Happy Monday, faithful FR readers!! Hope everyone is ready to tackle the week. We have a post from Stephen on this fine Monday. Enjoy! And thank you, Stephen.
Given recent political events, my natural paranoia has been creeping into my perspective on the news. No, I don’t mean the Virginia state government attempting to kick-start Civil War II by trying to confiscate everyone’s guns. I mean the impeachment hearings, and the rules being set up around them.
While Sen. McConnell stated publicly that they were going to model their rules of the impeachment hearing after the rules used in the Clinton impeachment hearing, one glaring omission came to light with the new set of rules omitting a rule from the prior hearing. That being the allowance of a motion to dismiss the articles of impeachment for failure to state a offense upon which a President may be removed.
However, they still appeared to keep the rules allowing such a motion after the presentment of the opening arguments, so such a path is not entirely ruled out, but it does rule out the direct attack of the articles of impeachment themselves which could establish important legal and political precedent for future impeachments.
A dismissal for failure to state a claim because the articles of impeachment fail to claim a criminal act as required by the Constitution of a “high crime or misdemeanor” would put to rest those Constitutional “scholars” who seem to be running about claiming that the Constitution does not require that a crime be committed despite the plain language of the Constitution itself:
“The President . . . shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Sect. 4, Art. II, US Constitution.
Nowhere in the Constitution does it provide for an impeachment for any other cause than a criminal act on the part of the President. It appears that these scholars can’t read the plain words in English.
So if the articles themselves do not allege a crime, they ought to be summarily dismissed as a clear precedent that the language stated above requires a criminal act as a guide and a warning to future Congresses that history will judge their unconstitutional partisan actions. The unique history setting precedent of articles of impeachment summarily dismissed would be one for the record books and a shame upon the House.
However, the opportunity for such a clear and distinct historical statement becomes forever lost once the House managers are permitted to present their case. Yes, it could be dismissed after that, but then it becomes a factual ruling that even though the articles are themselves insufficient a case is still demanded no matter how specious or spurious the charges.
Members of the Senate have “indicated” that they desire to have a vote after the presentment by the House managers ostensibly because that would have the effect of “exonerating” the President. I don’t know how that is any more “exonerating” than dismissal of the charges as insufficient upon their face.
It is because I do not understand how this is any more “exonerating” that I begin to question the validity of their rationalizations and motivations. Why have a vote on the merits of a complaint if the complaint is facially deficient? Why would anyone send the case to the jury when it can be dismissed? What attorney would want to do that?
The presumption is entirely based upon the premise that the verdict is a known quantity already determined. Is it?
Remember that during the primary in the 2016 election, Trump ran upon an opposition to the establishment Republican apparatus and politicians just as much as he ran against the Washington establishment in the general election with the slogan “drain the swamp”.
Those are the same Republicans who are in control of the Senate, like Mitch McConnell and Mitt Romney, who were the establishment against whom he was running.
And this is where my conspiracy theory paranoia starts nagging in the back of my head. A two-thirds majority being necessary for the removal of a president, and the Democrats being a unified partisan block, to get to the 67 votes required would only take 20 of the 53 Senators to vote on a purely inside the beltway fashion to reassert the establishment.
“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.” Para. 6, Sect. 3, Art. I, US Constitution.
Of course, the readers’ first response is that such a nefarious move would either spark an immediate revolt in the nation or the loss of those turncoat Republican Senators in the next election, though their re-election may be this year, two years from now or four years from now, so the effects would not be immediate.
Further, if you turn out an establishment Republican from office, you hand the Senate over to the Democrats who have gone off the deep end of leftist politics. In short, there is no political recourse if enough Senators are wishing to fall upon their political swords and be forced to retire on their own financial resources, like Romney, or unless they maintain in a reasonably left-wing following like Sen. Murkowski or Portman.
As we are delving into the possibilities of conspiracy theory territory, one may not omit the potential for political blackmail such as the likes of the fallout from such people as Jeffrey Epstein which, unlike Boystown, has largely left Republican lawmakers unscathed and untainted up until this point.
But then one only has to remember that Alan Dershowitz was one of those specifically named in the Epstein scandal alongside Bill Clinton and Prince Andrew, to realize that said Dershowitz is one of the prominent member of Trump’s dream defense team presenting his case in front of the Senate on this impeachment case.
Trump, McConnell, and Graham all assure us of the unity of the Republican caucus in the Senate. Plaguing the back of my mind is the memory that Lindsey Graham and Mitch McConnell have been long establishment Republicans who have had a storied history of caving in to Democrat demands over and over
However, we are assured through recent events that Sen. McConnell indeed had a backbone transplant and Sen. Graham has grown testicles. I ought to be reassured that they do not want to go back to their history of losing every issue to the Democrats even when the numbers are on their side.
To be fair, their words and rhetoric have all been very reassuring and strongly supportive of the President and against the sham impeachment articles and proceedings of the House. Alan Dershowitz has roundly condemned said articles an Constitutionally insufficient. And if it goes beyond the initial stages calling witnesses we shall surely see Adam Schiff, Joe Biden, & Hunter Biden called as witnesses.
Who am I to cry “Beware the ides of March.” I am sure that the response shall invariably be, “He is a dreamer. Let us leave him. Pass!”
