|
nChrist
|
 |
« on: December 21, 2019, 05:05:13 PM » |
|
________________________________
The Patriot Post - Alexander's Column 12-21-2019
From The Federalist Patriot
Free Email Subscription
_______________________________
The Patriot Post® · The Impeachment Theater of the Absurd
By Mark Alexander · Dec. 18, 2019
https://patriotpost.us/alexander/67474-the-impeachment-theater-of-the-absurd-2019-12-18
“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. Constitution1, Article II, Section 4 (1789)
In Federalist No. 652, 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 Clinton3 for perjury (for which he was disbarred) was but a mere shadow of the all-consuming hatred4 the Democrat Party5 has for Donald Trump6 — a partisan hatred fanned and fueled nationwide by their shameless Leftmedia publicists7.
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 charges8 — 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 resistance9 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.” |
