It has been a long time. Sue me. Life intrudes.
So, anyway, as I predicted in 2016, the Democrats have impeached the President for only the third time in our history. Let’s reread that. It has only happened three times, now. For those who are history challenged:
Andrew Johnson, the 17th President removed from office, Edwin Stanton, the then Secretary of War. Congress was not in session at the time. The Senate once reconvened, made almost immediate movement towards impeaching Johnson for violating the Tenure in Office Act. The law stated that the President did not have the authority to “fire” a cabinet member without the Senate confirming their removal. Johnson had vetoed the law and Congress had over-ridden his veto. The Senate voted nearly two-to-one to reinstate Stanton, and Johnson, seemingly setting himself up for a chance at the higher courts to rule the Tenure in Office Act unconstitutional, refused.
Johnson was impeached and avoided removal from office by a single vote.
The Tenure in Office Act was repealed about twenty years later for being murky and giving the Legislative branch over reaching powers over the Executive branch. Congress had too much say in who the President appointed and maintained in his own Cabinet.
So Johnson was impeached, tried in the Senate, and survived.
William Jefferson Clinton, the 42nd President was impeached on two counts—lying to a federal grand jury under oath, and obstruction of justice. Let me state that second charge again; obstruction of justice.
See, while Slick Willie was president, he was having a sexual relationship (some might call it an affair, a fling, getting some strange), whatever. His target was a young intern name Monica Lewinsky. Clinton had over a dozen sexual encounters with her inside the White House. Lewinsky was later transferred to the Pentagon and began to confide to a coworker (Linda Tripp) who began to record the conversations about these encounters.
Later during the trial about Clinton’s improper behavior towards Paula Jones, he told Lewinsky to deny everything which she did. This would be the obstruction of justice charge. Under oath and on television, would Clinton bake his own potato by uttering, “I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.”
Then it turn out that he did. That would be the lying under oath charge. Later, Special Counsel Kenneth Starr would provide 18 boxes of documents outlining 11 charges that could be filed including witness tampering and abuse of power, and perjury.
It was 228-206 in the House on the perjury count. It was 221-212 on the obstruction of justice charge. While hardly resoundingly bipartisan in the House, it was far more so than the circus against Trump. In the Senate, Clinton came nowhere near being convicted with a 55-45 vote against perjury and a 50-50 split vote on the obstruction of justice charge. So somehow, the Senate at the time interpreted Clinton’s aver under oath of not having sex with Lewinsky as being the same as having sex with Lewinsky. And at least 5 Senators while stating that Clinton did not lie under oath, engaged in obstruction of justice for trying to make Lewinsky say she didn’t have the sex that she had with Clinton. So he obstructed justice covering up a crime they say he didn’t lie about under oath.
Now, here we are. Trump was impeached in the House for abuse of power, and obstruction of Congress. Remember at the beginning when I repeated Johnson’s charge? Obstruction of justice? Clinton did it too. This time, the House is saying he obstruction Congress, not justice. He obstructed them by ordering White House officials to not submit to subpoenas and testifying.
Anyone can ignore a subpoena. The Justice Department can enforce the subpoena. The Justice Department, however is run by the President. So it is unlikely that a President, not wanting to be summoned can be forced to appear. What the President can do is invoke executive privilege thereby protecting the personnel those who received the subpoena.
It is neither an abuse of power or an obstruction of justice. Obama did it in 2012 himself.
Now in this hearing, the Democrats, first led by Adam Shifty Schiff in the Intelligence Committee, the by Jerrold “Grandpa pants” Nadler in the Justice Committee led a partisan battle whereby only they could call witnesses. Only they could question them. There were no fact witnesses. The only people “testifying” were partisans and left-leaning lawyers and those appointed (and fired) officials who relayed what they heard or what they interpreted Trump meant by their orders.
Trump call of July 25, 2019 with the Ukrainian President: “…the other thing. There’s a lot of talk about Biden’s son, that Biden stopped the prosecution and a lot of people want to find out about that so whatever you can do with the Attorney General would be great. Biden went around bragging that he stopped the prosecution so if you could look into it…it sounds horrible to me.”
Nowhere in this transcript is there a threat to without military aid. No where in there an “ask”; if you do this, we’ll do that. It was simply Trump saying that a lot of people are talking about it and that Biden was even bragging about it. (Stopping an prosecution into his son and company he worked for)
Joe Biden remarks:
“…I went over the twelfth, thirteenth time and I was supposed to announce there was another billion dollar loan guarantee. And I’d gotten a commitment from Voryschenko and from Yatsenyuk (name spelling is phonetic) that they would take action against a state prosecutor but they didn’t….and I said we’re not gonna give you the billion dollars. They said, “You have no authority. You’re not the President. The President said…” And I said, “Call him.” I said, “You’re not getting the billion dollars…I’m leaving here in about 6 hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money.” Well, son of a bitch. He got fired. AND they put in place someone who was…solid.”
Contrast Trump’s call with this transcript. Clearly, the (then) Vice President of the United States was extorting the leaders of another country to do something in order to be paid. If you don’t do this, you won’t get that. That, ladies in gentlemen, is a quid pro quo. It just so happens the prosecutor Biden wanted fired was investigating his own son and the company he worked for. Pure coincidence.
So, the Democrats are trying to impeach the President because he asked a foreign President to investigate corruption on a massive scale; that a leader in our own system of government not only admitted to doing, but bragged about it like he was in a stand-up comedy routine.
Now, even to this day, the Speaker of the House Nancy “plastic stretch” Pelosi is withholding the voted upon articles of impeachment. These articles were voted upon by purely partisan voting standards. Not a single Republican vote. In fact 2 Democrats voted against them.
Why is Pelosi doing this? She wants certain things made clear before she turns them over. They want to know how the Republicans in the Senate will conduct the trial. They want the ability to call more witnesses. In essence, they want to try him again. That’s not how it works. The House investigates and sends approved articles to the Senate. The Senate then tries the President based on the strength of the House’s case. That it is a house of cards is the fault of Schiff and Nadler. They won’t send the articles to the Senate because they want the Senate to help them rebuild their case.
SC Senator Lindsay Graham said, “This is a land — uncharted waters, constitutionally. I just know this; that this matters to the future of the country. We cannot have a system where the House impeaches the president, tells the Senate how to conduct the trial, holds the articles of impeachment over the president’s head at a time of their choosing to unleash them.”
If you look at it dispassionately, Pelosi is asking for a quid pro quo. If you promise this, we’ll do that. If you won’t do this, we won’t give you that.
Who is abusing their power, now?