By Jon Dougherty
(TNS) Shortly before President Donald Trump defeated the most criminally investigated presidential nominee ever, Hillary Clinton, Democrats and their propaganda media began plotting for his impeachment.
But they couldn’t until the Garbage Party managed to win back the House, which happened in the 2018 midterms. At that point, the active impeachment plotting began.
Recall that The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway overheard incoming House Judiciary Committee chair Jerrold Nadler speaking to several people on his cellphone during a New York-Washington, D.C. transit scheming as to how impeachment would proceed.
Fun reminder that Jerry Nadler revealed his impeachment plans (for both Kavanaugh and Trump!) in my presence on the Amtrak from NY to DC the morning after Election Day in 2018. For those who think this is about a 2019 phone call w/ Ukraine or something…. https://t.co/IS4kRnXH71
— Mollie (@MZHemingway) December 3, 2019
When the “Russian collusion” hoax didn’t work out and Democrats couldn’t stop President Trump’s Kavanaugh appointment to the U.S. Supreme Court, that enraged them and their media pretenders even more. Something had to be concocted and viola, we got “Ukrainegate” and two phony-baloney articles of impeachment nobody ever heard of (including our founders): 1) ‘Abuse of power’ and 2) ‘Obstruction of Congress.’
Not quite the “high crimes and misdemeanors” impeachment standard established by our Constitution.
In fact, the articles of impeachment are so fake and so thin that Bradley A. Blakeman, an adjunct professor of public policy and international affairs at Georgetown University and a Fox News contributor, said in a piece for The Hill that there isn’t even a need for a Senate trial.
But not just because he doesn’t believe the two impeachment articles returned by Democrats don’t meet the standard.
— The Hill (@thehill) December 23, 2019
He lays out five scenarios for dealing with this sham impeachment, which really is disgraceful on the part of the Democrats.
- The Senate could entertain a motion by the presidentâ€™s counsel to dismiss â€” before the start of a trial â€” both articles of impeachment, for failure to meet the constitutional threshold for stating a cause of action. Such a decision would require a simple majority of 51 votes because this would be a procedural motion;
- The Senate could begin a trial and, thereafter, could end it whenever the Senate majority deems it has heard enough and calls for a vote. Such a vote would be called when the Senate majority is confident that a supermajority of 67 senators â€“ two-thirds of the Senate â€“ would not vote to convict;
- The Senate could conduct a full-blown trial, and it could drag on for as long as the Senate majority feels doing so is in its interests. It has a wide berth for calling or subpoenaing witnesses as it feels is germane. This would cause a circus-like atmosphere that would require the Supreme Courtâ€™s chief justice, the presiding officer in a Senate trial, to make numerous rulings, some of which would be unpredictable in their outcomes.
- The Senate, after the conclusion of a trial, could once again entertain a motion to dismiss, alleging that House Democrats had failed to prove their case. This is a procedural motion that would require a simple majority to make deliberations by the full Senate moot if passed.
There’s even a nuclear option he proposes:
- And then there is a â€œnuclear option.â€ The Senate majority could make a procedural motion to adjourn the start of a trial until Nov. 4, 2020. That would allow the American people to decide the presidentâ€™s fate at the ballot box. The Constitution is silent as to when a trial should occur, timewise. A simple majority of 51 votes would be necessary to pass such a motion.
Either/or, Blakeman says the outcome of the proceedings, whatever option Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell takes, is assured: Trump is cleared by acquittal or by dismissal.
But Blakeman is clear in his view that a trial is simply unnecessary in the first place:
Both fail to meet the constitutional threshold of â€œhigh crimes and misdemeanors.â€ This would negate a trial but does not give the president any formal â€œacquittal,â€ after a trial on the merits of the articles, which would prove the presidentâ€™s innocence. While this would be true in a traditional criminal judicial proceeding, it is not the case in a political trial.Â
Democrats are already spinning their version of events — that the president is, of course, extremely guilty but Republicans in the Senate are poised to let him ‘escape justice’ anyway, hence Nancy Pelosi’s lame attempts to ‘negotiate’ (demand) a “fair trial” (one in which Democrats run and wind up with a conviction and removal from office).
- Check out â€œEpic Duel of 21st Century: China vs USA â€“ Trump Goes All Inâ€Â â€”Â download for FREE inÂ Crisis Reports
As for the American people, increasingly they are siding against the Garbage Party, according to various polling data.
It’s likely a trial of some kind will occur, and like Blakeman insinuated, it will follow a path that is most politically useful for Republicans and the president.
That’s the least McConnell can do after the way Democrats violated procedures, broke established committee rules, and shut GOP lawmakers out of the impeachment process to begin with.
- We need your help to grow, pure and simple. Share our stories, make sure to tell your friends about this site, and click the red bell in the right corner for push notifications.Â
GOT SOMETHING TO SAY? COMMENT BELOW