Clearly, it’s time to revisit impeachment ethics issues, after Nancy Pelosi’s snide declaration (after saying that she is always respectful of the Presidency, mind you), that the President “wasn’t worth it,” it being the political risk of sending him to a trial in the Senate. We should pause a second to acknowledge the hilarity inherent in the Speaker saying that impeachment wasn’t desirable because it would be “divisive to the country” and “divides the country.” The Democrats, led by Barack Obama, who pointed the way, have intentionally and cynically sliced and diced the country into victims and villains, champions of the oppressed and deplorables, for a decade, unforgivably risking national strength, comity, and peace for speculative electoral gain.
We haven’t added a new Plan to the list of “resistance” and Democratic Party coup attempts—for that’s what they are–including impeachment theories, since last July, though many of the classics re-emerged in the news. Remember, there were law professors who advocated impeaching Trump before he was inaugurated. Here’s where it stands:
Impeachment And Coup Plans.
Plan A: Reverse the election by hijacking the Electoral College.[Status: FAILED and DEAD, until it rises again in 2020]
Plan B: Pre-emptive impeachment. [Status: FAILED and DEAD]
Plan C : The Emoluments Clause. [Status: Still twitching! ]
Plan D: “Collusion with Russia” [Status: On life support]
Plan E : ”Trump is mentally ill so this should trigger the 25th Amendment.” [Status: Amazingly, still being talked about .]
Plan F: The Maxine Waters Plan, which is to just impeach the President as soon as Democrats control both Houses, because they can. [Status: Hope springs eternal!]
Plan G : “The President obstructed justice by firing incompetent subordinates, and that’s impeachable.” [Status: LAME, but ONGOING]
Plan H: “Tweeting stupid stuff is impeachable” [Status: ONGOING]
Plan I: “Let’s relentlessly harass him and insult him and obstruct his efforts to do his job so he snaps and does something really impeachable.” [Status: ONGOING]
Plan J : Force Trump’s resignation based on alleged sexual misconduct that predated his candidacy. .[Status: FAILED and DEAD]
Plan K: Election law violations through pay-offs of old sex-partners [Status: ONGOING]
Plan L: The perjury trap: get Trump to testify under oath, then prove something he said was a lie. [Status: To be determined.]
Plan M: Guilt by association. Prove close associates or family members violated laws. [Status: Ongoing.]
Plan N: Claim that Trump’s comments at his press conference with Putin were “treasonous.”
I’m sure you’ve noticed that the soft coup-complicit news media hasn’t been predicting impeachable results from the Mueller investigation lately, which seems odd, since they have been fanning flames of anticipation and suspicion from the day it started. This is because most rational observers are pretty certain that Trump, as he has said from the beginning, did nothing wrong, and certainly nothing impeachable regarding Russia. Never mind: Democrats have made it clear that this soon-to-be-pronounced dead horse will be flogged by them into goo as long as it attracts donations and is a viable means of stopping the elected President from doing the job he was duly elected to do.
Pelosi’s comments could only be rationally received as ruling out Plan F, the “impeach Donald Trump because we don’t like him, we think anyone who voted for him is a deplorable racist moron whose opinions shouldn’t count, and besides it was time for a woman to be President” approach. This is a good thing, although it probably describes better than any of the other plans the real motives of Democrats and the resistance since that fateful day in November 2016 that had cable news hosts looking as if their puppies had died in bloody shredder accident.
Nonetheless, the New York Times, among others, chose to spin Pelosi’s words as it has spun most of its coverage of President Trump, using the assumption that he is guilty of something warranting impeachment:
“Ms. Pelosi may also be setting a far-reaching new standard with implications long after Mr. Trump leaves office. By her reasoning, accusations of conspiracy, obstruction of justice, campaign finance violations and other offenses — even if proved — do not rise to a level requiring action by the House of Representatives.”
She didn’t say that, and in fact she even said the opposite. (Yes, by the Ethics Alarms definition, the Times assertion qualifies as fake news) In the same interview where she rejected impeachment. she applied the qualifier that “unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path.” In other words, unless there’s valid justification for impeachment as the Constitution defines it, the Democrats won’t impeach. Boy, that’s big of her! A President of the United States should only be removed from office outside of an election if he or she has committed crimes or other bad acts in office so destructive of the nation’s trust and so contrary to the President’s oath of office that it mandates conviction and removal. That isn’t any new standard, that IS the standard. It is a dauntingly and intentionally high one, which is why no President has ever been impeached and convicted. Nixon would have been, but that case is also is instructive: when the high bar has been cleared, and the conclusions about a President’s impeachable conduct can no longer be called tainted by partisanship, any rational President will leave of his own volition.
The Times fake spin goes on:
All of which raise fundamental questions: If Mr. Trump has done what he is accused of doing, and that would not qualify as high crimes and misdemeanors, then what would? If Congress opts against impeachment regardless of what the special counsel, Robert S. Mueller III, reports, would that set the bar so high that impeachment will no longer be a viable option? Will future presidents have license to cross all sorts of lines because of the precedent? In other words, if not Mr. Trump, then who?
Hold it. Accused by who? There have been no credible accusations of impeachable misconduct in the White House. Were it not for the President’s blunder of appointing a member of his campaign as Attorney General, the Justice Department would have been justified in running its own investigation into Russia’s 2016 election games, without the fanciful Democratic presumption that Trump must have been helping them, because, really, how could that great candidate, Hillary Clinton, have lost unless something funny was going on? Trump being accused of treason, which is what conspiring with an adverse foreign power to undermine our elections would be, is of no more substance than accusing him of sex trafficking or cannibalism in the absence of evidence that it happened. Nobody has suggested that if Mueller can build a credible, fair and objectively damning case that Trump was in cahoots with Russia, he wouldn’t or shouldn’t be impeached. I will be demanding an impeachment, if there is evidence. Accusations aren’t evidence, especially these kind of accusations, once justified here by several Trump Derangement victims, that the accusations have substance because they just know he’s guilty, because, because, well, just look at him!
The other accusations are just contrived theories, represented in the Plans above. No, firing a subordinate who made it clear to all before and after he was fired cannot constitute “obstruction of justice,” for example, except to biased partisan whose goal is to remove him by any means possible. So many members of academia, the news media and of course “the resistance,” just can’t help themselves jump over the part where President Trump has been proven to have actually done something impeachable. “We don’t necessarily take all that off the table as impeachable offenses, but people will argue, ‘But what about Trump?’” said Michael J. Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor and an impeachment scholar at the University of North Carolina. “If Trump can get away with it, why not President X or Y? He’s raised the bar.”
How has he “raised the bar”? Get away with what? What people “will argue”? People who have wanted to impeach this President from the beginning, for whom the justifications, if any, don’t matter, that’s who.
More fake history from the Times:
“The reluctance of Democratic leaders to pursue impeachment owes to the scars left by the clash between Mr. Clinton and Congress in 1998-99, when Republicans suffered at the ballot box from what appeared to be a partisan drive to push out the president.”
But Clinton had crossed the line. He had lied under oath in a court of law: lawyers get disbarred for that (indeed, Clinton lost his license as a lawyer as a result), and we’re going to hold President’s to lesser standards? There was sufficient evidence that Clinton also obstructed justice. Democrats succeeded in corrupting the entire nation as a desperate and culturally ruinous defense of Clinton,”it’s just sex,” “everybody does it,” leading directly to the many powerful men who felt empowered to sexually abuse women and subordinates, thanks to the rationalizations of Bill and his enablers. The Republican Congress did the right thing.
IF a President clearly crosses the line laid out by the Founders, I agree with Harvard Law School professor Cass Sunstein, who says,
“If we have a clear impeachable offense that is not a borderline one but a clear one, the impeachment process is mandatory because the House of Representatives is an agent of ‘we the people,’ the first three words of the Constitution. It may be, as a realistic matter, the Senate is going to stick with a president to whom it has a political allegiance. But the House isn’t supposed to think about that.”