What, exactly, is President Trump’s ‘high crime’ here?
By: By Deroy Murdock
The democrats impeachment charade is completely baseless and with out merit. There is no treason, no bribery or corruption, no high crimes, and no misdemeanors. They have zero, zip, nada. There is no there there and the senate should this steaming pile of Schiff ever reach them will move to dismiss the moment the house charges are read into the record. They see what a biased and partisan sham this whole tantrum of theirs is.
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
The Constitution is quite clear: The president “shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
Democrats are speeding toward the impeachment of President Trump with this standard barely a pebble in their path.
The Constitution does not permit impeachment because the House finds the president loud, dislikes his policies or simply regards him with uncontrollable, pathological, stammer-inducing hatred. Nonetheless, Democrats despise Trump and are determined to impeach him, no matter what.
Still, the question remains: How, exactly, is Trump even accused of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors?”
Treason? No one has claimed that Trump provided aid and comfort to the enemy during wartime. At worst, he delayed aid to a friendly nation with which America is at peace.
That’s not treason.
Bribery? At worst, Trump postponed some $391 million in assistance to Kiev, presumably in exchange for dirt on former Vice President Joe Biden. The aid was delivered, and no such dirt was received. None of this money ever got near Trump’s pocket or that of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
So, where is the bribery?
“High crimes and misdemeanors?” While this criterion is more nebulous, it also seems far out of reach. Democrats accuse Trump of extorting Zelensky to investigate for corruption any of the eyebrow-raising connections between Kiev and Joe and Hunter Biden, the former veep’s son. Democrats claim such a probe was what Zelensky had to launch before receiving the aforementioned military aid. This is the notorious quid pro quo.
But Zelensky has said repeatedly that he never felt extorted in his July 25 phone call with Trump. Zelensky told journalists on Sept. 25, “ nobody pushed me .” During extensive discussions with some 300 journalists in Kiev, Zelensky said on Oct. 10: “There was no pressure or blackmail from the US.” The available evidence, from the supposed victim of Trump’s vise, is: What vise?
Similarly, for Trump’s alleged quid pro quo to work, Team Zelensky needed to know their aid was being blocked until they put the Bidens under magnifying glasses. Absent such awareness, Trump’s “threat” would’ve been as pointless as trying to rob a bank with a concealed handgun.
“I had no idea the military aid was held up,” at the time of the call with Trump, Zelensky said on Oct. 10. Well after that July 25 conversation, the Ukrainians learned that the aid had been delayed, in part to see if Kiev would live up to its promises to fight corruption. Zelensky and Vice President Mike Pence discussed this in Warsaw on Sept. 1. The assistance was released 10 days later. “And after this meeting, the US unlocked the aid and added $140 million,” Zelensky said. “That’s why there was no blackmail.”
Democrats and their bodyguards in the media also seem deeply hurt that Trump fired former US ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch. How dare he? What a bully!
Yovanovitch, like every US ambassador, serves at the president’s pleasure. As the chief architect of foreign policy during his administration, Trump had every right to sack her, for slow-walking his initiatives, because he wanted a new American face in Kiev, or perhaps he didn’t like her shoes. There’s no high crime or misdemeanor here.
Democrats are irked that Trump has deployed his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, as his emissary, thus circumventing career diplomats.
As Eric Felten of RealClearInvestigations recalled, this is nothing new. Democratic presidents have dispatched the Rev. Jesse Jackson and ex.-Rep. Bill Richardson on informal missions. Jimmy Carter used Coca-Cola chief J. Paul Austin as a back-channel envoy to Cuba. Even George Washington relied on Gouverneur Morris as his “private agent” in Europe.
Poor Democrats. If the Constitution included a “We can’t stand the guy!” impeachment rationale, their divisive recklessness would be legit.
Tags
Who is online
264 visitors
All around scumbag.
"High crimes and misdemeanors" is a phrase from Section 4 of Article Two of the United States Constitution: "The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors ."
"High," in the legal and common parlance of the 17th and 18th centuries of "high crimes," is activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath of office that are not shared with common persons. A high crime is one that can be done only by someone in a unique position of authority, which is political in character, who does things to circumvent justice . The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors," used together, was a common phrase when the U.S. Constitution was written and did not require any stringent or difficult criteria for determining guilt but meant the opposite . The phrase was historically used to cover a very broad range of crimes .
The Judiciary Committee's 1974 report "The Historical Origins of Impeachment" stated: "'High Crimes and Misdemeanors' has traditionally been considered a 'term of art', like such other constitutional phrases as 'levying war' and 'due process.' The Supreme Court has held that such phrases must be construed, not according to modern usage, but according to what the framers meant when they adopted them. Chief Justice John Marshall wrote of another such phrase:
Since 1386, the English parliament had used the term “high crimes and misdemeanors” to describe one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds , appointing unfit subordinates , not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve .
Donald Trump has told subordinates to lie, told them not to testify, has defied numerous subpoenas with a spurious claim of "total executive privilege" that doesn't exist, held $391 million back from an ally nation that is desperately trying to defend themselves against Russian aggression and coercing them into starting an investigation into one of the Presidents most likely political opponents, and that's before even bringing up the dozens of sexual assault accusations, the misuse of charity funds, campaign finance fraud and misuse of inauguration donations, the numerous emoluments clause cases that have been given court approval to proceed and the 10 clear cases of obstruction laid out in the Mueller report. These moronic seeds from Trump supporters trying to look anywhere else but at the facts are worse than just lies, they're poorly written fan fiction as anyone with more than half a brain can see.
It is not a crime to not use a condom while engaging in trysts with Stephanie Clifford or Karen McDougal. Or the others either.
Can't understand why people can't understand that.
Besides, Trump's Ukraine ventures are simply protecting the 'cash flows' Manafort built. Trump is a business man of sorts, right?