Become a Clash Insider!
Big Tech is clamping down on conservative media big time. Don’t let Big Tech pre-chew your news. Sign up for our free email newsletter, and we’ll make sure to keep you in the loop.
Follow Doug on Parler @TheGilesWay.
Let me get this straight: Democrats desperate to ruin Trump, and the direct victims of the act he is alleged to have incited are asked to adjudicate the guilt of the guy who supposedly wronged them?
Welcome to Bizarro World. If 2020 wasn’t weird enough for ya, welcome to 2021.
They are hellbent on getting this trial underway, and won’t let little things like precedents, jurisdiction, or even the Constitution get in the way of their goal.
Maybe you heard that slogan popularized in the Vietnam Era, (borrowed from an old poem whose meaning they completely reversed) that asked, “what if they threw a war and nobody showed up?”
Well, some Vietnam-Era Democrat politicians are now facing a similar question on their own impeachment debacle. They threw an impeachment, but the Chief Justice isn’t interested in showing up. You see, Trump isn’t a President. They are bringing forward an impeachment trial against a man who does not currently hold an elected office.
As a work-around, Democrats are going to try him as a private citizen. (Whether a Senate has ANY lawful jurisdiction to make a ruling against ANY private citizen whatsoever remains an open question.)
Here comes the Second-Annual Impeachent Proceedings. (Second verse, same as the first!) This guy will will be overseeing the shenanigans:
He’s an old fart who may be more memorable for being in 5 Batman movies than for his actual accomplishments in a lifetime in elected office.
Democrat Patrick Leahy, the Senate’s longest-serving member, said on Monday he would preside over the trial.
Although the Constitution calls on the U.S. chief justice to preside over presidential impeachments, a senator presides when the impeached is not the current president, a Senate source said. First elected to the chamber in 1974, Leahy, 80, holds the title of Senate president pro tempore. –Reuters
There’s another bizarre quality to this ‘impeachment’ in which the language of the actual charge brought against the defendant is actually self-refuting. (Hugh Hewitt raised this point.)
See if you can spot the issue.
— ‘…against Donald John Trump, President of the United States…’
— ‘…Resolved, that Donald John Trump, President of the United States is impeached for…’
— ‘…against Donald John Trump, President of the United States of America …’
— ‘…and that the President “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of…’
— President Trump addressed … Incited by President Trump … President Trump’s conduct … President Trump gravely endangered … interfered with the peaceful transition of power …
— … President Trump, by such conduct, has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office …
— 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 problem his accusers now face is the very thing they claim Trump was preventing.
… used the very same legal avenues that have been used by Democrats for election cycles past counting, objecting to the result of one or another aspect of the election, contesting the results legally, and constitutionally as per provisions of the Constitution itself, using methods used unsuccessfully by none other than Nancy Pelosi, and through nonviolent public lamenting not unlike what Stacey Abrams and Hillary Clinton and defenders of Al Gore do to this very day, Trump exhausted his final legal avenue of dissent, and proceeded in an orderly fashion to cooperate with the transition of power.
As a Result…
Donald Trump TODAY is not the same person or legal entity that he was on the days those articles of Impeachment were first drafted.
Their contentions lie with the 45th President of the United States, not with Donald Trump, the private citizen.
They may have been within their Constitutional (if perhaps not moral) rights to bring this allegation against the 45th President while such a person still sat in office, that man is no longer available to face the charges brought against him.
As talking heads were so fond of saying in early January of 2017, ‘there is only one President at a time’, the same is no less true today.
Their grievance is with a President. One they allege has been a ‘threat’, and I quote here ‘if allowed to remain in office’.
Well, that ship has already sailed, hasn’t it? As he is no longer IN office, he cannot be considered a ‘threat’. It’s no different than the foreign dealings for which Hunter Biden is presently under investigation will not preclude Joe Biden from getting security clearance — although it might have disqualified a lesser politician — because the People have spoken. As of today, the issue is moot.
But Democrats might want to be careful how they proceed. Between this and various attempts to throw around the Fourteenth Amendment, their full-court press to finally and forever disqualify Trump could backfire spectacularly.
Several members of Congress have looked into a little-known amendment that could exclude President Trump from office: The 14th Amendment.
“The 14th amendment is the big post-Civil War amendment,” he said. “Section Three is the part we are concerned with. It says, the short version is, anyone who participates in an insurrection is ineligible for state or federal office.”
According to Dr. Graber, there’s no trial just a simple question to Congress:
“It’s for Congress to determine whether there was an insurrection and whether somebody participated.”
Both chambers of Congress would then vote to invoke Section Three of the 14th amendment.
Here’s the key: An impeachment conviction requires two-thirds of the Senate would have to vote for conviction. Section Three of the 14th amendment only requires a simple majority vote. —KHOU
Why would that be a dangerous road to start down?
Simple — how many Democrats have been openly supportive (and slow in denouncing) even the more violent members of riots in the past few years?
Two people now sitting in the White House explicitly defended the violent mob that attacked that same White House in the beginning of June as ‘peaceful protesters’ and party leaders deliberately characterized law enforcement (many of whom were injured that night) as being ‘Stormtroopers’.
In the ‘fine people hoax’ narrative Joe launched his campaign with, he explicitly defended one group of protesters (Trump denounced both) as the good guys. We all know which leftist group was present there, right? Sure sounds like an endorsment.
Kamala even helped organize fundraising for bail even for violent protesters so that could re-offend.
Are you SURE you want to go down this road? It’ll get REAL ugly in a hurry, and you cannot be certain you will win.