Impeachment

Impeachment of Donald Trump

The impeachment of Donald Trump began within days of his election.  At the middle of December, 2019, after 3 years in office, house Democrats, “with heavy hearts,” voted two articles of impeachment against Donald Trump.

Someday historians will be able to analyze the current emotional spectacle with the same detached rationality that they chronicle the impeachment of Andrew Johnson, with its eleven articles.  A similar emotional climate accompanied Johnson’s impeachment but unlike our current impeachment, much of the enmity carried over into the senate. The failure to convict in the senate helped establish a principle that Congress should not remove the President from office simply because its members disagreed with him over policy or management style. That long standing principle is again being challenged.

The challenge for contemporary observers is to put aside emotional bias and take a cold look at these historic events with the detachment that an honest historian in 2150 will take.  Since it is demonstrably difficult to put aside such bias, an alternative activity is to watch the emotion without getting caught up in it.  The following is a glimpse of the silliness.

Nancy Pelosi prays for Donald Trump.

Intrepid Reporter James Rosen:

” Do you hate the President, Madam Speaker?”

Righteous Christian Mother Pelosi:

“Of course I don’t hate the president, sweet young misguided reporter.  My heart is full of love, for you and the President.  In fact, I PRAY for the President!”

If you think the above is an Adam Schiff style distortion of what she actually said, you are correct. Judge for yourself if Madam Pelosi is using Jesus to justify her indignation. She is praying for the President, but she does not reveal if she is praying for his demise.

Learned Professors educate Congress about Impeachment

Professors witness their humility and impartiality.

The Wednesday, December 4, 2019,   Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearing was a bit of a farce. The professors, all Democrats, were called to opine about what constitutes impeachable conduct.

To anybody except the most partisan acolyte, the level of preconceived opinion and bias was blatant. Rather than a scholarly analysis of previous impeachments, three of the four tried to disguise their contempt for the president in sophomoric rhetoric.

Feldman

This remark from Harvard professor Noah Feldman demands correction.

“The abuse of power occurs when the president uses his office for personal advantage or gain. That matters fundamentally to the American people because if we cannot impeach a president who abuses his office for personal advantage, we no longer live in a democracy, we live in a monarchy, or we live under a dictatorship.”  (Noah Feldman)

Mr. Feldman is arguing specifically that Donald Trump is abusing his power for personal gain.  He claims that if this is allowed to happen we no longer live in a democracy.  You can read his December 4, 2019 remarks HERE.

The good news is that we do not live in a pure democracy. We live in a Constitutional Federal Republic and the Constitution that Mr. Feldman knows so much about has masterfully devised ways to survive even a hypocritical and hysterical onslaught to get rid of the loathsome Donald Trump.

Gerhard

Michael J. Gerhard, an acknowledged expert on the law of impeachment and its alternatives, was a less emotional in his presentation than Professors Feldman and Karlan.  You can read his opening presentation HERE.    His rhetorical devise of comparing Trump to a Monarch is ludicrous.

Karlan

Karlan’s opening statement was unremarkable. You can read it HERE

A little research reveals that she is a political activist with so much left wing passion that she was eliminated as an Obama candidate for the Supreme Court. The American Spectator chronicles her anti-Trump bias: https://spectator.org/pamela-karlans-long-biased-record-of-anti-trump-prejudices/

Ms. Karlan embarrassed herself and tainted her entire testimony with what appeared to be a planted question and an overly cute answer:

Jonathan Turley’s Professorial Decorum

Professor Jonathan Turley, although a Democrat who voted for Hillary Clinton, was chosen by the Republican members of the committee to present his views on the pending impeachment.  His presentation was notable in its humility and apparent objectivity. The 53 page presentation can be downloaded HERE.   (Opens in PDF file.)