Tuesday, October 8, 2019

Why Trump Should Be Impeached

Don Surber makes the case for impeaching Trump, as part of a much longer blog. His case is one we've discussed here previously, and he presents it well:

I want President Trump impeached because it would give him a very public stage -- unfiltered by the media -- to lay out who the swamp is, what it has gotten away with, and why it is trying to kill his presidency. 
An impeachment would allow President Trump to defend himself. He can subpoena Hunter Biden as a hostile witness and ask him about his Burisma job. I would ask him to answer in Ukrainian. 
President Trump also can force Daddy Biden to testify. Just what did he mean by "I said, nah, I’m not going to — or, we’re not going to give you the billion dollars. They said, you have no authority. You’re not the president. The president said — I said, call him." 
Put Obama on the stand. Ask him about Biden's boast. Was it true? Then ask him why he kept sending Biden to Ukraine. 
Put on the stand the "whistle blower," which is the code name for the CIA spy Democrats embedded in the Trump administration. 
To be sure there would be plenty of Fifth Amendment refusals to reply. The public sees that as an admission of guilt. 
It is. 
Democrats do not have to prove anything to impeach the president.
But once they do, they turn the Senate into a courtroom in which President Trump is unlimited in defending himself. I want him to put on the stand Biden, Hunter, Kerry, his stepson, Whitey Bulger's nephew, and 100 other Democrats -- and grill them like the cheap steaks and little weenies they are. 
And then I want President Trump to take the stand. He will blow them away.
Calling out the accusers just may be part of the Republican strategy. 
The media thinks Americans are idiots who will shun President Trump upon impeachment. The media thinks it can ignore basic facts such as Biden's corruption with impunity. The media also thinks the public is not on to their irrational paraphrases and ... cherry picking ... of quotes ... out of context. 
Finally, the media thinks impeachment is the last act of this farce. It should be only the beginning. 
Democrats are banking on President Trump wanting to get this impeachment over with quickly. 

Zerohedge makes a similar case, quoting a Washington Times article that cites the views of at least two leading legal authorities on impeachment:

Former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter could be forced to testify if the Senate moves to hold an impeachment trial of President Trump, according to the Washington Times, citing congressional aides "who questioned whether Democrats have thought through the full implications of their impeachment drive." 
For that matter, if the House chooses to impeach Mr. Trump on charges stemming from the special counsel’s Russia investigation, aides said it could open the door to witnesses such as fired FBI Agent Peter Strzok or even major figures from the Obama administration. 
If the House votes to impeach - a step which Speaker Nancy Pelosi hasn't committed to yet, then it would move to the Senate for a formal trial in which a 2/3 majority would be required to convict and formally remove President Trump.
They would also get to force the whistleblowers accusing Trump of improper behavior to testify publicly, according to Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-SC), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee.  
Graham also suggested that House Intelligence Committee Chair Adam Schiff (D-CA) could become a witness in any impeachment trial for hiding his office's interactions with one of the whistleblowers. 
"I don’t think the Dems have thought this through at all," one staffer told the Times - which notes that the GOP-dominated Senate would have "full control over what an impeachment trial would look like." 
According to George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley, a Senate trial would largely be defined by what articles the House passes.  
"If Trump is impeached on the Ukrainian call, the Bidens would be fair game, particularly Hunter," said Turley. 
According to Sen. Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), if the House does impeach Trump, the Senate will be forced to take the matter up, saying "The way that impeachment stops is a Senate majority with me as majority leader."  
That said, the Examiner suggests that Senate GOP might "allow a spectacle to embarrass Democrats" with how things go.  
"Democrats could object, but they’re in the minority and there’s not a lot they can do about that," said impeachment expert Michael Gerhardt, a constitutional law professor at the University of North Carolina and author of "Impeachment: What Everyone Needs to Know."

Of course there's one very big reason why both parties might want to step back from this cliff: Donald J. Trump--the most innocent man in Washington. He's already been investigated "six ways from Sunday" by the media industrial Deep State complex, so we now he's totally clean. But his interests are not the same as the interests of the Legislative Branch. If the Dems insist on going down this road, no doubt the GOP will reciprocate. However ...

Earlier this morning I quoted a Fox story re Adam Schiff's connections to Ukrainian arms dealer Igor Pasternak. Their relationship is very obviously corrupt by reasonable--which is to say, non-DC--standards. But the story contained a very telling sentence:

An online search of donor records shows that Pasternak has donated money to politicians and organizations of both parties.

Turning an impeachment trial into a showcase for Congressional corruption would be very much in Trump's interests--not so much in Congressional interests.


  1. Hey Mark did you actually look at the "....donor records shows that Pasternak....". You will find that the vast majority have a (D) after their name. Also what does it mean on Open Secrets when you have a contribution to say Congressperson Crook for lets say $1000 and then just below that is listed another to Crook for the same amount but with a minus sign in front (i.e. -$1000).


    1. Hugh, I pretty much assumed that would be the case, re party affiliation. But Pasternak was only one of the Ukrainian money men funneling money to US politicians. A prominent name who has been connected to Burisma (through an ex-CIA adviser who was close to Brennan) is Willard Romney.

      Re the accounting entry, I'm just guessing but it probably means something like, the whole amount was paid out to a campaign account. Something of the sort. There would be multiple accounts.

      Anyone else know?

  2. So everything in the post except for Trump on the stand. That is too large a gamble and completely unnecessary — just my humble non-lawyer opinion.

  3. cofer black, ex head of counter terror, at large ambassador for terrorism, vp at black water

  4. But I found links of the energy conference burisma has sponsored in Monaco, with prince albert, where the former german foreign minister the Italian prime minister, and the former governor of Louisiana have attended

  5. Whatever the formal Articles of Impeachment might say, it's a political trial, not a legal one, & the actual (unspoken) impeachment argument is:

    1) Trump says we've been setting him up for 3 years and he's innocent of selling out his country.
    2) We say we haven't been setting him up ever and he's guilty of selling out his country.

    IOW, was Trump set up or he is really some sort of traitor?

    Seems to me it's pretty hard to argue this isn't where the fundamental dividing line in the country is right now, no matter what the impeachment is formally presented as, and an impeachment trial should be in very large part about helping the American people resolve this core dispute. Showing Trump is right and the impeachers are wrong requires he show it's all been one elaborate setup after another, with literally hundreds of conspirators participating in and out of government.

    I'm with Surber on this one, in spades.

    PS1: if what Horowitz/Barr/Durham come up with renders all the above moot, fine. I’m just going on what’s known right now.
    PS2: I also think an expansive witness list does not at all have to be in tension with DOJ prosecutions, though others may differ.

    1. I totally agree. The bottom line is that the American people need the truth. Whether through an impeachment trial or through Barr/Durham--or both!--that's the bottom line.

  6. I agree that the Senate should turn the trial into an education of the public.

    Congress isn't doing anything productive anyway. The Senate might as well spend six months on its "trial".

    We don't have circuses any more in our country. Let this be a fun, televised circus for the 21st Century.

  7. there's another site, that has more detail but it gives the gist of the matter

  8. On sundance's site, respected reader "Dutchman" argues that McConnell and Schumer tell their caucuses how to vote, and that Trump knows that McConnell is his most dangerous foe, via e.g. his control of Congressional reelection funds, and whether or not ethics complaints are filed.
    Pelosi "is going to all this trouble, precisely BECAUSE she knows McConnell is ‘on board’ with impeaching our President."

    I can't see how McConnell expects to pull this off, without an enraged Trump base pushing for a civil war, or a colonels' coup.
    Am I missing something?

    1. McConnell is a party loyalist. He will back the party's leader, and that's Trump. McConnell also knows that Trump is the one bringing in the money--busting all records.

    2. If "Dutchman" is right, it would be the most stunning betrayal since Judas, if not Brutus.

    3. That's why it's a good thing that he's wrong.

    4. Here's an article from a very liberal outfit that explains why people like Dutchman should not be taken seriously.

  9. I think that the President is in a position of strength. He himself knows it, McConnell knows it, the Rep party knows it, the Dems know it, the Deep State knows it and the media know it.

    Ignore the polls that show doom for the President. The one that I care about is the one where the people actually cast a ballot on Tuesday, November 3 of 2020.

    Take my word for it, patriots, the Establishment fears traditional voters.