The vote renders inoperative Speaker Pelosi’s promise that she would not pursue impeachment along party lines, but the world is so used to Ms. Pelosi saying one thing and meaning another, or breaking her word, or falsifying the record that no one seems to notice anymore. The Speaker also said that it was imperative that President Trump be impeached and removed as soon as possible, ostensibly because of the damage he could do to (choose any appropriate answer): the Constitution, the 2020 election, US foreign policy, checks and balances, Democratic prospects to win the presidency, Hunter Biden’s bank account, Adam Schiff’s credibility, Jerrold Nadler’s integrity, Chuck Schumer’s consistency, etc. etc.)
Yes, Ms. Nancy saw a clear and present danger to indulging Donald Trump even one additional minute in office, so after the Articles were passed, she went full speed ahead. No, not really: she dropped anchor, docked the ship, and did nothing. If nothing else this proves that her earlier protestations were extreme and exaggerated, and this raises the question: Is Nancy Pelosi obstructing Congress by refusing to transmit the articles? Would Joe Biden be committing “obstruction of Congress” if he were to refuse a subpoena?
The first day of testimony from Inspector General Michael Horowitz was devastating to the reputation of the FBI in general and James Comey and some of his high officials in particular; but the second day, before the Senate Intelligence Committee, was even worse for them, and on that occasion, Mr. Horowitz contradicted the news stories that claimed he found no political bias in the FBI’s decisions, and instead said that he could not rule out political bias. Mr. Horowitz is being generous. The FBI went out of its way to clear Hillary Clinton of wrongdoing even before it interviewed her or had collected all the evidence against her; and it went out of its way to implicate Donald Trump even after the evidence against him was unequivocally refuted. If that is not political bias, what would be?
Well, Republican Senate Mitch McConnell announced that he would consult with the White House and work with it to defeat the impeachment charges. The Democrats went ballistic – hoping that no one would notice that Democrat leader Tom Daschle did coordinate exactly that way with the Clinton White House in the 1999 impeachment. Back then, the Senate passed (by a 100-0 vote) rules governing impeachment. Mr. McConnell would be wise to employ exactly the same rules today – after all, if they were unanimously approved then they couldn’t have been objectionable. One of the provisions of those rules was to allow a vote to dismiss the charges, which the Democrats duly introduced in that impeachment. It was defeated along party lines, but, the motion was introduced and voted on. Let us do the same thing today.
Back in that impeachment, the US House passed the Articles against President Clinton at around noon and by three o’clock that very day had selected Managers and transmitted the articles to the Senate. Of course, President Clinton had actually committed crimes (a Special Prosecutor listed eleven felonies). Special Counsel Mueller found none against President Trump).
It is our contention that the Constitution does not “require” the Articles to be “transmitted,” and nowhere in that document does it say that the President is not impeached until said articles are transmitted. The Democrats have lost the public relations argument for impeachment, they are losing the political argument for impeachment, and they are coming close to losing the legal argument for impeachment. Small wonder they want to delay the inevitable.
When the Senate reconvenes after the new year, we think Mr. McConnell should ask for a motion to dismiss the charges against the President, on the grounds that one of them attempts to “criminalize” the routine and normal exercise of rights between our branches of government, the other is so vague and open-ended that it could apply to almost any action any President takes; and neither one specifies a crime.
If the articles are dismissed, then the Senate should take up the question of why the US House wasted its time by sending such shabby and flimsy charges, that were formulated and approved without the President receiving due process, without allowing exculpatory witnesses to be called, without release of the entire transcript of the House hearings, and without taking any testimony at all from “The Whistleblower.” The latter is of importance, since, in the letter released in his name, almost every allegation the whistleblower made proved to be false. If the charges are dismissed, the Democrats will cry foul and declare a “constitutional crisis,” but they will anyway, and they also are likely to keep introducing or re-introducing and passing Articles of Impeachment as long as they have the majority in the House.
And why not address the “charge” that the President sought to “influence the 2020 election” by “asking a foreign government” to “dig up dirt” on the Biden family. If “digging up dirt” means paying for false testimony – that is what Hillary Clinton and the DNC did to Donald Trump. If Donald Trump were to ask anyone to do the same falsification about the Biden family or any one else, it would be wrong, unethical, and illegal. But if there was political corruption involving Americans in the Ukraine, and if the Obama administration quashed investigations in order to protect its own interests – not only did the President have a legitimate purpose in unearthing the truth, he had an obligation to do so. “No one is above the law” applies to Joe and Hunter Biden as well as to Donald Trump.