Posted on 11/02/2019 4:14:21 PM PDT by xzins
HOUSE Speaker Nancy Pelosi has now formally stamped an institutional imprimatur on the continued House harassment intended to punish and harm President Donald Trump.
Following another deep-state assault against Trump, six House committees are operating under Speaker Pelosi’s recycled 2016 “resistance” umbrella for impeachment inquiries.
Speaker Pelosi needs to be reminded that the U.S. Constitution’s Article II, Section 4 has an exacting “high crimes” evidence standard for a valid House impeachment.
President Trump did absolutely nothing wrong in his telephone call with the Ukrainian leader.
Just as the Mueller investigation yielded no collusion and no obstruction, here there is no abuse of power or cover-up.
There is no quid, no pro, and no quo.
The media reports that this latest deep-state move against Trump comes from a CIA officer who was granted high-level security access in the White House.
However, the federal whistleblower statute’s protection is not applicable to illegal leaks of presidential communication by an intelligence official. Any reasoned legal analysis shows the CIA officer is not a whistleblower.
Regardless, the so-called “whistleblower complaint” evidences no wrongdoing by Trump. But its exacting legal form does indicate a coordinated intelligence operation against the 45th president.
Any collusion to mask the leak as a “whistleblower complaint” would itself be a gross betray of trust. And the so-called White House “cover up” was an appropriate attempt to plug and prevent illegal leaks.
The full House needs to be reminded that the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids legislative harassment—that is, punishment that causes direct harm or even reputational harm—such as those of a fake, partisan impeachment.
Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states that “[n]o bill of attainder…shall be passed.”
The House may not punish or harm any individual, including Donald John Trump.
Whether using a de facto (by fact) or de jure (by law) paradigm, the House’s punitive harassment, and the evolving fake impeachment against Trump, should be analyzed as an attainder.
Like attainders of old, the only purpose of the House’s fake impeachment of Trump, without any credible evidence of a high crime and without any possible chance of Senate conviction, is to punish, taint, and stain the president.
English jurist William Blackstone described “attainder” as any legislative harm, taint, stains, or blackening.
According to Blackstone, the prohibited “attintus” may come in any form or fashion. The attainder may constitute an actual penalty or it may be purposed solely to damage a targeted individual’s reputation and credibility.
The U.S. Constitution’s attainder restriction was a disruptive 18th century human rights advancement.
Harvard Law professor Zechariah Chaffee Jr. described the legislative punishment ban as “one of the three most important human rights” in the U.S. Constitution’s 1787 main (unamended) text.
The Constitution’s textual prohibition against attainder provides a solid, human-rights argument against the House moving forward with its fake impeachment of our duly elected president.
A Bill of Attainder is basically creating a crime and punishment on the spot to target an individual. Our Constitution outlawed it, and all ex post facto laws, as noted above.
As in retroactive tax increases billed by the IRS in clear violation of the ex post facto clause, and the Kenyan usurpation where the requirements for POTUS were summarily ignored to elect a communist candidate, and the open borders policy and its sequelae where illegal invaders from other countries come here, work and practice professionally, get elected to office, and whose felony entries are ignored by the millions...
As in all these things, the problem with the country is not the law or the Constitution, but the total lack of law enforcement.
And beneath that, and perhaps the graver lesion, is the lack of concern among everyone that this situation is fatal.
If we allow the lawless Democrats to act with impunity, then, the Unites States eventually falls apart.
A bill of attainder can be passed by the British and Canadian Parliaments but in actual practice no one would dare do it out of fear of the consequences.
Sadly, that’s not a deterrent here and if the Democrats proceed with impeachment, they will reap what they sow.
The level of criminality committed by a president is given verbatim IN TWO EXAMPLES as written in the Constitution. Those two EXAMPLES of seriousness are treason and bribery. The Constitution goes on with “High crimes AND misdemeanors” so as to highlight there must be a level of severity of treason or bribery in those high crimes AND misdemeanors.
It’s important to take notice of the “and” instead of “or”. It is nearly impossible to create a high crime without also engaging in multiple misdemeanors WHEN THERE IS INTENT to commit that high crime. There are accidental high crimes but no intent to commit such. This gets into the minutia of a presidents character when intent is injected.
In the case of Trump there are missteps in communications that are less than elegant but they are not misdemeanors, or they could be argued that they are.
There is no VIOLATION OF LAW or US CODE or regulation that can be sited with court damning evidence ALONG WITH THE ACCUSATION where a prosecutor would win a case over a defense. Breaking a law needs evidence and witnesses for a judge and jury to weigh.
Civil ex post facto laws are legal and are passed all the time. Criminal ex post facto laws are unconstitutional.
So should we tell dems as soon as they pick who is going to run we will impeach them
“ When are republicans going to wake up and realize their asses are on the line too. If they allow this travesty to continue then they deserve what they’re going to get.”
*
But, what can Republicans do? As I understand it, the House has sole responsibility for impeachment. And, there’s nothing to stop the House from writing process and procedure as they want. Being it’s a political matter and not a political one there’s no appeal process, not even the Supreme Court. So, we have to wait until the House Dems either decide to impeach and hand it over to the Senate for trial or drop it. Personally, I’m guessing it might be dropped once the Justice Department investigations are handed over to the Grand Jury and indictments start being issued.
Someone should point this out to Trump’s lawyers.
The Dems made a rule saying Trump can’t have Lawyers and can’t defend himself
Karl Rove tried to push a “shoe on the other foot” argument to suggest that what Trump was trying to do with Biden was “dig up dirt” like Clinton did through GPS Fusion. First, Trump was aware of the corruption in the Ukraine through Giuliani’s evidence as well as media articles. He was requesting cooperation with the AG not asking for material directly related to his campaign. Digging up dirt is a fishing expedition looking for any potential crime or negative information on a person. Asking for cooperation in investigating crimes in your role as President is nothing like this. Rove is a jerk to suggest it is.
Thanks for that, Victor Williams. That was an interesting article on attainder. My question is what is Trump supposed to do? Launch a lawsuit, seek a court injunction, or what?
Bump
Yes, this impeachment effort is an attainder since they stated they wanted to impeach him before he even took office.
What the democrats are claiming is that the majority Congressional party can pick who gets to be president by throwing out the other party who wins the presidential election.
Of course it is unconstitutional. 90% of what Congress does is unconstitutional. They’ll impeach him first and invent a crime later and declare him guilty.
“Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states that “[n]o bill of attainder…shall be passed.””
Pretty obviously the point of the rule change allowing hearsay as “whistleblower”. Sounding more actionable.
Trump should send marshals to break down Pelosi’s home door.
In modern legal usage, while not a felony (high crime), a misdemeanor is a crime. Q: What crime has President Trump committed? A: None.
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.