Impeachment is a political, not a legal procedure. There is no proper judge or jury involved. Because it is a political act, ultimately all the citizens of the United States are the jury. And that jury will not allow the Democrat political hacks to succeed in their illegal attempt to use the impeachment process as a way to improve their chances in the 2020 election.
Here’s how it works (at least constitutionally). The House of Representatives decides that a sitting president (or other federal official) has committed “Bribery, Treason, or High Crimes and Misdemeanors”. (We will limit our discussion to presidential impeachments.) They report Articles of Impeachment against him. The proper procedure for this, and the only one with historical precedent, is for the full House to vote to investigate whether there is any basis for impeachment. This task is then assigned to the House Judiciary Committee for investigation.
If the Judiciary Committee determines that there are grounds for impeachment, they report to the full House. The House then votes by a simple majority to impeach the president, and the matter is referred to the Senate for trial. The important thing to remember is that impeachment means little or nothing, since there has never been an impeachment of a president unless the House was controlled by the opposing party. And no president has ever been removed from office in an impeachment trial.
Impeachment means someone has been charged; that is a far cry from being found guilty. According to the Constitution, only the House can impeach a president (or other federal official). But the lack of any definition in law
of the meaning of the nebulous phrase “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” means that the House can impeach a president just because they don’t like him.
Remember that impeachment is a political act. Gerald Ford stated that the definition of “High Crimes and Misdemeanors” is whatever the party in control of the House decided it means at any point in time. Those definitions have changed radically over the years. Since the Democrat-controlled House is almost hysterical in its hatred of President Trump, and since they consider the fact that he legally won his election to office a disgraceful episode in our nation’s history, many people have predicted that the House will vote to impeach him. I doubt that will happen.
You see, impeachment is often used as a tool by the opposing party to gain back control. In fact the threat of impeachment has been used politically in this way 23 times more than there have been actual impeachment proceedings. In fact, it has been used against:
13 presidents (including George Washington, Hoover, Reagan, both Bushes, Clinton, and Obama),
4 Vice Presidents,
9 Cabinet Members,
3 Fed Reserve Members,
17 other government officials
In some cases the threats have been successful in damaging the person in office to the point where they lost their elections. In other cases, they resigned rather than deal with the rancor and lies of the opposing party. Politics is a dirty business, indeed. But overall impeachment of a sitting president has always resulted in a backlash against the political party that controlled the process and put the nation into turmoil.
Just as the House has the sole right to impeach, the Senate has the sole right to determine whether the impeachment was simply a vindictive political charade, or whether there was any validity to the charges. No president has ever been removed from office by impeachment, which should tell us something about the political nature of the process. Only one came close.
Let's look at the history of presidential impeachment. First, only two presidents have been impeached and then put on trial before the Senate.
Democrat Andrew Johnson was Republican President Abraham Lincoln’s Vice-President. After Lincoln was assassinated and Johnson assumed office, the Republican-controlled Congress was furious. They wanted to punish the Southern States severely following the Civil War. Lincoln took a much more conciliatory approach, hoping to heal the nation. Lincoln proposed that as soon as 10% of the citizens of a state took an oath of loyalty to the federal government, the state could start the process of forming a new government and sending representatives to Congress. Johnson vowed to carry out Lincoln’s wishes.
Lincoln had appointed as Secretary of War a politician, Edward Stanton. During the war he started causing problems for Lincoln’s administration, and Lincoln planned to fire him. When Andrew Johnson became president, Stanton became even more of a problem, since they were from opposing parties, and Stanton also planned to remove him. This has always been the prerogative of a president. They nominate cabinet officials, and they remove at will.
A vindictive Congress passed the Tenure of Office Act over Anderson’s veto making it impossible for a president to remove any official who had been confirmed by the Senate. Anderson believed the law was unconstitutional, since it violated the separation of powers. The Senate has the right to advise the president and consent to his appointments. But it does not have the power to force him to keep unsatisfactory cabinet members or other appointees in office.
So Anderson decided to test the constitutionality of the law by firing Stanton. Stanton barricaded himself in his office and refused to leave. Three days later the House reported Articles of Impeachment against him, including the fact that he used vulgar language and that he had fired Stanton. He survived the impeachment trial by a narrow majority. Later the Supreme Court decided that he was right both to veto the Act and to defy it; they declared the bill unconstitutional.
The next president to both be impeached and face a Senate trial was none other than Slick Willie Clinton. After repeatedly lying under oath (“I did not have sex with that woman!”) and forcing staffers to lie for him (“I never told anyone to lie”) the Kenneth Starr investigation proved that he had both lied under oath and obstructed justice by coercing others to lie publicly for him. Even though the evidence against him was overwhelming, the vote was 50 for conviction on one charge, and 45 on the other. It appears that the Senators ignored the fact that he lied under oath, a very serious charge, and considered his sexual escapades in the Oval office a “private matter.” This may have something to do with the fact that many of the senators who let him off were guilty of similar affairs. During the trial a journalist discovered that at least two males and one female Senator had adulterous affairs to hide. There were likely many others.
The Arkansas Bar Association didn’t take it so lightly. They took away his license to practice law. That, plus the humiliation before the entire nation, millions in legal fees, and having a vengeful, haranguing wife screaming at him and belittling him in front of the White House staff may have been worse than what he deserved – removal from office and jail time. (Secret Service and other White House staff have revealed that Hillary screamed the worst kind of vulgarities at Bill, struck him, and threw vases at him without regard to who witnessed her violence.)
Which brings us to Richard Nixon. The Democrat-controlled House took seven months to debate several Articles of Impeachment and finally came to a conclusion only one. During this time the famous Nixon tapes came to light, which cast Nixon in a very bad light. Although the House never voted on impeachment, the tapes showed that Nixon was guilty of a cover up of crimes committed by some of his people. The crimes themselves were fairly minor (chiefly breaking into the Democrat headquarters), and from what I have read, I believe Nixon wasn’t aware of what they had done. Presidential underlings often engage in dirty political tricks without informing their boss, giving him “plausible deniability.”
I think that if he had simply allowed his people to suffer for their crimes, no one would have been able to lay a glove on him. But for all his bad traits, Nixon had one good one – loyalty. So he stupidly participated in a cover up of the crimes, and even more stupidly kept his secret tape recorders rolling as they picked up evidence of what he had done. Without the tapes, there would have been no possibility of impeachment.
In the end, even though he might well have survived an impeachment trial, he decided to resign rather than face the embarrassment. He was not a likeable man, and he didn’t have the charisma and charm that allowed Clinton to slowly regain his popularity after his trial. So he made a good decision and left the Swamp.
What have we learned so far? I will repeat this again. Impeachment is a political game. Just the threat of impeachment has caused terrible harm to many good men over the years. And not once has the House initiated impeachment proceedings against one of their own. It is always against a hated member of the opposing party.
Let’s close by talking about the Senate trial. It is presided over by the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court. Senators from both parties serve as “managers” – one group as prosecutors and the other defending the president. The Senators serve as the jury (although, as I mentioned earlier, the American people are the real jury).
Why do I say that the people are the real jury? Because Senators are political animals. Regardless of party, they will never vote to convict unless the majority of the people are behind them. Removing a duly elected president from office would be traumatic beyond belief to the nation. We would see anger and division not seen since the civil war. Most people, including a large number of Democrats are against impeachment. If by some miracle the Democrats were to succeed in their kangaroo court impeachment, so many people would turn against them that Trump could run again in 2020 (removal from office would not prevent that) and would win by a landslide.
Of course, that will never happen. Impeachment by the House is ridiculously easy; it only requires a simple majority. Conviction in the Senate, however, requires a super majority of two thirds. The Republicans are in the majority in the Senate. Even if a few spineless turncoat Republicans like Mitt Romney voted with the Democrats, they could never amass a two thirds majority.
This brings us to the obvious question. Why would the Democrats invest so much time and effort in an impeachment process that is doomed to failure? They have been totally ignoring their constitutional duties to pursue fruitless investigation after investigation. The only logical reason is that they think this will cripple the president, and allow one of their cast of clowns to be elected.
They are delusional. The further they go down this road, the more the American people will turn against them. They have already lost the independents with their stupidity. Now there is evidence that moderate Democrats are turning against their party’s radical Socialist leadership. Many Democrats voted for Trump in 2016. This will cause even more to cross over from the Dark Side to the only party that is determined to preserve the Republic.
Now let’s look at the many ways the Democrats have violated the law, the Constitution, and established precedent regarding impeachment.
- The House never voted to begin an impeachment inquiry. Nancy Pelosi (whom I fondly call the Wicked Witch of the West) decided on her own to start this, under tremendous pressure from the admitted Socialists in her party. (All Democrat legislators are Socialists by philosophy, but most are afraid to admit it.)
- Instead of ordering the House Judicial Committee to run the investigated, she assigned it to the House Intelligence Committee – even though impeachment has nothing to do with Intelligence. The Judiciary has always run impeachment inquiries, but Nancy realized that Adam Schiff, Chair of the Intelligence Committee (one of the slimiest politicians on the Hill, and a compulsive liar) hated Trump more, and would be more likely to use whatever dirty and underhanded methods available to report out a recommendation for impeachment against our President.
- Unlike the Clinton and Nixon impeachment proceeding, which were held in public, the entire sordid Democrat impeachment scam has been held in strict secrecy. They are actually holding their meetings in a SCIF (Sensitive Compartmented Information Facility) in the lower basement of the Capitol. By law, these facilities are to be used when Top Secret information is discussed. Other than its real purpose (keeping Republicans and the public in the dark) there is simply no legal justification for holding these hearings in a SCIF. It is designed to keep secret information secure, and utilizes hugely expensive equipment to do so. It is also very expensive to operate. So why has Shifty Schiff mandated that these hearings be held in such a secure facility at huge taxpayer expense? I think we all know the answer to that.
- The Constitution says that every accused person has the right to face his accuser. The Republicans asked the Democrat majority to allow a lawyer representing the President to attend these meetings. Although the Democrats have dozens of lawyers and other staffers in the room, the refused this simple request.
- Schiff has demanded that all deliberations be kept secret. Republicans on the committee are not allowed to discuss the proceedings. But there have been regular, even daily leaks to the press by the Democrats. How do we know the Democrats are doing the leaking? The only information that has been leaked has been material that pushes the fake impeachment narrative. Any testimony that has been favorable to the president (and according to people in the room, there has been much such testimony) is never leaked.
- Democrats have issued all the subpoenas and called witness. The Republicans have not been allowed to do either.
- Republicans are not allowed to possess or review transcripts of the proceedings in which they participated (but Democrats are given full transcripts). Instead, Schiff has decreed that the only way Committee Republicans can review them in a small SKIF - with a Democrat employee watching their every move. This is not only demeaning, but is also inconvenient (there are only a few small SKIF’s, and they are not easily accessible from the office of the Republicans.
The bottom line is that this entire process is illegal, unconstitutional, and unfair. This is particularly true in the case of items 6) and 7) above. This is patently unfair. But it is against all House rules and tradition. You cannot “freeze out” members of the opposition party as the Democrats are doing. This alone would be grounds for the Supreme Court to reverse any decision to impeach. Since the Democrats know this, it is also a strong indication that this “impeachment inquiry” is nothing more than political theatre.
As to why Nancy Pelosi put the Intelligence Committee in charge instead of properly assigning it to the Judiciary Committee as House rules require, this statement by the Judiciary Committee’s long-time Chairman may provide a clue: “If you’re serious about removing a president from office, what you’re really doing is overturning the result of the last election,” Nadler told Roll Call in November. “You don’t want to have a situation where you tear this country apart
, and for the next 30 years half the country’s saying, ‘We won the election, you stole it.’”
The Democrats have been trying without success to impeach our President since Inauguration Day. But now that the Socialists are in control, Articles of Impeachment are possible – although highly unlikely for the reasons stated above. If impeachment does occur, in will have a major negative impact on our economy according to Bloomberg. Citizens will lose jobs and houses, bankruptcies will increase, and many businesses will fail. This is because, despite the booming economy Trump has brought about, markets hate uncertainty.
As long as there is an open impeachment process, many will simply stop investing. But the Democrats don’t care if they hurt millions of Americas with their Mission Impossible. As long as the Democrats can hurt Trump and increase their odds in 2020, poor and middle class Americans can just take their chances. After all, the proponents of impeachment are almost all rich. They won’t be impacted.
Finally, what will happen in the Senate if the Democrats are reckless enough to send articles of impeachment to the Senate? Mitch McConnell stated that he will not use his power to block a trial, since it is required by the Constitution. The outcome of such a trial will without doubt end in an acquittal. All the Democrats will vote to convict, joined by a few treasonous Republican Trump-haters like the gutless Romney, the Planned Parenthood backer Susan Collins, and the infamous Lamar Alexander who voted for Conservative issues only 17% of the time.
There is another delicious possibility. The Chief Justice of the Supreme Court arrives in his billowing robes. The Senators are all at their desks ready to judge the president. The press has hundreds of reporters and cameramen there to record the Trial of the Century.
Then a Republican with guts – perhaps Rand Paul, Mike Lee or Ted Cruz stands and offers a motion for an immediate dismissal. The motion is seconded, all the Senators who were going to vote to acquit vote for the acquittal. And suddenly the ridiculous spectacle is all over.
My June 24th
Article in Which I Begged Democrats to Impeach President Trump http://www.conservativetruth.org/article.php?id=7466
Nadler’s “High Bar” for Impeachment Could Make Ousting Trump Impossible https://www.rollcall.com/news/congress/nadlers-high-bar-impeachment-make-ousting-trump-impossible
The Problem with Impeachment https://www.nationalreview.com/corner/the-problem-with-impeachment/
Trump Impeachment is Mission Impossible for Wall Street – Financial Damage will be Severe https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2019-09-25/trading-impeachment-threat-is-mission-impossible-for-wall-street-k10cnqhe