Posted on 12/07/2019 3:22:31 AM PST by Kaslin
Another chapter in the House impeachment melodrama unfolded this week. The proceedings shifted from Adam Schiff's Intel Committee to the Judiciary Committee, which is run by another Democratic member of Congress, Jerry Nadler of New York. Last month Schiff's failed approach was to bring down the president by bringing in a whole cavalcade of intelligence and foreign policy professionals and having them explain how their feelings had been hurt by the bad Orange man.
Jerry Nadler tried a new approach. His strategy was to treat impeachment like a faculty meeting at Wesleyan. He produced a long line of academics with impressive-sounding credentials and had them condemn the president. And if you weren't paying close attention, you might have been impressed. A highlight was when Nadler asked witness Noah Feldman what the framers of the Constitution would have thought about President Trump's behavior. Feldman answered: "I believe the framers would identify president Trump's conduct as exactly the kind of abuse of office high crime and misdemeanor that they were worried about."
Madison, Hamilton, Washington. These are the same people the left would like to see dethroned, their statues knocked over by screaming college kids. If even they think Trump is rotten, then impeachment is mandatory. Of course, once you pause and consider this all for a moment, it starts to look a little less impressive. None of the witnesses had any evidence against the president. They were instead giving you their opinions.
So why would we care what these people think? Apparently, we are supposed to care because of their credentials, which enable them to give a fair, balanced and informed opinion on how America ought to proceed. But is that real? Well, consider the star witness, Pam Karlan. She is the Kenneth and Harle Montgomery Professor of Public Interest Law at Stanford. And before that, she clerked for a Supreme Court justice and earned three separate degrees at Yale. She has written several textbooks on constitutional law. If there is one impressive person in this country who our system has deemed capable of making judgments that you don't even understand, it's this lady.
But think again. And this is a subtheme of the impeachment drama that we would like to highlight for its lasting impact. It turns out the more you know about the people you are supposed to consider impressive, the more you find out they are not impressive at all. Karlan, for example, is not some apolitical academic. She is a political activist who has donated thousands of dollars to Elizabeth Warren, Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.
Donating to Democrats does not prove that Karlan is wrong. She proved that herself. She made it very clear that she was incapable of wise judgments. Instead, she made bizarre claims. She claimed that delaying military aid to Ukraine was like cutting off rescue services to Americans after a hurricane. She also engaged in embarrassing political stunts like ridiculing a president's teenage son: "The Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility. So while the president can name his son Barron, he can't make him a Barron," Karlan said. Wonder how long she practiced that one in the mirror.
Karlan's fellow witnesses were almost as embarrassing. Noah Feldman, professor at Harvard Law School, told lawmakers that he was skeptical of impeachment until this past summer. Suggesting, of course, that his endorsement is more legitimate. Turns out that was a lie. How do we know? All the way back in March of 2017, the same man suggested that Trump should be impeached because of a tweet he sent accusing President Obama of monitoring Trump Tower. That was impeachable, he said. He also said that Jim Comey's memo of his conversations with Trump was impeachment-worthy, too. He even told Slate.com that the president doesn't actually have free speech and should be impeached simply for saying things that Feldman doesn't like.
The only witness who didn't embarrass himself was George Washington Law professor Jonathan Turley. Describing Turley as a GOP witness or a right-winger or a Republican is inaccurate. He is a member of the Democratic Party. He has advocated legalizing polygamy. He wanted George W. Bush tried for war crimes. He doesn't like Trump. He didn't vote for him. But he called an absurdity where he saw one:
"My personal views of President Trump are as irrelevant to my impeachment testimony as they should be to your impeachment vote. I get it. You're mad. The president's mad. My Republican friends are mad. My Democratic friends are mad. Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad? Will it only invite an invitation for the madness to follow every future administration? That is why this is wrong. It's not wrong because President Trump is right. His call was anything but perfect. It's not wrong because the House has no legitimate reason to investigate the Ukrainian controversy. It's not wrong because we're in an election year. There is no good time for an impeachment. No. It's wrong because this is not how you impeach an American president."
Turley had it exactly right. This charade we are all witnessing in Washington is definitely not how you impeach an American president.
2020 election cant come sooner
Ukraine is a fulcrum for all kinds of vileness. We have a treaty with them to investigate criminal matters.
I’d rather entrust the government of the United States to the first 400 people listed in the Boston telephone directory than to the faculty of Harvard University.
William F. Buckley, Jr.
Wouldn’t this make a great comedy movie....fake American managers arrive to work for some major Ukrainian company, who don’t know anything about the product, and are there strictly to collect on political ‘debt’. Throw in some Russian hookers, Cypriot intellectuals, an American VP calling daily about ‘business’, and Ukrainian journalists wondering if this is a legit business enterprise or just a mafia front (paid by the US government).
Your parents were very wise.
When the God believing and fearing founders of this nation came up with the Republican vs democratic form of governmental representation. It appears to me they considered that groups we call political partys once elected to a given political office. Could place their groups control and interest above the common good and benefit of the nation once elected to a legislative, executive or judicial office Rather than work together for the common interest.
They felt that upon election requiring taking the oath of office taken which swears loyalty to abide and support the constitution would avert any such direction and super cede any political postion taken by the group that the office holder associated with before entering .
There’s too much use of personality hate Trump preferences as the excuse for quote, impeachment, unquote. It’s a distraction from the real reason. What should be looked into and brought to public attention is the connection to the corruption used by the swamp creatures Trump would put a screeching halt to. And offered as the real reason why they are going after Trump.
When the God believing and fearing founders of this nation came up with the Republican vs democratic form of governmental representation. It appears to me they considered that groups we call political partys once elected to a given political office. Could place their groups control and interest above the common good and benefit of the nation once elected to a legislative, executive or judicial office Rather than work together for the common interest.
They felt that upon election requiring taking the oath of office taken which swears loyalty to abide and support the constitution would avert any such direction and super cede any political position taken by the group that the office holder associated with before entering . That reliance ended in 2012 when the democrats attempted to remove any reference to Our Creator in their 2012 convention.
There’s too much use of personality hate Trump preferences as the excuse for quote, impeachment, unquote. It’s a distraction from the real reason. What should be looked into and brought to public attention is the connection to the corruption used by the swamp creatures Trump would put a screeching halt to. And offered as the real reason why they are going after Trump.
Ben Shapiro (like him or not) mad a very good point on one of his videos. To paraphrase, you counter lefties not just by challenging their stupid beliefs, no, but also by reminding them that they are bad/evil/malicious.
Well, I wouldn’t the people from the Boston directory, myself
I have an idea for a TV movie. The opening scene would be somewhat familiar. A nefarious character, say a Utah Senator that is rumored to be super wealthy from his past double-dealing in some under-handed financial maneuvers, meets with a fellow Republican Senator over dinner at his home.
The guest, being a politician, has a number of questionable episodes in his past (information provided by various government operatives) that can be exploited through blackmail, as well as the usual greed for financial gain.
The host offers to ensure that all of the past misdeeds will never see the light of day and a bonus of $100 million will deposited in a secret account (a tax-free windfall!) once the Senator votes to remove the sitting president from office in the potential upcoming Senate trial. This scene would be repeated about twenty more times, with each corrupt senator believing they alone are the recipient of the host’s largess.
The fix is in.
A lengthy made-for-TV Senate trial dramatically follows a solemn impeachment vote in the House of Representatives.
Breathless television newscasters have a ratings windfall ending with the surprise news that the US Senate votes to remove the president!
The finale would be a big reveal that the plan and all of the funding came from a foundation linked to a Hungarian billionaire who is intent on naming the new vice-president. Dark hints alluding to the removal of the existing vice-president in an arranged ‘accident’ following his inauguration could provide a surprise ending scene.
We all know, of course, that this is fiction. It could never possibly happen. No US Senator could ever be that corrupt or double-dealing.
They all have very high standards.
Buckley had a gift for hyperbole: exaggeration for effect.
He didn’t want them either but given the choice it is what he would choose.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.