AFTER four years of relentless campaigning by a Democratic Party that could not accept loss in the 2016 election, their impeachment train wreck was wholly expected.
Former US President Donald Trump was last week acquitted at his impeachment trial before the United States’ Senate.
Only seven Republicans sided with the Democrats for a final vote of 57 to 43 for impeachment, 13 short of the 67 votes needed to impeach ex-President Trump.
- Trump's impeachment was derailed from legality when Senators voted it constitutionally valid.
- Such attitudes slot neatly with the Leftist ethos of procedure-free, emotive rhetoric.
- It was no better than a lynch mob impatiently braying for a hanging…
To dismiss the nay vote as a vote along party lines, is to ignore the elephant in the room (no pun intended) – constitutionality.
Article II Section 4 of the Constitution of the United States, the sole source of power for impeachment reads:
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officials of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, Treason, Bribery or other high Crimes and Misdemeanours.”
Section 4 very sparingly gives Congress the power to impeach for the sole purpose of removal from office. Use of the power for any purpose other than removal from office, is not authorised under this provision nor indeed any other provision in the Constitution.
To attempt to do so, is a direct contravention of the Constitution and a gross abuse of due process.
It is inconceivable that the proponents of impeachment were unaware of Section 4 and its limitations when they instigated impeachment. It is also inconceivable that when the Articles of Impeachment were signed, the proponents realistically thought the impeachment trial could be concluded before the transition to the newly elected Biden government.
This leads to the conclusion that from the very start, the call for impeachment was a PR stunt, designed to damage Mr Trump and the Republicans.
The impeachment train derailed from legality when the Senate decided by a majority vote of 56 votes to 44, that the Articles of Impeachment sent up from the House of Representatives were constitutionally valid.
AUGUST
The first legal casualty of the impeachment train wreck was the Senate sitting as a body of lay persons, exercising the quasi-judicial function of determining a fundamental question of law viz whether the Articles of Impeachment, complied with the Constitution so as to give jurisdiction to the Senate, to put a private citizen on trial.
Jurisdiction is a legal construct, that cannot be determined by consensus, or even by eminent lawyers, let alone by a majority of lay persons, whether they are members of the Senate or any other august body. It is essentially a matter that can only be determined by a court of law.
The second casualty of legality was the fact that the Articles of Impeachment went against the express letter of the Senate Rules For Impeachment Trials.
Clause XXIII reads: “an article of impeachment shall not be divisible for the purposes of voting thereon at any time during the trial. Once voting has commenced on an article of impeachment, voting shall be continued until voting has been completed on all articles of impeachment… On the final question whether the impeachment is sustained, the yeas and nays shall be taken on each article of impeachment separately; and if the impeachment shall not, upon any of the articles presented, be sustained by the votes of two thirds of the Members present, a judgement of acquittal shall be entered”.
The use of the word “divisible” is somewhat quirky, but it is quite clear that prohibition on divisibility requires each distinct act of the person impeached to be set out in a separate Article of Impeachment. The reason is that if more than one act is cited in the same Article, voters have to sustain or reject the whole article citing a multiplicity of offences as a package, without the ability to bring in a verdict on each separate charge.
WRONGDOING
A similar rule applies in Australian courts where each offence alleged in an indictment must be set out as a separate numbered count or charge.
In contravention of Clause XXIII, the Articles of Impeachment signed by house speaker Nancy Pelosi, covered in the one Article, a multitude of separate and distinct acts ranging from alleged wrongdoing before the riot and numerous other acts on January 6 during the riot.
As soon as it was all over and the trial concluded in an acquittal, Senate majority leader Charles E (Chuck) Schumer, launched into a scathing attack on Trump and the Republicans who had voted for acquittal.
The content of his speech was a rehash of the emotive rhetoric, repeated time and again in the house.
What was interesting, however, was the delivery, specific to the acquittal, read from sheet after sheet of typed text, that could not have been prepared so soon after the trial. The obvious conclusion being that the notes were prepared in advance in the knowledge that the impeachment would not succeed.
Another unfortunate phenomenon of the trial, was the merciless lambasting of the nay voters after the acquittal. They were portrayed as non-patriotic traitors to the United States and its Constitution. Pelosi accused the Republicans of voting to save their jobs, conveniently overlooking the fact that she had violated the Constitution, in her crusade to destroy Trump.
Such an attitude slots in neatly to the Leftist ethos of emotive rhetoric vilifying the messenger whilst ignoring inconvenient uncontroversial facts.
REPREHENSIBLE
The Senate, conducting business without due process, never had the jurisdiction to deliberate whether to convict or acquit Trump, who at the time of the trial, was an ordinary citizen, holding no office to be removed from.
There can be no doubt that Trump’s demagoguery to his loyal followers on January 6, was reprehensible and worthy of unqualified opprobrium.
Indeed Senate minority leader Mitch McConnell, quite rightly, mercilessly denounced Trump’s conduct whilst addressing the unconstitutionality of the impeachment process.
There being no legal fiat in the Constitution or elsewhere, the impeachment ferociously pursued by the Democrats, was no better than a lynch mob impatiently braying for a hanging regardless of legal legitimacy.PC
So hard to believe – but obviously the Democratic Party is led by some very vicious and emotionally immature people!