OPINION| Mark Sidney| It is beginning to appear that the proverbial, you know what, is about to hit the fan.
I am sure many of those who are regular readers of site’s like ours were well aware that this moment would likely come sooner or later. All signs seem to be pointing to ‘singularity’, if you will, happening sooner, rather than later.
If my premise that, Washington DC is a swamp, deeper and murkier than perhaps anyone can comprehend, is true, it should come as no surprise that when an outsider become President and sought to ‘drain the swamp,’ that no cost would be too large for the establishment to pay in order to prevent their crimes against the public trust and, perhaps even the republic itself from being exposed.
Let me be clear, I am not advocating for an uprising or a revolt by anyone, this is just my analysis from talking to everyday Americans. The way I see it is, if President Trump is removed by a, what I believe to be, insanely corrupted Congress and Senate, without having proven beyond ANY doubt that our first populist President in decades (the last of which had his head explode … and replayed on national television, 1000 times over,) our nation would be at immense risk tremendous civil unrest and perhaps even a second civil war.
I want to stress IF, overwhelming evidence is not presented that Mr. Trump has committed ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ and a Republican held Senate, votes to, essentially, physically remove a duly elected President from office, we will enter a very dangerous time where I believe anything could happen.
I want to stress that this is in no way a threat, and that I am not encouraging any violent action in anyway. I am just giving you my analysis. Conversely, if overwhelming evidence IS provided to the American people that President Trump has committed crimes worthy of removal, we must all look at the facts objectively and, as always, follow the Constitution.
Why am I sounding the alarm at this particular moment? Well, The Gateway Pundit is reporting, via a series of Tweets from Chad Pergram, that (R) Mitch McConnell, who is arguably the most important person in Washington, nevermind the Senate, (he’s the Majority Leader) has announced that he will sit down with his counterpart, (D) Chuck Schumer, and discuss how the process would pay out, if/when the Democrats in their ‘star chamber‘ in the House do in fact, vote to impeach the President.
The Gateway Pundit, among others are suggesting that Pelosi and her Democrat majority in the House are planning on voting to impeach Mr. Trump by as soon as Christmas. From what I understand, the Democrats have yet to define the crime for which they plan on removing Donald Trump, perhaps I missed where they disclosed this, but as of this moment I am not aware of the predicate for such proceedings.
As per the US Constitution, if the Democrat controlled House of Representatives did in fact vote to remove the POTUS, the trial would then take place in the Senate.
Findlaw.com states:
“Article I § 2 of the United States Constitution gives the House of Representatives the sole power to impeach (make formal charges against) and Article I § 3 gives the Senate the sole power to try impeachments. Article II § 4 of the Constitution provides as follows:
“The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.””
…
“Both the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate have the right to make their own rules governing their procedure, and to change those rules. Under current rules, the actual impeachment inquiry begins in the Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives. That Committee holds hearings, takes evidence, and hears testimony of witnesses concerning matters relevant to the inquiry. Typically, as occurred in the case of President Nixon, there will also be a Minority Counsel who serves the interest of the party not controlling Congress.
Witnesses are interrogated by the Committee Counsel, the Minority Counsel, and each of the members of the House Judiciary Committee. The Committee formulates Articles of Impeachment which could contain multiple counts. The Committee votes on the Articles of Impeachment and the results of the vote are reported to the House as a whole. The matter is then referred to the whole House which debates the matter and votes on the Articles of Impeachment, which may or may not be changed. If the Articles of Impeachment are approved, the matter is sent to the Senate for trial.
Impeachment Trials
The trial in the Senate is handled by “Managers” from the House of Representatives, with the assistance of attorneys employed for the prosecution of the impeachment case. The Senate sits as a jury. (In the past the Senate has heard judicial impeachments by appointing a subcommittee especially for that purpose, which then reports its findings to the Senate as a whole.) The Senate would then debate the matter, and vote, each individual Senator voting whether to convict the President and remove him from office, or against conviction. If more than two-thirds of the Senators present vote to convict, the President would be removed from office. Thus a Senator who abstained from voting but was present would in effect be voting against conviction. (Article I § 3).
If the President is convicted by a vote of the Senate, and removed from office, yet another grave constitutional crisis is then presented. Does the President have a right of appeal, and if so, to whom? Article I § 3 of the Constitution states:
“The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments…”
For many years, the conventional view was that the forgoing section of the Constitution meant that the Senate was the final arbiter when it came to impeachments (at least as to Federal Judges) and that what constituted an impeachable offense would be unreviewable. See Ritter v. U.S., 84 Ct. Cl. 293 (1936) cert denied 300 U.S. 668 (1937).
However, if there is an impeachment standard (and there can be no doubt that there is as the Constitution specifically establishes one — “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors”), then it is only logical that it is possible for that standard not to be correctly followed. If such is the case, who is responsible for saying that the standard was not correctly followed? There can only be one answer — the courts. As there has never been a successful impeachment and removal of a sitting President, there is no authority “on all fours” for the proposition either way. …” You can read the whole assessment, which I encourage you to do HERE.
If the House has the power to set the rules for their proceedings, it is more than likely that they will create rules which only require a 50% +1 majority, or a ‘simple majority’ to impeach Mr. Trump. Keep in mind, I am not a lawyer, and this is my layman’s interpretation of what we just read.
Ok, back to McConnell. Congressional reporter for Fox News, Chad Pergram, who has a good reputation as a reliable source IMHO, questioned Mitch McConnell about potential impeachment and subsequent removal proceedings yesterday. McConnell’s answers were … interesting, to say the least.
Gateway Pundit says that “Tom Fitton says McConnell should reject this coup attempt outright.” It should be noted that while Mr. Fitton is not a lawyer, however, I do think he knows more about the crimes of Washington than 99.99% of people in DC.
Jim Hoft, the founder of TGWP says “Mitch McConnell is against Trump and his voters.” I have tremendous respect for Mr. Hoft, and owe my very existence to him in many ways, but I think this remains to be seen. However, I do share his skepticism of McConnell’s loyalty to the Constitution over his loyalty to his cronies.
So here is what Mr. Pergram reported:
McConnell sidesteps my question on if Republicans are afraid to criticize the President for fear of retribution. Turns on several occasions to how Democrats are handling the impeachment process:
“I think the President has a legitimate question about the process”— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) October 22, 2019
McConnell on the President likening impeachment to a lynching:
I would not compare this to a lynching. That was an unfortunate choice of words— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) October 22, 2019
McConnell on if the Senate could quickly dismiss articles of impeachment in a Senate trial:
It won’t be up to me..The Majority Leader does not really have ball control here..I don’t see anybody, myself or others, who could control this..I have no idea how long it will go on— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) October 22, 2019
McConnell on how a Senate trial would work:
There are all kinds of potentials..we’d have to come to grips with how we’d deal with this— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) October 22, 2019
McConnell on how a Senate trial would work:
If this were to come over from the House, Senator Schumer and I would sit down and have a conversation about it…The balls and strikes, if you will, are called by the Chief Justice— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) October 22, 2019
Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-NY) on the decision by the President to withdraw troops from northeast Syria:
This is one of the worst decisions in decades..it puts Americans here in the homeland in danger..and we here in New York undersrand this better than anyone— Chad Pergram (@ChadPergram) October 22, 2019
The fact that both Schumer and Graham are, in my view, ‘threatening,’ or at least alluding to a new 9/11 in essence (that’s my opinion/interpretation of their words) should not go unnoticed. This suggests to me that they are terrified of what Barr and Durham are going to uncover, or perhaps have already uncovered.
One thing is for sure, we are living in historic and interesting times.
Fiat justitia ruat caelum: “Let justice be done though the heavens fall’ …
