Liberal Lawyer Torches Democrats' Impeachment Circus: Two Articles Don't Meet Constitutional Standards

|
|
Posted: Dec 17, 2019 5:05 PM
Liberal Lawyer Torches Democrats' Impeachment Circus: Two Articles Don't Meet Constitutional Standards

Source: AP Photo/Patrick Semansky

This impeachment circus is still going on—and it could become one of the biggest in-kind contributions Democrats can give the Trump 2020 re-election effort. Impeachment over this July phone call with Ukraine, where some quid pro quo businesses was hashed out between military aid and a corruption probe into the Bidens has engulfed D.C. House Democrats made a promise to their progressive base to impeach Trump. they thought it would be popular. It was a gross miscalculation. It’s not popular in key swing states or with Independent voters. The numbers for impeachment are now officially underwater. And the two charges, obstruction of Congress and abuse of power, lobbed against Trump further proves that this is a partisan clown show. Also, where’s bribery? I was promised that would be on their rap sheet. It’s not. 

Liberal lawyer Alan Dershowitz scorched Democrats for pushing two articles of impeachment that simply do not meet constitutional standards. I mean I don’t think you need to go to law school to know that these charges are just liberal speak for “we don’t like this guy.” We all know that Democrats haven’t been able to handle Trump’s 2016 win. That’s not a good enough reason to impeach a duly elected president. He won. Hillary lost. Deal with it. Most Americans have done so, but for the most liberal, most disgusting parts of this country—it’s been an obsession top impeach Trump. It’s quasi-stalker-like behavior (via The Hill):

Neither of these proposed articles satisfy the express constitutional criteria for an impeachment, which are limited to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Neither are high or low crimes or misdemeanors. Neither are mentioned within the Constitution.

Both are so vague and open ended that they could be applied in partisan fashion by a majority of the House against almost any president from the opposing party. Both are precisely what the Framers had rejected at their Constitutional Convention. Both raise the “greatest danger,” in the words of Alexander Hamilton, that the decision to impeach will be based on the “comparative strength of parties,” rather than on “innocence or guilt.”

That danger is now coming to pass, as House Democrats seek for the first time in American history to impeach a president without having at least some bipartisan support in Congress. Nor can they find any support in the words of the Constitution, or in the history of its adoption. A majority of the House is simply making it up as they go along in the process, thus placing themselves not only above the law but above the Constitution.

Dershowitz may be one of the few liberals who have defended Trump from his side’s insanity. Granted, he’s not Trump fan. He has criticized him, but since he’s not on the resistance train, he no longer gets invited to the parties. At any rate, his observation is right on the mark here. If this is the standard, then Obama should’ve been impeached for his stonewalling of Congress, especially on Fast and Furious.