Living in partisan fantasyland …

First I would like to remind you that all four attorneys that will be testifying in the House Judiciary Committee are not employed by the United States to advocate for the nation, three of them were chosen by the Democrats precisely because they will recommend the impeachment of President Trump, and the Republicans chose one because that’s all of the opportunity that was afforded by Chairman Nadler and the majority on the Judiciary Committee.

The order of testimony was carefully staged to leave a lasting impression in the minds of the public – a negative one and one that favors impeachment, although it is clear that any underlying evidence is mostly based on hearsay, supposition, and presumption. The Democrats are hoping that the public will tune out by the time the GOP witness is presented. 

That the Democrats have, once again, inverted American jurisprudence is not surprising. The first and most egregious example being the presumption of guilt unless the accused proves their innocence. And the second, being lectured on the law before any witness testimony, which sets up a false expectation where the panel will try and fit the testimony to meet the criteria of the law, rather than letting the testimony flow freely and then judging how it meets legal standards.

Unfortunately, impeachment appears to be a political process that means whatever the majority of House members vote and whatever action the Senate decides to take. Whether or not the process is ruled by law developed since the enlightenment almost seems irrelevant to the Democrats.

If these proceedings were to be based on Presidential actions taken with respect to Ukraine, one might expect that the first two legitimate witnesses would be the  false whistleblower to explain the predicate criminality that sparked the impeachment inquiry, followed by Chairman Adam Schiff of the House Intelligence Committee to testify, under oath, about his Committee’s involvement with the so-called whistleblower prior to filing the complaint and the extent to which committee members or partisan third-parties drafted the actual complaint.

One would also expect the Inspector General for the Intelligence Community to follow the Chairman to explain the limits of the whistleblower process and the mysterious alteration of a long-standing form to allow hearsay evidence to be accepted as legitimate as first-hand knowledge. And, the penalty for filing a report containing material errors and omissions based on hearsay. The minority committee members would have the right to employ a form of “due process” by ceding time to the President’s attorney to question the witnesses.

But this is the last thing the Democrats want, as it highlights the impeachment effort as partisan political nonsense based on a lack of legally acceptable evidence and the supposition of fairness by those attempting to elicit facts amid the haze of personal ambitions and institutional agendas.

Injecting race in a non-racial process…

And, just when you think it cannot get worse, here comes Representative Al Green (D-TX), a black racist who views everything through the prism of his own racial preferences, to complain that there is a lack of diversity among the initial four witnesses. That we somehow need to select a person of color in order to send a message to the world subliminally. Green asks, “Are we saying that there are no people in this country, no scholars of color that can address this issue? Of course, Green ran to the cameras to give his opinion. Still, the truth is that he should be asking Chairman Nadler, a man of his own party, why the Democrats – the party of slavery, segregation, Jim Crow laws, and the KKK – why they did not choose a person of color. What does this race-baiting charlatan accomplish by asking rhetorical questions at a media event rather than openly challenging his party during the hearings?

The pundits start layering-on their constitutional ignorance based on their hatred of President Trump…

I find it ironic that Fox News Judicial Analyst Andrew Napolitano has put forth his ignorant opinion that “Democrats have credibly argued that he committed impeachable offenses by directing his subordinates to not participate in the investigation. Seeming to cap his profound opinion by claiming that “reasonable minds cannot disagree without rejecting history and constitutional norm.”

Not only does Napolitano seem to dismiss the president’s perks, privileges, and plenary powers, but also the long established “separation of powers” and executive privilege where the President does not serve at the pleasure of the House of Representatives.

Then there is the personal animosity and embarrassment that comes from Napolitano suggesting that President Trump was considering him, a former New Jersey Superior Court Judge, for a position on the U.S. Supreme Court and then seeing other more qualified men nominated for the position.

In spite of the ignorant venom spewed by Napolitano, the fact remains that President Trump has been the most open and transparent president in modern history, making individuals and documents available to legitimate investigators.

That the President denies access to those who want to fish through his affairs to find an impeachable offense is understandable. Consider that the official tax authorities in Washington, D.C. and in New York have the President’s full and complete tax returns, filed under penalty of perjury, for his entire filing history – and yet the House Democrats seek these returns so they can be leaked to embarrass the President, his family, and associates. If it were simply a matter of upholding or monitoring the law, they need only turn to the auditors charged with the task for a report on any potential wrongdoing.

The bad news is that Napolitano is not the only ignorant or intellectually dishonest person out there: consider the New York Times, Washington Post, CNN, MSNBC, etc. and you can see the depth of the partisan hatred.

The highlights -- Déjà vu all over again: witnesses who witnessed nothing and who are providing their opinions on what the impeachment clause means and how it should be applied to the House Impeachment Inquiry.

These are not textualists who are attempting to construe the constitution as envisioned by the Framers, but academics who are attempting to overlay the constitution with their own interpretation.  Not one of these individuals has personal knowledge of a single fact in the Schiff Report. With the exception of Turley, the other three professors are major progressive socialist democrats who have often advanced extreme and wacky takes on the impeachment process. As for the Democrat panels, it was obvious that some of the dumbest members were provided with questions so they did not look like the fools that they are in real life. 

[DEM CHOICE] Professor Noah Feldman, a smug, snarky, pretentious professorial type lecturing the public as though we were students.

“On the basis of the testimony and evidence before the House, President Trump has committed impeachable high crimes and misdemeanors by corruptly abusing the office of the presidency. Specifically, President Trump abused his office by corruptly soliciting President Volodymyr Zelensky of Ukraine to announce investigations of his political rivals in order to gain personal advantage, including in the 2020 presidential election.”

[OCS: I am not aware of any constitutional, legal, or even House of Representatives’ procedure that empowered Noah Feldman to act as a judge or to state a conclusory indication of guilt.

Especially since the so-called testimony and evidence placed before the House was without sufficient due process and was mostly hearsay, contained material misstatements of fact, and was based on opinion, speculation, or presumption.

The President was denied due process and his legal counsel never allowed to participate.

Additionally, evidence was presented from an anonymous whistleblower who may have colluded with the Committee and coordinated testimony. There was significant witness tampering by the Committee Schiff.

So the conclusions of Noah Feldman are based on faulty evidence and an apparent partisan understanding of the materials before the House. It is virtually impossible for Feldman to have read and comprehended nearly 500 pages of both Democrat and Republican Impeachment Inquiry reports overnight.]

[DEM CHOICE] Professor Pamela S. Karlan, obsequious nerd with a degree of anger and displeasure.

Based on the evidentiary record, what has happened in the case before you is something that I do not think we have ever seen before: a president who has doubled down on violating his oath to “faithfully execute” the laws and to “protect and defend the Constitution.” The evidence reveals a President who used the powers of his office to demand that a foreign government participate in undermining a competing candidate for the presidency.

[OCS: Again we have an incomplete, untested, and highly flawed evidentiary record based on little more than opinion, speculation, or presumption. The conclusion is unwarranted and unsubstantiated by the evidence.

Another professor who goes beyond speaking about the law to provide an odious analogy and then pronounces the President guilty and worthy of impeachment.

I also find it despicable that Karlan would use a pre-crafted laugh line that disparages President Trump's youngest son. "The Constitution says there can be no titles of nobility, so while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron."]

[DEM CHOICE] Professor Michael Gerhardt, an attorney type and well-measured speaker.

As I explain in the balance of this written statement, the record compiled thus far shows that the president has committed several impeachable offenses, including bribery, abuse of power in soliciting a personal favor from a foreign leader to benefit his political campaign, obstructing Congress, and obstructing justice.

[OCS: Again relying on a record that would be insufficient to bring a case in any court of competent jurisdiction and cannot withstand any challenge under the federal rules of procedure and the constitutional requirement of due process.]

If Congress fails to impeach here, then the impeachment process has lost all meaning, and, along with that, our Constitution’s carefully crafted safeguards against the establishment of a king on American soil. No one, not even the president, is beyond the reach of our Constitution and our laws.

[OCS I would argue that if the House attempts to impeach on a thin, flawed and partisan record, then, the impeachment process has lost all meaning, and, along with that, our Constitution’s carefully crafted safeguards.]

[GOP CHOICE] Professor Jonathan Turley, an attorney type and well-measured speaker.

… one can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president

I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president. That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided.

In the current case, the record is facially insufficient. The problem is not simply that the record does not contain direct evidence of the President stating a quid pro quo, as Chairman Schiff has suggested. The problem is that the House has not bothered to subpoena the key witnesses who would have such direct knowledge. This alone sets a dangerous precedent. A House in the future could avoid countervailing evidence by simply relying on tailored records with testimony from people who offer damning presumptions or speculation.

[OCS: This is the clearest, most concise rebuke of the Democrat’s Impeachment Inquiry to date.]

A comparison of the current impeachment inquiry with the three prior presidential inquiries puts a few facts into sharp relief.

First, this is a case without a clear criminal act and would be the first such case in history if the House proceeds without further evidence.

Second, the abbreviated period of investigation into this controversy is both problematic and puzzling.

[Third] The Ukrainian matter is largely built around a handful of witnesses and a schedule that reportedly set the matter for a vote within weeks of the underlying presidential act. Such a wafer-thin record only magnifies the problems already present in a narrowly constructed impeachment. The question for the House remains whether it is seeking simply to secure an impeachment or actually trying to build a case for removal. If it is the latter, this is not the schedule or the process needed to build a viable case.

If the House wants to make a serious effort at impeachment, it should focus on
building the record to raise these allegations to the level of impeachable offenses and
leave to the Senate the question of whether members will themselves rise to the moment
that follows.

[OCS: It is obvious that Turley, while no fan of Trump, is able to muster a cogent and competent argument against the methodology used by the House Democrats and their  rush to judgement on the matter of impeaching an American president. Unlike the three preceding professors, Turley made his case without smugness, anger, or rancor against Donald J. Trump.]

Bottom line…

In the final analysis, who are these four lawyers, presumed to be constitutional scholars, but in reality are simply four shopped opinions?

Are we ready to destroy America and deepen the divide between Americans to bring about the socialist revolution that the Democrats, now infiltrated by radical communists, seem to want?

What remedy do “We the People” have to counter a band of rogue, opportunistic Democrats, and their partisan pipe dreams?

The answers are that all of the presumed legal scholars are advocates for themselves and their partisan or professional agenda – no more, no less because there is no actual body of law, only customary precedent and practice, when it comes to the political process of impeachment. This should not be, but it is what it is.

I honestly believe that outside of New York, California, and Washington D.C., most Americans do not want their nation to be split and feel that they are being ill-served by their current representatives who appear to be representing their respective political parties and their agendas rather than the welfare of America and ALL Americans.

And the remedy is simple: We go to the polls in November of 2020 and vote – sending a message to one and all about how we feel about their self-serving partisan antics and removing those who are hell-bent on destroying our nation from within.

As a side note, I find the Democrat’s continual re-statement that “No person is above the law” to be offensive as long as Hillary Clinton and her cadre of co-conspirators walk free in this land.

We are so screwed.

-- steve

“Nullius in verba.”-- take nobody's word for it!

“Beware of false knowledge; it is more dangerous than ignorance.”-- George Bernard Shaw

“Progressive, liberal, Socialist, Marxist, Democratic Socialist -- they are all COMMUNISTS.”

“The key to fighting the craziness of the progressives is to hold them responsible for their actions, not their intentions.” – OCS

"The object in life is not to be on the side of the majority, but to escape finding oneself in the ranks of the insane." -- Marcus Aurelius

“A people that elect corrupt politicians, imposters, thieves, and traitors are not victims... but accomplices” -- George Orwell

“Fere libenter homines id quod volunt credunt." (The people gladly believe what they wish to.) ~Julius Caesar

“Describing the problem is quite different from knowing the solution. Except in politics." ~ OCS