Update no.934

Update from the Sunland

No.934

2.12.19 – 8.12.19

Blog version:  http://heartlandupdate.blogspot.com/

            To all,

            The U.S. House Committee on the Judiciary heard testimony this week from four constitutional law scholars on what constitutes grounds for impeachment of a sitting president.  The four were:

-- Professor Noah R. Feldman – Harvard Law School

-- Professor Pamela Susan Karlan – Stanford Law School

-- Professor Michael J. Gerhardt – University of North Carolina Law School

-- Professor Jonathan Turley – George Washington University Law School.

Of course, the two tribes sought to pump up their position and diminish the other, which made the serious constitutional inquiry even more tribal rather than a robust intellectual debate.  Sadly, Republican members of the committee have chosen to act as the BIC’s bevy of defense attorneys rather than as representatives of Congress.  They have put on a magnificent display of disruption, obfuscation and chaos, to interfere with every aspect of the process.  As Carl Sandburg observed, “If the facts are against you, argue the law.  If the law is against you, argue the facts.  If the law and the facts are against you, pound the table and yell like hell.”  We have not yet arrived at the table-pounding stage, but I sense that it is very close.  The consideration of potential articles of impeachment began on Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee.

            I was very disappointed in Majority Counsel Norman L. Eisen’s questioning of the four scholars.  He purposefully sought to marginalize Turley’s testimony; it was too obvious and too discriminatory.  It was like Turley was not there—virtually, if not totally, ignored.  My only conclusion, Eisen did not feel competent to deal with Turley’s opinions.  Eisen failed from my perspective and seriously biased his questioning.

            Then, Minority Counsel Paul Taylor did exactly the same thing—stayed tribal.  So, as is the practice these days, we throw out all that does not conform to our tribe’s position and embrace everything that our tribe does.

            Why have we become so bloody afraid of openly and publicly debating issues—any and all issues?  The whole hearing would have been more informative if the scholars had been cross-examined and tested by thorough questioning.  They were not by either side.  In fact, it was Turley I most wanted to interrogate.  Turley did not argue against the facts.  He argued that the process was going too fast and needed more evidence.  In Turley’s opinion, facts to the criminal rules of evidence have not been met.  He did not acknowledge that the constitutional process of impeachment was not a criminal trial.  In my humble opinion, the scholarly testimony left the question far more muddled than it should be.  But, it is what it is.  We move on.

            Of course, what would contemporary life be without the BIC’s immortal and infinitely wise words?

The Do Nothing Democrats had a historically bad day yesterday in the House.  They have no Impeachment case and are demeaning our Country.  But nothing matters to them, they have gone crazy.  Therefore I say, if you are going to impeach me, do it now, fast, so we can have a fair....

5:01 AM - 5 Dec 2019

 . . . with continuation . . . 

.....trial in the Senate, and so that our Country can get back to business.  We will have Schiff, the Bidens, Pelosi and many more testify, and will reveal, for the first time, how corrupt our system really is.  I was elected to “Clean the Swamp,” and that’s what I am doing!

5:01 AM - 5 Dec 2019

As usual, there is so little truthful in all that, but such is life.  We have come to expect such worthless words of nonsense from the BIC.

            CNN sponsored a Town Hall with Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi in Washington, DC, moderated by Jake Tapper.  She took the questions about impeachment with grace, but she reached her threshold of tolerance.  The Speaker wanted to talk about many other topics other than impeachment.  To me, the most memorable response came when Speaker Pelosi was asked whether impeachment could be completed before the end of the year.  The Speaker responded, “I’m not on a timetable.  I’m on a mission.”

            At a Capitol Hill press conference to make the solemn announcement that impeachment would proceed to the next stage, Speaker Pelosi finished her statement and was walking out when a journalist asked her, “Do you hate [the BIC]?” [My amendment, since I cannot say his name anymore; my apologies.]  The reporter at issue here was James Samuel Rosen, 51, who works for the conservative television network, Sinclair Broadcast Group, and formerly as a correspondent for FoxNews.  Pelosi delivered her smackdown with grace and precision, ending with “Don’t mess with me.”

            The current element of the impeachment debate seems to be focused at the moment on speed versus thoroughness.  To me, in this context, the salient question is: how much is enough?  How many witnesses, how much evidence, is enough?  One more time: impeachment is NOT a trial in a court of law.  By practice, the impeachment process takes on the feel of judicial action, since there are a lot of lawyers in Congress, but it is NOT a court trial.  It is a political action to establish an acceptable threshold of conduct for any governmental employee including the president of the United States.  In fact, in the case of POTUS, impeachment is the ONLY means to terminate the employment of a wayward president.  In some ways, it is unfortunate that the Constitution use criminal justice terms—“Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors”—people tend to think of impeachment as a criminal trial; it is NOT!  The impeachment process is a formal statement by Congress of conduct unbecoming of the office he holds.  Impeachment is a cleansing of the office.  Once a president is removed from office, he then becomes subject to criminal justice proceedings just like any other citizen for the crimes he has committed, as it should be.

            Comments and contributions from Update no.933:

Comment to the Blog:

“The Democrats' political calculations will come back to bite all of us.  The courts (so far) have decided to compel McGahn to testify, but the Democrats refuse to pursue other valuable witnesses.  They claim a political reason for not taking their time with the impeachment and pursuing Mnuchin and Bolton as witnesses, but that works against them.  The sight of Mnuchin and Bolton testifying, lying, or invoking the Fifth Amendment over and over is the smoking gun they need to attach obstruction to the Chump in the public mind.  (That is the real political factor here.)  I suspect the Democratic National Committee is listening to the sponsors instead of the lawyers.

“Prohibiting and punishing animal cruelty under Federal law is clear progress.  I applaud everyone who worked to achieve it, even the Resident.

“I'll point out again that negotiation requires at least two parties who are willing to accept less than their highest demand.  That day's not here.”

My response to the Blog:

            I am not so sure.  McGahn is one person with total, direct witness to the BIC’s obstruction of justice crime and abuse of power.  He heard the BIC say it and direct it.  He also refused to obey.  I do not know that the House has decided not to pursue Bolton or Mnuchin; they just have not, yet.  It would be nice to have ALL of the BIC’s crimes and transgressions explicitly delineated in the articles of impeachment, but that will take more time than is available.  If the BIC is rejected at the polls in 11 months, the issue will be moot.  They have the direct evidence in the Special Counsel’s Report and now the Ukraine extortion scheme.  To my knowledge, the House has not collected the evidence of criminal conduct in the hush-money payments, abuse of power, et al.  To me, one of the most egregious that is a standard for the military but not for the POTUS (but should be) is: conduct unbecoming to the office.  So much of his conduct is technically not illegal, and yet his behavior is an insult to the Office of the President, the Oval Office, the White House, the Executive Branch, the U.S. Government, and this Grand Republic.  Congress on our behalf, and We, the People, must make a clear statement that behavior, as displayed by the BIC, is absolutely unacceptable.

            Likewise, on the animal cruelty law; long overdue . . . and I must say, it does not go far enough.  But, it is a worthy step forward.

            Quite so, as I have stated.  Once that political party is marginalized, they will be far more willing to negotiate and compromise.  We must not forget that 30% of the American citizenry are members of the Republican Party.

. . . follow-up comment:

“This impeachment would only be ‘moot’ in a legalistic sense if the Chump loses his next term and if the impeachment process outlasts this term.  Even then, failing to at least impeach the villain portends an evil future.  If this Chump is not made accountable for his crimes, the next one won't be either.  By the way, Andrew Johnson's impeachment was primarily for ‘conduct unbecoming" the office in firing Edwin Stanton.  That conduct is standard operating procedure under the Chump.

“I wouldn't count on the Chump losing the election. The DNC Democrats' decades of corrupt spinelessness has results far beyond their continued high incomes and individual importance. They've lost ‘sure thing’ elections, failed to pass policy initiatives, and ‘can't’ rein in the Chump.  Voters are not impressed.  The DNC's last Presidential campaign was less than competent in its disregard for the Electoral College and in its choice of Clinton as their nominee.  And let's remember that my vote means less than a Red State vote, even among people whose votes aren't suppressed.”

 . . . my follow-up comment:

            Quite right!  Impeachment, in technical terms, is only about removal from office.  It has no judicial consequence.  I absolutely agree in spades!  There must be a clear, unequivocal, public consequence to the BIC’s abhorrent behavior.  I do agree; “conduct unbecoming” is acceptable to me; this is not about legal or the law; it is all about acceptable or tolerable conduct.  I eagerly await the day when he is removed from the protections of the office he holds temporarily either by impeachment or electoral defeat.  At this stage, we can only pray prosecutors in that after-world have the balls to prosecute, convict and punish the man for his crimes—yes, felonious crimes; not misdemeanors, felonies (multiple).  We, the People, cannot allow him to lower and debase the threshold of tolerance for presidential behavior and conduct.

            Just his news conferences this very morning at the NATO conference are conduct unbecoming to me.  He is an embarrassment!

            I am not and cannot assume the BIC will be defeated.  The demographics of this Grand Republic and the reality of the constitutional Electoral College make the potential of his reelection all too real.  Four years ago, I could not believe any thinking citizen in this Grand Republic would actually vote for him.  I was dreadfully wrong.

Another contribution:

“Well Cap we had your Nancy Pelosi waving her finger and warning ‘don’t mess with me’! 

“We could do with a strong character leading our country, however with the election looming in days we are not being led as we need to be.  The candidate who I called a clown could well be our next PM and of course whatever you might think of him he will be supported by the nation, that’s the way we do things.

“However, will we finally get on with this damned Brexit fiasco that has blighted this country for what 3 years?  Now that will be a bonus, let’s get on with life, the future is in the nation’s hands let’s do it.”

My reply:

            We are eagerly awaiting the outcome of Thursday’s election.  I sure hope there is sufficient majority to get this damn Brexit done, especially behind you and all of us.  Good luck to you and all our British cousins.  There are going to be negative consequences to Brexit no matter how it is done, so get it done (those who took the time to voted three years ago have spoken)

            Will the Conservatives re-elect Johnson?

            Yeah, “Don’t Mess with Me” Nancy put that foolish journalist in his place.  She made a very clear statement and did it with class.  Freedom of the Press is very important, but the Press is not entitled to incivility.  We can and should disagree without being disagreeable.

 . . . follow-up comment:

 “The Conservatives appear to be leading the polls currently but, as you are aware, that can change overnight.  Whether they win or lose they are stuck with Johnson, there is no one else showing leadership qualities- unless someone is skulking in the wings somewhere waiting to burst forth!  I think not.

“Certainly the current opposition leader will, if they lose, have to go and rightly so. It appears he has a ‘grey’ historical background with earlier ‘harmonization’ with the IRA and more current accusations as an anti-Semitic.  Something he has floundered over for some time.

“Anyway my friend you have plenty to think about over there, will your BIC be charged with poor demeanour whilst holding the most important position on this planet? We all await with baited breath.”

 . . . my follow-up comment:

            I have never been impressed by either Boris Johnson or Jeremy Corbyn, for either party.  I do not understand the attraction of either party for their current leader.  Then again, I say the same thing for our Republican Party.  There is always hope.

            We should learn the articles of impeachment this week.  The Committee, and then the full House, vote over the next couple of weeks.  If that happens, the Senate trial should occur in January, when we learn whether the Republicans will turn a blind eye to the BIC’s persistent misconduct and bad behavior.  It is unfortunate the Founders & Framers did not choose a term like “conduct unbecoming of the office” rather than “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  From everything I’ve read on their thinking and processes, I believe their chosen words were intended to mean the former.  However, that is not where we are today.  Nonetheless, my opinion does not matter a hoot.

            My very best wishes to all.  Take care of yourselves and each other.

Cheers,

Cap                  :-)