“The question is not whether the President’s conduct could have resulted from permissible motives. It is whether the President’s real reasons, the ones in his mind at the time, were legitimate.” We hope this is not the sort of thing one is taught in prestigious law schools nowadays, for instance, the ones represented by the three Democrat professors in last week’s hearing. Not only does this type of lawyering make intent more important than action, but it also enables the prosecutor to divine the intent of the accused, even if there is no direct evidence for it. None of those professors or Democrat Congresspeople would sit still for a moment if this practice were to be employed against an illegal alien charged with a crime, or a career criminal caught at the scene with circumstantial evidence, or a Democrat President whose DNA happened to be found on a blue dress.
The report states that the President is “obstructing justice” when he challenges or denies requests for documents or witnesses, or seeks to have the Courts clarify what may legitimately be withheld, even though such actions are constitutionally permissible and have been invoked by many Presidents, including Bill Clinton and Barack Obama.
The report also contends that the President has committed “treason” and “betrayed our national security.” Well, that is quite a stretch, considering treason is generally described as giving material aid to our nation’s enemies in time of war; and whether the delivery of military goods was delayed or not, it took place in full – and the Obama administration delivered ZERO lethal military aid to Ukraine in eight years. It is hard to comprehend how complete denial of aid by one administration is OK, while a two month delay in delivering aid by another administration “betrays our national security.”
Here’s another: “The President can commit high crimes and misdemeanors without violating federal law.” Let some Arizona sheriff try that with an illegal alien suspected of a crime and see how the House Democrats react. We guess that means that just because the three US Presidents who faced impeachment each had been accused of breaking a specific law or laws doesn’t mean that a president has to break a law to be impeached. Again, a novel thought.
We also like this one: “The House is not subject to rigid evidentiary rules in deciding whether to approve articles.” Boy, we bet if any of them were charged without “rigid evidentiary rules” they would be resisting to the utmost and screaming to high heaven.
The report also quotes former Democratic Rep. Robert Kastenmeier, who was on the Watergate committee in 1974: “The power of impeachment is. . . intended as a final remedy against executive excess.” Odd that it was the first, and not the final, “remedy” that the Democrats undertook – and it is entirely relevant to mention that the party has sought to impeach the President on multiple occasions and for multiple reasons long before the Zelensky phone call. Pretty easy to argue that this impeachment effort is a cause in search of a reason.
The Nadler report is as one-sided and dishonest as the Schiff report which purports that the President committed misconduct without ever stating what law he violated. Oh, wait, we forgot that one doesn’t have to break the law in order to commit an impeachable offense. From their viewpoint, it is probably better that no law is broken, because that would (possibly) require them to allow due process, while hearsay, unsupported allegations, assumptions and “divined intent” need no due process at all.
It also is delicious to see all those “dead white males” that the Democrats routinely sneer at and whose statues they want to tear down are cited as exalted sources (out of context, of course) to justify the no-due-process-farce that this impeachment effort has become. The clincher in this regard is quoting Madison in Federalist No. 51: “[impeachment] was forged to counter a terrible power: the despot who deems himself to be above the law.” Now back in Madison’s day, “despotism” had a meaning,such as “a ruler with absolute, unlimited power; autocrat; any tyrant or oppressor.” Today the term is thrown around indiscriminately in law schools and the halls of Congress, it seems. Cuba had one in Castro, the Soviet Union had one in every year of its existence; the Founding Fathers believed that the King of England behaved as one – at least towards the colonies. America has never had a “despot” as President, nor does it have one today, and to declare that it does is hysterical hyperbole that weakens every other argument that the claimant makes.
Speaking of weakening one’s argument, we can’t end without a review of the testimony of the distinguished professors mentioned above. They were there to provide backup and justification for impeachment. Let’s see. . .Harvard Professor Noah Feldman has been seeking the impeachment of President Trump since 2017, and declared months ago that the President had committed an impeachable offense in that July phone call. Like most modern civil libertarians, he made no pretense of offering the President the benefit of the doubt or considering any possible motivation other than “personal gain.” He sought to impeach President Trump 46 days into his term. So powerful is his grasp of the facts that he wrote this: “As more and more evidence of collusion between Donald Trump’s presidential campaign and Russia has come to light, the analogy to Watergate has grown ever stronger.” Too bad Robert Mueller failed to find that evidence that Prof. Feldman so clearly saw.
Professor Pamela Karlan, of Stanford University, who was said to be so extreme that President Obama chose Sonia Sotomayor for a Supreme Court vacancy instead, has donated money to Hillary Clinton, Barack Obama, and other Democrats , which, as, she pointed out, is her right. Of course, no one questioned her right to do so, but instead argued that perhaps the donations indicated some degree of bias. So, perhaps, was her proud admission that she crossed the street rather than walk in front of the Trump Hotel. Again, an indication of bias, and a childish one at that. She has argued for impeachment since 2017.
Professor Michael Gerhardt of the University of North Carolina, also a donor to Democrats, earlier claimed that President Trump “trashed the Constitution” and “dismissed the rule of law as irrelevant in his life.” Perhaps a bit of an exaggeration, especially for an “academic.” He also has been making cases for impeachment on various grounds since 2017.
All of these three have been calling for President Trump’s impeachment so often and for so many reasons that their present accusations seem to be the same old story.
And then there was the fourth Professor, Jonathan Turley of George Washington. Like the other three, he voted for Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton, but he rose above partisanship to deliver a scathing rebuttal to the other three, saying that “the current case for impeachment is woefully inadequate” and that Congress is “abusing its power” even as it accuses the President of doing the same thing. “Impeachment must be based on proof, not assumptions,” he testified, noting, “a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger” on the Democrat side.
Well, the hearings have changed few minds, we are told, although President Trump now has a 52% approval rating, quite a bit above President Obama at a comparable point in his presidency, and it is a fair assumption that there will be more Democrats voting against impeachment than there will be Republicans voting for it.