Politicalization of Impeachment

Judge John H. Wilson (ret.) turns his knowledgeable attention to the abuse of the impeachment power.

There is no one of any reasonable viewpoint who believes the “invasion” of the Capitol during the first week of January was a positive event. What began as a Pro-Trump rally ended in anarchy, vandalism, and the deaths of five people, including one Capitol police officer, and a 14-year veteran of the Air Force. Widespread condemnation of those who pushed their way past law enforcement and entered the Capitol has been universal. According to CNN, “NATO Secretary-General Jens Stoltenberg, who rarely comments on the internal affairs of the alliance’s member states, urged Americans to respect the outcome of the November election. His call was echoed by European Parliament President David Sassoli, who added, ‘We are certain the US will ensure that the rules of democracy are protected.’” Even Pope Francis joined the chorus, stating that “he was ‘amazed’ by Wednesday’s events because the US is ‘so disciplined in democracy.’”

Yet, these statements of disapproval were not limited to criticism of the protestors. Former President Obama predictably blamed President Trump for the violence. As quoted in Politico, “Obama said the insurrection will be remembered as ‘a moment of great dishonor and shame’ and that his successor, President Donald Trump, is culpable. He also faulted the Republican Party and the right-wing media ecosystem for the role they played in casting doubt on the integrity of recent elections. ’Their fantasy narrative has spiraled further and further from reality, and it builds upon years of sown resentments,’ Obama said in a statement. ‘Now we’re seeing the consequences, whipped up into a violent crescendo.’”

Democratic leaders in Congress have gone further – as reported in the Washington Post, “House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and Senate Minority Leader Charles E. Schumer (D-N.Y.)…called for President Trump’s immediate removal from office, either by his Cabinet or possibly through impeachment. ‘By inciting sedition as he did yesterday, he must be removed for office. While there’s only 13 days left, any day could be a horror show for America,’ Pelosi told reporters on Capitol Hill.”

When you buy the erectile dysfunction from your life. tadalafil uk It http://robertrobb.com/unintended-consequences-of-the-firefigher-cancer-bill/ cialis generika 40mg makes the sentiment disappointment and absence of force. The prescription ought to additionally be taken around 30 minutes to 1 hour prior to any sexual activity.* It can be taken with or without food, although it may require a bit viagra properien go to the page of time, it can be absolutely sorted. This might levitra 20mg uk have an impact on men of all age brackets.

The call for another impeachment of the 45^th President has increased in volume over the past few days. In a tweet, Congresswoman Ilhan Omar (D-MN) volunteered to draft the Articles of Impeachment, saying “Donald J. Trump should be impeached by the House of Representatives & removed from office by the United States Senate…We can’t allow him to remain in office, it’s a matter of preserving our Republic and we need to fulfill our oath.”

Donald Trump leaves office on January 20, 2021 with the end of his term. In fact, by the time you read this, the Biden Presidency will probably have commenced. So what could be the purpose in seeking the removal of someone with less than two weeks in elected office?

As explained by Ed Kilgore of New York Magazine, “there is a case increasingly being made for proceeding with impeachment and forcing a Senate trial of Trump that would conclude after January 20 in order to ban him from holding office in the future.” And what is the basis for this case? As Mr. Kilgore explains, “(i)t’s probably accurate to say the weight of expert opinion is that it’s entirely possible to impeach and convict a former president (or other former federal executive or judicial officer), because otherwise it would be easy for scofflaws to evade sanction simply by resigning.” Unfortunately, it is not accurate to say that the weight of expert opinion favors impeachment after an elected official leaves office. Distinguished attorney and Harvard Law Professor Alan Dershowitz does not agree. As reported in the Epoch Times, “’(t)he case cannot come to trial in the Senate. Because the Senate has rules, and the rules would not allow the case to come to trial until, according to the majority leader, until 1 p.m. on January 20th, an hour after President Trump leaves office,’ Dershowitz said in a Fox Business interview on Sunday…’the Constitution specifically says, ‘The President shall be removed from office upon impeachment.’ It doesn’t say the former president. Congress has no power to impeach or try a private citizen, whether it be a private citizen named Donald Trump or named Barack Obama or anyone else.’”

The report concludes tomorrow

Quick Analysis

Putin’s Saber Rattling

Earlier this week, President Biden reversed his 2022 decision, authorizing the provision of antipersonnel land mines to the Ukrainian government. It follows an earlier Administration authorization to allow the use of an advanced American missile system capable of striking as deep as 100 miles inside Russian territory. The US election season may be ending, but both Russia and the West show no indication of stepping down the conflict. Russian propaganda continues to swell as the Kremlin increases its threats to use nuclear weapons against the West. Last week Andrey Sushentsov, program director of the pro-Kremlin think tank Valdai Discussion Club (VDC), published an article on growing nuclear tensions in the region. Official Russian language in the last few years has been threatening. Since the US election, rhetoric like that in the Sushentsov article, has approached the level of nuclear blackmail. The VDC article’s main theme centers on Russia’s intent to directly confront the West militarily if the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) becomes involved in Russia’s conflict with Ukraine. “On the one hand, these threats are intended to frighten the West, but on the other, Russian propagandists themselves are starting to believe in the inevitability of escalation,” according to Ksenia Kirillova of the Jamestown Foundation. On November 11, Sushentsov wrote that “The conflict will reach a completely new level, with unpredictable consequences for Europe and the entire world.” Kirillova points out that Putin’s distorted image of the world is divorced from reality and is causing the Kremlin to issue demands that are impossible to fulfill. Financial and other Russian resources needed to support Putin’s war are growing scarcer at the same time. This week the Kremlin announced a reduction of payments to its soldiers. Recently North Korea acknowledged it was sending soldiers to fight in Ukraine as Putin is running out of bodies to use as cannon fire. The war is not going well for Russia. One question floating around the Washington intelligence community is whether Putin will act out of desperation before President-elect Trump assumes office. In recent months the Russian propaganda machine is spewing out materials from fairly reputable analytical platforms inside the country. Kirillova says that “Kremlin ‘experts’ do not conceal that such threats are only intended to break the West psychologically, as they themselves are not prepared for full-scale nuclear war.” Despite Russia’s lack of preparation for an all-out war with the West, the expanding nuclear rhetoric carries with it an increase in the threat of a full-scale war in multiple theaters of operation. In June 2023 a founder of the Russian Council on Foreign and Defense Policy, Sergey Karaganov, called for “delivering a pre-emptive strike of retaliation” on Poland to force the West to surrender. In the previous month, Dmitry Suslov, a direct of research programs at the policy center proposed organizing “a demonstration nuclear explosion” aimed at intimidating the West. In September, President Putin announced a reappraisal of Russian nuclear doctrine after speaking earlier in the year at the plenary session of the St. Petersburg International Economic Forum and jokingly calling Suslov a “scary person.” Pavel Baev, writing in the European Daily Monitor, says “Putin intends his announcement to mark an escalation of nuclear brinkmanship and influence the proceedings of future Ukrainian peace efforts.” Putin is expanding the list of environmental conditions that are acceptable for using a nuclear weapon and incorporating it into Russian military doctrine. Baev adds that “The ups and downs of Russian brinkmanship are disconnected from the kinetic battles of the war, correlating instead with Ukrainian peace offensives, such as Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy’s first peace summit in Bürgenstock, Switzerland.” Despite the increase in vitriolic language, in a You Tube video published a week before the US presidential election, Karaganov openly assured the West the primary goal of the escalation is to break the American spirit and that of the West, not outright nuclear war. By Election Day in the US, with political prognosticators predicting a win for former president Trump, Karaganov changed his tune and called for an increased role in nuclear deterrence. Kirillova points out that Western concessions to Russia are unlikely to reduce the risk of nuclear escalation. The distorted reality inside the Kremlin continues to push that President-elect Trump is an adherent of “world government,” that Ukraine will create a nuclear weapon, and Russia must prepare for a nuclear conflagration to achieve its ambitions for a new world order. President-elect Trump has indicated he will not agree to concessions that destabilize Europe, the Middle East or other regions. Going forward a strong US foreign policy may be the most stabilizing course the West can count on to restrain Putin and his intent to rebuild the Russian empire. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept. Illustration: Pixabay

Our Latest Television Program

New Era in World Affairs

There will be a dramatic change in Washington in the aftermath of the election. What will this mean for America’s national security and foreign affairs? Our guests, former CIA officer and Vice President at the Center for Security Policy Clair Lopez, along with ret. Col. John Mills, (author of The Nation Will Follow) provide extraordinary insights. If you missed the program on your local station, catch it here: https://rumble.com/v5oonnb-the-american-political-zone-november-12-2024.html