Now that the Impeachment "trial" of Donald J. Trump has wound down in the US Senate, I thought it best to point out some things I picked up as a citizen along the way. First, the American Public has yet to understand impeachment is not removal from office or acquittal in the Senate does not erase the fact a sitting president has been impeached. Impeachment, once passed by the House of Representatives, is forever, whether removed from office or not.
Second, despite what Republicans have been publicly stating as fact, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring Congressional oversight in an Impeachment matter to include the Courts. You see the GOP has routinely attempted to "sell" a notion that if the Executive in an impeachment inquiry refuses to abide by subpoenaed issued by the House in its efforts to investigate potential wrongdoing of the Executive, they must seek the "third co-equal branch of government to decide if the issued Subpoenas are "lawful." Except no wherein Article I of the Constitution (or under authority granted to the Courts under Article III), does it require anything of the sort. In fact, under Article I, the Constitution explicitly states the power of impeachment resides "solely" within the House. If the power to investigate a sitting president requires judicial intervention (as asserted by the GOP), then why didn't the Framers include such language? I submit because of two things. One is that the Courts were to have NO role in investigating a sitting Executive, because there is NO authority granted to the Courts in the Constitution to engage in said action. The Second? When the Constitution was proposed and ultimately ratified (1787/1791), there were NO Courts established under Article III, except the High Court. In fact, under Article III, all lower Courts and the rules in which the operate are determined by acts of Congress. So if there were no Courts to rule on impeachment at the time the Framers wrote the provision into the Constitution, why would anyone think they were meant to included? The word "solely" really should mean something.
Another argument raised by the GOP is just as disingenuous. We should not disrupt the will of the people in a prior election by impeaching and removing a sitting president within an upcoming "election season." This same logic was used to block Merrick Garland's appointment by President Obama to the High Court. (See: www.npr.org/2016/03/16/470664561/mcconnell-blocking-supreme-court-nomination-about-a-principle-not-a-person). Except once again, there is absolutely no such restrictions in the Constitution limiting the ability to remove a corrupt president just because the people could decide in the next election. What if the impeachment arises in the second term of a sitting president? Would they argue no such proceedings should take place because they would be gone anyway on the next election? Based upon the current GOP's logic, is there ANY basis for removing a sitting president? (See: www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/republican-case-against-impeachment/603712/).
Another alternative the Senate GOP is refusing to consider is the option to remove Mr. Trump from office, but allow him to run again in the next election. Could it be possible a sitting president is removed by not prohibited him/her from running again? Yes, they can. If the Senate votes to remove but not bar him from seeking office again, Trump could remain on the GOP ballot for President and continue to seek re-election, even if removed due to wrongdoing. So when the GOP say impeachment and removal over-turns the will of the people and we should let the voters decide, this would be a win-win for us all - except the GOP has no guts to do anything remotely correct in this matter. (See: www.politifact.com/article/2019/nov/06/could-donald-trump-be-impeached-removed-and-then-r/). Despite their oaths to remain impartial, Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader of the GOP Senate stated up front (as did several other Republican Senators) that they were in "lock-Step" with the president and his defense team. Some justice right?
Now we learn that Pat Cippilone, Trump's White House Counsel and Senate Impeachment Trial defense counsel has been directly implicated as a participant in the Ukraine Scandal. All the while asserting there was no first hand evidence against Trump and no need to call actual fact witnesses, the man making the argument is in fact himself a witness to the wrongdoing. Talk about violating ethic rules universally applied to all legal counsel. This alone ranks right up there with GOP House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member David Nunes complete failure to admit during the Inquiry stage his own involvement in the Biden-Ukraine Conspiracy nonsense. (See: www.rawstory.com/2020/01/holy-crap-bolton-directly-implicated-pat-cipollone-as-a-fact-witness-in-trump-impeachment-trial/). (See: www.cnn.com/2019/12/05/politics/nunes-ukraine-controversy/index.html).
And finally, calling no witnesses to a trial is hardly how trials actually are run. The GOP argues that the House Democrats "rushed the impeachment" to be out front of the election, yet admit they "don't have the time necessary to hear from witnesses", despite the severity of the charges involved. This stretches credibility considering the sitting Senate has set a record for doing so little by way of passing legislation (0ver 400 bills from the House remain on McConnells' desk). They "work" no more than 4 1.2 days a week (if that). Not a bad gig for $174,000 plus in salary plus benefits. (See: www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/54664816).
So as we head into the thick of Election 2020, Please remind yourself that a sitting president without any way of investigating him for wrongdoing, any way to indict him for proven wrongdoing and no way to overcome stonewalling efforts by Congress to force testimony and documents, leaves the president in an enviable position of having no more checks and balances left against him. Even the basic premise of the Congress having the "power of the purse" is gone now that Trump can (according to the GAO -illegally) use congressionally authorize taxpayer monies to be leverage for his personal gain. In other words, the GOP today no longer cares to act in its role as a check against a separate branch of government, and instead, prefers to solidify political power over the power granted to it by the Framers in our Constitution.
If the GOP is so confident in allowing the American voters to decide our next president and elected officials, then let's see them stop pushing voter suppression measures, gerrymandering and pushing foreign money into our electoral process. Let's also hope come November, those very same American voters show the GOP how we really feel by not only defeating Donald Trump, but by wiping away dozens of GOP seats in the House and more than enough in the Senate to switch control of that once esteemed institution. Have a great week.
Second, despite what Republicans have been publicly stating as fact, there is nothing in the Constitution requiring Congressional oversight in an Impeachment matter to include the Courts. You see the GOP has routinely attempted to "sell" a notion that if the Executive in an impeachment inquiry refuses to abide by subpoenaed issued by the House in its efforts to investigate potential wrongdoing of the Executive, they must seek the "third co-equal branch of government to decide if the issued Subpoenas are "lawful." Except no wherein Article I of the Constitution (or under authority granted to the Courts under Article III), does it require anything of the sort. In fact, under Article I, the Constitution explicitly states the power of impeachment resides "solely" within the House. If the power to investigate a sitting president requires judicial intervention (as asserted by the GOP), then why didn't the Framers include such language? I submit because of two things. One is that the Courts were to have NO role in investigating a sitting Executive, because there is NO authority granted to the Courts in the Constitution to engage in said action. The Second? When the Constitution was proposed and ultimately ratified (1787/1791), there were NO Courts established under Article III, except the High Court. In fact, under Article III, all lower Courts and the rules in which the operate are determined by acts of Congress. So if there were no Courts to rule on impeachment at the time the Framers wrote the provision into the Constitution, why would anyone think they were meant to included? The word "solely" really should mean something.
Another argument raised by the GOP is just as disingenuous. We should not disrupt the will of the people in a prior election by impeaching and removing a sitting president within an upcoming "election season." This same logic was used to block Merrick Garland's appointment by President Obama to the High Court. (See: www.npr.org/2016/03/16/470664561/mcconnell-blocking-supreme-court-nomination-about-a-principle-not-a-person). Except once again, there is absolutely no such restrictions in the Constitution limiting the ability to remove a corrupt president just because the people could decide in the next election. What if the impeachment arises in the second term of a sitting president? Would they argue no such proceedings should take place because they would be gone anyway on the next election? Based upon the current GOP's logic, is there ANY basis for removing a sitting president? (See: www.theatlantic.com/ideas/archive/2019/12/republican-case-against-impeachment/603712/).
Another alternative the Senate GOP is refusing to consider is the option to remove Mr. Trump from office, but allow him to run again in the next election. Could it be possible a sitting president is removed by not prohibited him/her from running again? Yes, they can. If the Senate votes to remove but not bar him from seeking office again, Trump could remain on the GOP ballot for President and continue to seek re-election, even if removed due to wrongdoing. So when the GOP say impeachment and removal over-turns the will of the people and we should let the voters decide, this would be a win-win for us all - except the GOP has no guts to do anything remotely correct in this matter. (See: www.politifact.com/article/2019/nov/06/could-donald-trump-be-impeached-removed-and-then-r/). Despite their oaths to remain impartial, Mitch McConnell, Majority Leader of the GOP Senate stated up front (as did several other Republican Senators) that they were in "lock-Step" with the president and his defense team. Some justice right?
Now we learn that Pat Cippilone, Trump's White House Counsel and Senate Impeachment Trial defense counsel has been directly implicated as a participant in the Ukraine Scandal. All the while asserting there was no first hand evidence against Trump and no need to call actual fact witnesses, the man making the argument is in fact himself a witness to the wrongdoing. Talk about violating ethic rules universally applied to all legal counsel. This alone ranks right up there with GOP House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member David Nunes complete failure to admit during the Inquiry stage his own involvement in the Biden-Ukraine Conspiracy nonsense. (See: www.rawstory.com/2020/01/holy-crap-bolton-directly-implicated-pat-cipollone-as-a-fact-witness-in-trump-impeachment-trial/). (See: www.cnn.com/2019/12/05/politics/nunes-ukraine-controversy/index.html).
And finally, calling no witnesses to a trial is hardly how trials actually are run. The GOP argues that the House Democrats "rushed the impeachment" to be out front of the election, yet admit they "don't have the time necessary to hear from witnesses", despite the severity of the charges involved. This stretches credibility considering the sitting Senate has set a record for doing so little by way of passing legislation (0ver 400 bills from the House remain on McConnells' desk). They "work" no more than 4 1.2 days a week (if that). Not a bad gig for $174,000 plus in salary plus benefits. (See: www.spglobal.com/marketintelligence/en/news-insights/latest-news-headlines/54664816).
So as we head into the thick of Election 2020, Please remind yourself that a sitting president without any way of investigating him for wrongdoing, any way to indict him for proven wrongdoing and no way to overcome stonewalling efforts by Congress to force testimony and documents, leaves the president in an enviable position of having no more checks and balances left against him. Even the basic premise of the Congress having the "power of the purse" is gone now that Trump can (according to the GAO -illegally) use congressionally authorize taxpayer monies to be leverage for his personal gain. In other words, the GOP today no longer cares to act in its role as a check against a separate branch of government, and instead, prefers to solidify political power over the power granted to it by the Framers in our Constitution.
If the GOP is so confident in allowing the American voters to decide our next president and elected officials, then let's see them stop pushing voter suppression measures, gerrymandering and pushing foreign money into our electoral process. Let's also hope come November, those very same American voters show the GOP how we really feel by not only defeating Donald Trump, but by wiping away dozens of GOP seats in the House and more than enough in the Senate to switch control of that once esteemed institution. Have a great week.
RSS Feed
