Then, it supposedly reflected the anger Democrats felt. Today, it is “racially inflammatory.” What is really amusing about the comparative use of the terminology is that in 1998, the full House voted articles of impeachment, following a special counsel’s finding that President Clinton had committed eleven separate crimes. Hearings were held in public, not in secret; and back then the President was given all the rights to which a defendant is entitled. Today, the House has on three occasions rejected a move to impeach President Trump, and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi has directly refused to hold another vote; instead, she simply announced that an impeachment inquiry is being held. Back in 1998, the identity of witnesses was not concealed. Today it is. In fact, back in 1998, “witnesses” actually witnessed something. In the Trump impeachment inquiry, the main witness did not, but instead reported hearsay, or as columnist Mollie Hemingway put it, “second hand claims, full of gossip and rumor, and riddled with false assertions.”
So it was OK in 1998 describe as a “lynching” a legal process in which the defendant’s rights were protected and in which his political supporters also exercised their full legal rights; in 2019 it is not OK to use that term to describe an extra-legal proceeding, in which, not only does the defendant have no rights, but his supporters on the committee do not have rights. We wish someone would explain it all to us.
Oh, the Democrats also used the term “lynching” to describe the way Republicans criticized Sec. of State Hillary Clinton’s handling of the Benghazi attack back in 2012.
And, isn’t it interesting how the so-called “whistleblower” immediately went from a vital part of the “impeachment inquiry” to one largely irrelevant?
Rep. Adam Schiff, who is conducting an “impeachment inquiry” which by any honest standards would be termed a “kangaroo court,” expected the “whistleblower’s” testimony back in September. “We’re in touch with counsel and look forward to the whistleblower’s testimony as soon as this week,” he said on September 24. Rep. Schiff even browbeat the Director of National Intelligence over the possible testimony: “Do I have your assurance. . .that the whistleblower will be able to relate the full facts. . .that he or she will not be inhibited in what they can tell our committee. . .do I have your assurance that the whistleblower will be able to testify fully and freely and enjoy the protections of law?”
Sure sounds like Rep. Schiff wanted to hear from the whistleblower. Then on September 29, Rep. Schiff said, “We’ll get the unfiltered testimony of that whistleblower.”
“We need to speak with the whistleblower.”
But, a few days later, Rep. Schiff dropped his demand for the whistleblower’s testimony, and on October 13 he said that the whistleblower’s testimony no longer was required, and later indicated that there was no need at all for him or her to testify. Rep. Schiff went from demanding that the whistleblower testify to keeping him from testifying. How do we account for this 180-degree turnaround? How can a witness go from vital to unimportant? In all likelihood, it is because of the intervening report that the whistleblower had come to Rep. Schiff’s staff prior to the filing of his complaint. That, in fact, is something that Rep. Schiff denied from the beginning, and something the whistleblower did not disclose on his complaint form (as required by law). It takes little imagination to see that Rep. Schiff is deathly afraid that the whistleblower will be questioned about those contacts, to the obvious discomfort and detriment of Rep. Schiff. Who knows, the whistleblower might even be asked about his political affiliations, his connections to various Democrat candidates, any prior statements he might have made, etc. Again, none of that would make Rep. Schiff or the whistleblower look good, so, he or she has been consigned to the back of the box. Rep. Schiff has “situational ethics” and is making up the rules as he goes along. He has no compunction about placing President Trump in jeopardy, but he will make sure he protects himself along the way.
We will profit from the President’s example and will not use the term “lynching” to describe this impeachment inquiry. Instead we will say it is lawless and unaccountable, and if Rep. Schiff is capable of feeling disgrace, he should be feeling it.