Leaders of House Committees announce two articles of impeachment yesterday morning.
In a momentous event yesterday, Democratic congressional leaders unveiled articles of impeachment against Donald J. Trump, a historic move set in motion by a whistleblower complaint warning the president was using the power of his office to solicit foreign interference in a US election.
Democrats outlined only two articles of impeachment: I) abuse of power and II) obstruction of Congress. The charges were announced by House judiciary chair Jerry Nadler, flanked by speaker Nancy Pelosi, intelligence chair Adam Schiff and other members of the Democratic leadership.
Nadler said:
“Today in service to our duty to the constitution and to our country the House committee on the judiciary is introducing two articles of impeachment, charging the president of the United States, Donald J Trump, with committing high crimes and misdemeanors.”
The articles were unveiled after almost three months of investigation of wrongdoing by Trump, including openly and brazenly admitting his perfidy and crimes. Despite his public admissions of high crimes (including one memorandum to staff ordering a total stonewall of congress, and the published transcript of his extortion of Vlodymor Zelenskiy), seemingly skirted over by most of the media, the House Dems brought the hammer. Hence Trump is accused of withholding military aid and an Oval Office meeting from Ukraine in exchange for investigations into the former vice-president Joe Biden, his political rival, and a baseless conspiracy theory which says Ukraine intervened in the U.S. election in 2016.
Democrats had weighed as many as four articles, including an obstruction of justice charge relating to Trump’s conduct during special counsel Robert Mueller’s inquiry into Russian election interference and links between Trump and Moscow.
While the impeachment articles focus on Trump’s conduct in the Ukraine scheme, Nadler said, the articles went to a “pattern” of presidential behavior, meaning they implicated the Trumpies seeking collusion with the Russians for help in the 2016 election as well..
According to the text of the first article, Trump “used the powers of the presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process". He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation. Hence:
“President Trump thus warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States.”
The second article states that “in the history of the Republic, no president has ever ordered the complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or sought to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability of the House of Representatives to investigate his behavior."
Explaining the charges, Nadler said: “A president who places himself above accountability, above the American people and above Congress’s power of impeachment … is a president who sees himself as above the law. We must be clear no one not even the president is above the law.”
The move means that by the end of next week, Trump could become the third president in US history to be impeached. Andrew Johnson survived impeachment in 1868, as did Bill Clinton in 1999. Richard Nixon resigned in 1974 before being formally impeached.
The House Judiciary committee will vote on the articles, followed by the full House. As Democrats control the lower chamber, a trial in the Senate is likely to follow in January. Republicans are in control there, making Trump’s conviction and removal unlikely.
Alas, by midday much of the corporate media had tied itself into explanatory knots after perceiving the limited nature of the articles, i.e. relative to what was expected.. Chief among the media's obsessions: 1) Why the House Democrats abandoned the use of the stronger language "bribery" or "extortion"... And (2) why the Dems settled on "obstruction of congress" instead of obstruction of justice.
The reason for (1) is straightforward and entails the fact that post-Constitution (and its mention of bribery) a subsequent court ruling narrowed the definition significantly by introducing statutory (legally based, i.e. criminal) components that raised the bar for proof. Not wishing to open the door for even more Repuke haggling over the existence of misconduct, the Dems chose to leave the terms out, which was a wise move - as Prof. Noah Feldman pointed out last night on 'All In'.
If you've got those things that's all the proving you need. It makes these very simple, clear and explicit articles of impeachment."
Regarding the reason for (2), obstruction of justice would have required the higher standard of Trump rejecting all possible court rulings, i.e. to turn over documents, witnesses. But as Prof. Feldman pointed out above, Trump's memorandum to his White House counsel seals the proof for obstruction of congress- so you really don't need anything else.
Also, as Adam Schiff pointed out yesterday at the announcement, they had already waited nearly eight months just for one court ruling on Don McGahn having to testify (which is still almost certainly going to the Supreme Court). So to avoid Trump's endless court delays - for which he is notorious - the Dems opted to simply cite obstruction of congress - which is still significant. As Prof. Lawrence Tribe of Harvard has also observed:
Also, as Adam Schiff pointed out yesterday at the announcement, they had already waited nearly eight months just for one court ruling on Don McGahn having to testify (which is still almost certainly going to the Supreme Court). So to avoid Trump's endless court delays - for which he is notorious - the Dems opted to simply cite obstruction of congress - which is still significant. As Prof. Lawrence Tribe of Harvard has also observed:
"It amounts to contempt of congress, a far more sweeping violation of separation of powers than even Richard Nixon was guilty of, cited in the then Article 3."
Other media talking heads, even on MSNBC, questioned why the Dems couldn't just wait. Adam Schiff's response to that was stark and blunt:
"The argument ‘Why don’t you just wait’ amounts to this: ‘Why don’t you just let him cheat in one more election?’Why not let him have foreign help just one more time?”
An interesting aspect that only appeared in some outlets (e.g. NY Times) later was that some Dem moderates wanted to try to build bipartisan support for a censure of Trump, instead of impeachment. But this sort of lily-livered response to what this maggot has tried to do is beyond the level of any kind of acceptance. It is, not to exaggerate, more like an appeasement on a level of with Neville Chamberlain's appeasement of Hitler, before World War II.(He signed the Munich Agreement in 1938, relinquishing a region of Czechoslovakia to the Nazis.)
Fortunately the censure move was DOA with the House Dem leaders, who recognized that given the Reptiles' dedicated protection of Trump there was no way in hell that wold pass wither. All that would happen is the Dems would be made laughing stocks.
See also:
https://newrepublic.com/article/155655/founding-fathers-impeachment-corruption-president-trump
No comments:
Post a Comment