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

Ukraine’s Frozen Conflict

As we approach winter in the northern hemisphere, the war in Ukraine is beginning to resemble a “frozen conflict” from many perspectives. Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky recently told the media he hopes the war will end faster once President-elect Trump takes over in January. Opinions in Moscow, however, differ from that of the Ukrainian leader. Russian President Vladimir Putin argues that the North Atlantic Treaty Organization (NATO) needs to exclude Ukraine from joining in “exchange” for peace. If it does not, he says, then no end to the war is in sight. So far there is no Christmas solution. Several NATO countries, according to Vladimir Socor of the Jamestown Foundation, are tentatively considering “coalitions-of-the-willing” to provide security for Ukraine outside of the formal NATO framework. There is, however, no collective mechanism today under which such an arrangement is viable. According to the NATO Charter, while Ukraine is a NATO partner country, it may not join as a full member since it has not fulfilled the requirements for membership. That has not stopped NATO and allies from continuing “to provide Ukraine with unprecedented levels of support, helping to uphold its fundamental right to self-defence,” according to the organization. Socor says that keeping Ukraine out of NATO will not advance peace with Russia. Waiting for a peace settlement, he suggests, would only serve to encourage Moscow to continue the war indefinitely. Although the Biden Administration officially withdrew its support for Ukrainian membership in 2021, NATO maintains an “open door” policy toward membership-seeking countries. The current White House position led the way for European states to oppose Ukraine’s membership saying that a decision should be delayed until “conditions are met.” Biden pushed for changing “open door” to a “bridge” metaphor. It is not intended as an across-the-board NATO policy and has been implemented in the past on a case-by-case basis, says Socor. “The alliance’s open-door policy was not fully insulated from Russia’s non-statutory blocking power, and NATO-aspirant countries’ path toward membership was not always irreversible.” Russia has successfully blocked states like Georgia from joining, first in 2008 and again after the war in Ukraine began in 2014. Russia recognizes the value add of Ukraine to NATO is enormous and that Kyiv has a better case than some other nations. Putin’s invasion was, in part, intended to foreclose that option. By 2021, Moscow was pushing hard to maximize its war objectives, which included further annexations of Ukrainian territory. A main goal for Putin was, and is, to ensure there is no Ukraine left to join NATO. As President-elect Trump prepares to assume office in January, he is faced with the historical challenges presented by the war. Post-conflict security guarantees were the center of several proposals made during the 2023 military stalemate. The incoming Trump Administration has yet to outline how it intends to handle the Russia-Ukraine war. Analysts in Washington believe that the new Administration will expect its European allies to guarantee the majority of Ukraine’s security needs. As we approach 2025, several European nations have acknowledged that they do not view Ukraine as eligible for NATO membership as it would draw the organization into the middle of the conflict. Others want to wait until the war is over or pending a “peace” settlement before considering Ukrainian membership. Socor reports that some “influential voices” are suggesting that “Kyiv should join NATO after “freezing” the war along a stable armistice line, de facto accepting Ukraine’s partition, with NATO security guarantees applying de jure to the government-controlled territory only.” This would mean starting accession talks soon with the actual talks to commence only after a ceasefire is in place. Trump arrives in Washington at a time when Putin’s hybrid strategies of war in Ukraine have eviscerated commonly-held differences between war and peace. “Absent a political consensus in NATO over Ukrainian membership, certain European allies, including France’s President Emmanuel Macron, are holding informal consultations about post-conflict security guarantees to Kyiv by NATO members outside of NATO’s framework,” according to the Jamestown Foundation. The Biden Administration downplayed the discussions on possible forms of military assistance and defense industry cooperation by sending only an Assistant Secretary of State. For a European peace to hold the Trump Administration would need to formally extend the United States’ nuclear deterrence to Ukraine. Options under discussion in Europe include a “coalition of the resolute” to deploy forces to Ukraine as part of a possible armistice package, deterring further Russian attacks, says Secor. European officials are also debating, without any agreement, whether its military forces could perform non-combat logistical roles to free Ukrainian forces to fight. None of the possible courses of action has moved forward as all eyes are waiting on the incoming Trump Administration for clues about its intended level of support for a NATO framework and other non-NATO proposals. Daria Novak served in the U.S. State Dept.