Trump’s America –Episode #150 – Honoring The Best

By Arthur Piccolo

News Americas, NEW YORK, NY, Fri. Dec. 6, 2019: We are all HONG KONGERS, or should be!

Up until Wednesday, this all-important milestone episode #150 of Trump’s America was going to be all about the brave Hong Kong freedom fighters who are teaching all of us – the entire human society – about confronting oppression and abusers of power here in the 21st century. They very much deserve it …

Then Jonathan Turley came in the picture Wednesday and spoke brilliantly at the Congressional Presidential impeachment inquisition …

Even better that his views echoed my own in episode #148 and most of all that he also spoke truth about Alexander Hamilton, unlike Ron Chernow and others hell bent on impeaching Donald Trump no matter what the reality.

Professor Jonathan Turley has earned this all-important 150th episode. I will continue to return to the Hong Kongers again and again in the future.

Here is how I will prove Professor Turley deserves this important episode. This will be my longest episode ever of both Obama’s America and Trump’s America – a total of more than 450 weekly episodes over both administrations.

ALL I am going to do is let Professor Turley speak for himself as he did before Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler’s illegal inquisition. They and many others in Congress are guilty of impeachable offenses and blatantly misusing their positions and the Constitution for outrageous political gain.

… To MISUSE the Constitution in a most dangerous way to do what they believe will increase the chances for a Democrat to defeat Trump in the 2020 election rather than use their differences with him LEGALLY in the campaign.

Professor Turley just like me is a Democrat and a fierce critic of President Trump who did not vote for him in 2016 and will not in 2020. I call those like Turley and myself and many others who oppose this flabby improper impeachment REAL Democrats; unlike unprincipled political hacks and DINOSAURS like Pelosi, Schiff, Nadler and others.

This is a WAR for the future of our nation and the Democratic Party.

Now it is my proud honor to present Professor Turley at length …

If you value being an American and the future of our nation, you will take the time to read these various excerpts from Turley’s much longer testimony.

The opening …

“Alexander Hamilton warned that charges of impeachable conduct ‘will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.’”

ENCORE ….

“Alexander Hamilton warned that charges of impeachable conduct ‘will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.’”

“As with the Clinton impeachment, the Trump impeachment has again proven Hamilton’s words to be prophetic. The stifling intolerance for opposing views is the same. As was the case two decades ago, it is a perilous environment for a legal scholar who wants to explore the technical and arcane issues normally involved in an academic examination of a legal standard ratified 234 years ago.

“I have spent decades writing about impeachment and presidential powers as an academic and as a legal commentator. My academic work reflects the bias of a Madisonian scholar. I tend to favor Congress in disputes with the Executive Branch and I have been critical of the sweeping claims of presidential power and privileges made by modern Administrations.

“I would like to start, perhaps incongruously, with a statement of three irrelevant facts. First, I am not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him in 2016 and I have previously voted for Presidents Clinton and Obama. Second, I have been highly critical of President Trump, his policies, and his rhetoric, in dozens of columns. Third, I have repeatedly criticized his raising of the investigation of the Hunter Biden matter with the Ukrainian president.

“These points are not meant to curry favor or approval. Rather they are meant to drive home a simple point: 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. To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump.

“My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my only concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of impeachment.

“President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger.

ENCORE …

“President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come. 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 time, bitterly divided.

“In the end, the Framers would reject various prior standards including ‘corruption,’ ‘obtaining office by improper means,’ betraying his trust to a foreign power ….It is worth noting that, while Madison objected to the inclusion of maladministration in the standard in favor of the English standard of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors,’ he would later reference maladministration as something that could be part of an impeachment and declared that impeachment could address “the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate.

“Likewise, Alexander Hamilton referred to impeachable offenses as ‘those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.’

“As I have stressed, it is possible to establish a case for impeachment based on a non-criminal allegation of abuse of power. However, although criminality is not required in such a case, clarity is necessary. That comes from a complete and comprehensive record that eliminates exculpatory motivations or explanations. The problem is that this is an exceptionally narrow impeachment resting on the thinnest possible evidentiary record.

“During the House Intelligence Committee proceedings, Democratic leaders indicated that they wanted to proceed exclusively or primarily on the Ukrainian allegations and wanted a vote by the end of December. I previously wrote that the current incomplete record is insufficient to sustain an impeachment case, a view recently voiced by the New York Times and other sources.

“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. It is not enough to simply shrug and say this is “close enough for jazz” in an impeachment.

ENCORE ..

“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. It is not enough to simply shrug and say this is “close enough for jazz” in an impeachment.”

“Indeed, some of our greatest presidents could have been impeached for acts in direct violation of their constitutional oaths of office. Abraham Lincoln, for example, suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War despite the fact that Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution leaves such a suspension to Congress “in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

ENCORE …

“Indeed, some of our greatest presidents could have been impeached for acts in direct violation of their constitutional oaths of office. Abraham Lincoln, for example, suspended habeas corpus during the Civil War despite the fact that Article 1, Section 9, of the Constitution leaves such a suspension to Congress “in Cases of Rebellion or Invasion the public Safety may require it.”

“The unconstitutional suspension of the ‘Great Writ’ would normally be viewed as a violation of the greatest constitutional order. Other presidents faced impeachment inquires that were not allowed to proceed, including John Tyler, Grover Cleveland, Herbert Hoover, Harry Truman, Richard Nixon, Ronald Reagan, and George Bush.

“President Tyler faced some allegations that had some common elements to our current controversy. Among the nine allegations raised by Rep. John Botts of Virginia, Tyler was accused of initiating an illegal investigation of the custom house in New York, withholding information from government agents, withholding actions  necessary to ‘the just operation of government’ and ‘shameless duplicity, equivocation, and falsehood, with his late cabinet and Congress.’

“Likewise, Cleveland was accused of high crimes and misdemeanors that included the use of the appointment power for political purposes (including influencing legislation) against the nation’s interest and “corrupting politics through the interference of Federal officeholders.” Truman faced an impeachment call over a variety of claims, including “attempting to disgrace the Congress of the United States.

“I get it. You are mad. The President is mad. My Democratic friends are mad. My Republican friends are mad. My wife is mad. My kids are mad. Even my dog is mad . . . and Luna is a golden doodle and they are never mad. We are all mad and where has it taken us? Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad or will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration?

ENCORE …

“I get it. You are mad. The President is mad. My Democratic friends are mad. My Republican friends are mad. My wife is mad. My kids are mad. Even my dog is mad . . . and Luna is a golden doodle and they are never mad. We are all mad and where has it taken us? Will a slipshod impeachment make us less mad or will it only give an invitation for the madness to follow in every future administration?”

“That is why this is wrong. It is not wrong because President Trump is right. His call was anything but “perfect” and his reference to the Bidens’ was highly inappropriate. It is not wrong, because the House has no legitimate reason to investigate the Ukrainian controversy.

“The use of military aid for a quid pro quo to investigate one’s political opponent, if proven, can be an impeachable offense. It is not wrong because we are in an election year. There is no good time for an impeachment, but this process concerns the constitutional right to hold office in this term, not the next.

“No, it is wrong because this is not how an American president should be impeached.

ENCORE …

“No, it is wrong because this is not how an American president should be impeached.”

“For two years, members of this Committee have declared that criminal and impeachable acts were established for everything from treason to conspiracy to obstruction. However, no action was taken to impeach. Suddenly, just a few weeks ago, the House announced it would begin an impeachment inquiry and push for a final vote in a matter of weeks.

“To do so, the House Intelligence Committee declared that it would not subpoena a host of witnesses who have direct knowledge of any quid pro quo. Instead, it will proceed on a record composed of a relatively small number of witnesses with largely second-hand knowledge of the position.

“The only three direct conversations with President Trump do not contain a statement of a quid pro quo and two expressly deny such a pre-condition.

ENCORE …

“The only three direct conversations with President Trump do not contain a statement of a quid pro quo and two expressly deny such a pre-condition.”

“In this age of rage, many are appealing for us to simply put the law aside and “just do it” like this is some impulse-buy Nike sneaker. You can certainly do that. You can declare the definitions of crimes alleged are immaterial and this is an exercise of politics, not law. However, the legal definitions and standards that I have addressed in my testimony are the very thing dividing rage from reason.

ENCORE …

“In this age of rage, many are appealing for us to simply put the law aside and “just do it” like this is some impulse-buy Nike sneaker. You can certainly do that. You can declare the definitions of crimes alleged are immaterial and this is an exercise of politics, not law. However, the legal definitions and standards that I have addressed in my testimony are the very thing dividing rage from reason.”

“Listening to these calls to dispense with such legal niceties, brings to mind a famous scene with Sir Thomas More in ‘A Man For All Seasons.’ In a critical exchange, More is accused by his son-in-law William Roper of putting the law before morality and that More would ‘give the Devil the benefit of law!’ When More asks if Roper would instead ‘cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?’

“Roper proudly declares: ‘Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!’ More responds by saying: ‘And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you’re just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, Id ‘give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!’

“We have forgotten the common article of faith that binds each of us to each other in our Constitution. However, before we cut down the trees so carefully planted by the Framers, I hope you consider what you will do when the wind blows again . . . perhaps for a Democratic president.

Where will you stand then?”

STOP THIS MADNESS. Thank you, Professor Jonathan Turley!

It is time for each of us decide what is the REAL Democratic Party. Is it the party of out of control DINOSAURS like Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler among others OR a NEW Democratic Party for the 21st century of America?

TIME TO DECIDE RIGHT NOW!

(This series dedicated in honor of the late Liu Xiaobo & Jamal Khashoggi)

EDITOR’S NOTE: About The Writer: Arthur Piccolo is a professional writer and commentator and often writes about Latin America for New Americas.