Republican Senators who vote against allowing live testimony and documents are profiles in cowardice. What are they afraid of?
Interesting. Apparently Loren has two different definitions of “courage” and “cowardice” depending on who it’s being applied to. Adam Schiff (the “ff” is pronounced with a “t” sound) refused to allow Republican congresspeople to call witnesses, elicit testimony, ask questions, or actually participate in any meaningful way during his hearings in the House. This, according to Loren, is “courageous”.
When Republican senators simply ask that the Senate abide by the same rules that governed other impeachments, they are “cowardly”. How nice.
I will agree, however, that this has never been about actually removing the President from office. That would require a 2/3 vote in the Senate and, given that there is no actual evidence that the President did anything wrong, that was never going to happen.
At this point however, if I were a Democrat, I’d be a lot more concerned about keeping my majority in the House.
Bolton and Parnas are this season’s Julie Sweatnick. Just as predicable as they are sad. It’s like “October surprise” month, only in January. This impeachment has already failed. In fact, the Parnas video, purportedly shot BEFORE Joe Biden ran for president, by the way, is exculpatory, not incriminating.
What did it say? Hey, Trump, this lady is badmouthing you, and she works for you.
Trump: Well, let’s fire her!
That’s what any non cucked boss would say! This is some kind of big bombshell? Really? Again, it’s Julie Sweatnick, with a penis.
Whatever one thinks of John Bolton, and I have some severe reservations about him, he’s served every Republican president since Reagan. George W. Bush named him ambassador to the UN to try to clean up the place, something where he made some progress before he left office as a recess appointee after the Senate failed to confirm him.
He doesn’t trust the North Koreans, which was his falling out with Trump. I don’t either. I disagree with his resolve for regime change in Iran and he used some really unfortunate language about doing there what we did in Libya. I’m sure the leaders of Iran know that the Libyan leaders ended up dead or in jail.
But, whatever you think of him, he’s a Republican. And however much he distrusts Trump to decide American foreign policy, he’s not likely to lie under oath in a Senate trial.
A better question about Bolton and his book is why did the president’s lawyers not know about it since it’s been in the White House for more than a month for security vetting? Somebody let those poor bastards get blindsided.
I’m a criminal defense lawyer and I really hate it when my clients hide information from me. Learning the bad stuff in the middle of a trial usually means I get embarrassed and my clients to to prison.
I think Trump picked Bolton specifically BECAUSE of his war hawk messaging towards Iran and North Korea. That way, Trump can play good cop, bad cop. Hey, I want peace and trade deals, but this guy, this guy right here, Bolton….he just wants to level your country and kill you. Don’t let him get his way, let’s work together for peace and trade deals.
One more point. If, as Loren points out, this is all about making sure that everything comes out, then by golly, let’s get it all out. You want Bolton to testify? Fine. But if we’re gonna have Bolton, then we also need Biden (both of them). And so on and so on. Since Ukraine has been implicated in the Clinton campaign data fiasco, we need to call people from the Clinton campaign team. And, hey, anyone from the Obama administration who might have some insight.
Let’s show the American people just how the government really operates!
Of course Adam Schiff could have called Bolton during his hearings/investigation. He could have called all the material witnesses he wanted. But. . . . .
OK now I understand. Kinda like th is sometimes pronounced ss. I guess 2+2=4 in Schiff’s crazy example of quid pro quo. Just do the math, sometimes pronounced dumath.
Here’s are two examples of courage: Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman and Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch. Here’s an example of cowardice: Mike Pompeo.
Had the house waited until the courts decided on witness testimony, the impeachment would have taken place in the fall. Also Trump can do a lot of damage in nine months. No, waiting would require dumath reasoning. I know lawyers read BJ and it would be interesting to read their opinion about adjudicating witnesses prior to impeachment.
The House impeached, the Senate has the trial. Trials have documents and witnesses. Again, lawyer help needed here.
Thanks for the heads up on losing the House. Last count there were seven Texas House GOPers not seeking reelection. Dumath.
Loren either is not aware or refuses to acknowledge the testimony of Michael Atkinson in Schitt’s show trial. While Mr. Schitt is requesting new witnesses in the Senate he is busy trying to hide one of his own.
Yesterday on Maria Bartiromo’s John Ratcliff let us all know Eric Ciamella’s complaint as a whistleblower contains falsehood’s and the courageous Mr. Schitt knows it. Michael Atkinson let that cat out of the bag as documented in Atkinson’s 179 page transcript.
Loren, your interpretation of courage is really warped. It doesn’t take an ounce of courage to do what Schitt did inside the chambers of congress. Courage is what it takes to be a hero on the battlefield. Courage is what Audie Murphy had a barrel full of. Schitt courageous? Not in the earth’s lifetime. As for calling Schitt ‘schitt’, I will continue to do so because the pronunciation describes him as the pile of it he is. Does that make me a Dumath?
Yeth
Loren, I like your sense of humor, but don’t you ever accuse me of having voted for either Obama or Hillary, because that would make this Dumath mad.
Anyone who has taken the time to watch President Trump’s Lawyers shred the House Managers’ case will know that Trump clearly did not commit an impeachable offense. Alan Dershowitz’ presentation on the Constitution and the Articles of Impeachment on Monday was masterful, case closed.
Case not closed. Witnesses and documents are coming. The crack is widening in the GOPer porcelain wall. KAWOOSH! It’s possible that the GOPer Senators get flushed this fall. The Dems could end up with the Senate, the Presidency and a larger majority in the House. That’s how masterfullyTrump’s lawyers shredded the Republican party. Do the math.
Witnesses and documents are coming.
Does that mean that Atkinson’s hidden testimony from the Capitol basement will be released? Why wait until the last minute, unless Schiff just wants to showboat.
Cool! Does that mean the “whistleblower” will finally go public and testify? What about quid pro Joe?
You want witnesses? Fine, But, you don’t get to stop after you’ve run out of people to whine because they don’t like Donald Trump.
It’s time to open the Biden family crime syndicate investigations.
Biden threatened to withhold $1 billion in non-lethal aid to Ukraine if they didn’t fire the prosecutor looking into Burisma. That is a lot of MREs and blankets.
I wonder what the Biden’s cut was?
I’m beginning to believe poor ‘ol Joe was set up by Schitt & company. Without the media propping up Joe as a leading political rival to Trump they wouldn’t have the whole ‘quid pro quo’ narrative. Remember when Muelller couldn’t recall key details of his own report? He ended up looking like a doddering old man unable to gather his thoughts. Joe is going to be standing alone by the end of the week without a clue of what happened to him.
Dems are cold.
Iowa…man o man, who saw that coming? /