There are a batch of fevered articles in the last few days discussing the impending impeachment of Donald Trump. They make me wonder on what planet these people actually live. There's zero chance of impeachment and zero chance that Trump would be removed from office were he impeached.
Think about it. What was the impeachable offense? The left doesn't like President Trump. Much as the left would like that to be the basis for impeachment; it isn't. How about Trump interfered with an investigation and obstructed justice. Democrats with backgrounds in the law (who should know better) are screaming that Trump's tweet in which he says that General Flynn was fired because he lied to Vice President Pence and to the FBI shows that Trump obstructed justice. Think about that. General Flynn, the national security adviser, gets fired for lying. My own senator Richard Blumenthal says that is obstruction. What nonsense will Blumenthal say next? I know: showing up at the presidential debates last fall was obstruction of justice by Trump. It's just as illogical.
For those who have forgotten, obstruction of justice means interfering with an investigation in which you have no right to do so. It's that last part that's the important part. If someone prevents an FBI agent from looking at the contents of box that contains evidence, that could be obstruction. Of course, if the person who says not to look in the box is the supervisor of the FBI agent who is directing the investigation, it isn't obstruction. In fact, it is just the normal operation of the investigation. So what about President Trump? Didn't he mention to then FBI director Comey that he hoped Comey could "let it go" when speaking about Flynn who had just been fired? Comey's memo says that. You know, that memo that Comey illegally leaked to the media to try to get a special prosecutor appointed after he was fired. The same Comey who wrote the decision in the Clinton email case three months before the investigation was completed and before more than 20 witnesses -- including Hillary herself -- were interviewed. Why would we believe Comey's memo? But I digress. If the President had actually directed Comey to stop the investigation into Flynn (which he didn't) it still wouldn't be obstruction of justice. The president has the right to direct the FBI how to proceed. It isn't done all that often, but it is still the president's right to do so. So there cannot be any obstruction of justice in such a situation. So much for that impeachable offense.
But the Democrats have not stopped there. They say that the President is violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution which prohibits gifts to the president from foreign countries and others. And how does President Trump violate that clause? That's easy say the Democrats; some of the Trump properties rent space to foreign governments or have restaurants where foreign diplomats eat. That's right, having the ambassador from Slovakia stay in a Trump hotel violates the Constitution according to these morons. Not even close! The Emoluments clause bars gifts to the president that would be considered something like bribes. The founding fathers did not want a president (or other federal official) on the payroll of foreign powers. In other words, they didn't want some official like the Secretary of State to have her husband give speeches and get paid $750,000 for twenty minutes of talking while she was considering whether or not to approve the sale of 20% of the nations uranium supply to a hostile foreign power. They really didn't want that same person to collect over $140 million through her "foundation" at the same time. That could be money given to her for nothing other than a favorable decision in the matter she was considering. On the other hand, having a hotel guest who was charged the regular rate for a room is not what worried the founding fathers. They wanted to prevent bribery not commerce.
So there's no impeachable offense. That won't stop the Democrats though. But there's also no way that the public or even the Congress and the Senate would stand for such a travesty. It's a lost cause. It's a waste of time. It's just a distraction. No wonder the Democrats and the media are so focused on it; they got nothing else. Think about the Democrats plan for tax reform. Oh wait, they didn't have one. Think about the revisions to Obamacare that the Democrats proposed to "save" the program. Oh wait, they didn't do that either. How about the Democrats plan for infrastructure -- doesn't exit. How about their plan for trade deals like NAFTA -- also doesn't exist. What to do with border security is another thing that the Democrats talk and complain about constantly, but they have no plan they have offered. So let them talk about impeachment. They have nothing better to do.
Think about it. What was the impeachable offense? The left doesn't like President Trump. Much as the left would like that to be the basis for impeachment; it isn't. How about Trump interfered with an investigation and obstructed justice. Democrats with backgrounds in the law (who should know better) are screaming that Trump's tweet in which he says that General Flynn was fired because he lied to Vice President Pence and to the FBI shows that Trump obstructed justice. Think about that. General Flynn, the national security adviser, gets fired for lying. My own senator Richard Blumenthal says that is obstruction. What nonsense will Blumenthal say next? I know: showing up at the presidential debates last fall was obstruction of justice by Trump. It's just as illogical.
For those who have forgotten, obstruction of justice means interfering with an investigation in which you have no right to do so. It's that last part that's the important part. If someone prevents an FBI agent from looking at the contents of box that contains evidence, that could be obstruction. Of course, if the person who says not to look in the box is the supervisor of the FBI agent who is directing the investigation, it isn't obstruction. In fact, it is just the normal operation of the investigation. So what about President Trump? Didn't he mention to then FBI director Comey that he hoped Comey could "let it go" when speaking about Flynn who had just been fired? Comey's memo says that. You know, that memo that Comey illegally leaked to the media to try to get a special prosecutor appointed after he was fired. The same Comey who wrote the decision in the Clinton email case three months before the investigation was completed and before more than 20 witnesses -- including Hillary herself -- were interviewed. Why would we believe Comey's memo? But I digress. If the President had actually directed Comey to stop the investigation into Flynn (which he didn't) it still wouldn't be obstruction of justice. The president has the right to direct the FBI how to proceed. It isn't done all that often, but it is still the president's right to do so. So there cannot be any obstruction of justice in such a situation. So much for that impeachable offense.
But the Democrats have not stopped there. They say that the President is violating the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution which prohibits gifts to the president from foreign countries and others. And how does President Trump violate that clause? That's easy say the Democrats; some of the Trump properties rent space to foreign governments or have restaurants where foreign diplomats eat. That's right, having the ambassador from Slovakia stay in a Trump hotel violates the Constitution according to these morons. Not even close! The Emoluments clause bars gifts to the president that would be considered something like bribes. The founding fathers did not want a president (or other federal official) on the payroll of foreign powers. In other words, they didn't want some official like the Secretary of State to have her husband give speeches and get paid $750,000 for twenty minutes of talking while she was considering whether or not to approve the sale of 20% of the nations uranium supply to a hostile foreign power. They really didn't want that same person to collect over $140 million through her "foundation" at the same time. That could be money given to her for nothing other than a favorable decision in the matter she was considering. On the other hand, having a hotel guest who was charged the regular rate for a room is not what worried the founding fathers. They wanted to prevent bribery not commerce.
So there's no impeachable offense. That won't stop the Democrats though. But there's also no way that the public or even the Congress and the Senate would stand for such a travesty. It's a lost cause. It's a waste of time. It's just a distraction. No wonder the Democrats and the media are so focused on it; they got nothing else. Think about the Democrats plan for tax reform. Oh wait, they didn't have one. Think about the revisions to Obamacare that the Democrats proposed to "save" the program. Oh wait, they didn't do that either. How about the Democrats plan for infrastructure -- doesn't exit. How about their plan for trade deals like NAFTA -- also doesn't exist. What to do with border security is another thing that the Democrats talk and complain about constantly, but they have no plan they have offered. So let them talk about impeachment. They have nothing better to do.
No comments:
Post a Comment