THERE WILL BE AN IMPEACHMENT -- BUT NOT OF TRUMP Exclusive: Craige McMillan envisions holding Obama accountable for surveillance, by Craige McMillan, 5/19/17, WND
There must be a quiet little fairy somewhere on the left, because the “impeachment” rhetoric has begun to dissipate. Pity, that. Because there is going to be an impeachment. It’s just not going to be Donald Trump’s impeachment.
What are the “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which is the evidence that Congress must have to impeach? Well, pretty much whatever Congress says they are.
In the Democratic mind (or what’s left of it since Trump’s election), “high crimes and misdemeanors” are any presidential actions designed to reduce the power, prestige or budget of the administrative state. These days, Congress can’t really be bothered to determine why their laws are necessary, how they are to be enforced, or the evidence needed to convict. They delegate all that to the bureaucracy. “Here’s a new law. Make whatever regulations you need to enforce it, and set the penalties.” I suppose it’s too much to ask that Congress would only pass laws important enough for them to spell out infractions and penalties?
The courts have been in bed behind this charade by accepting the verdicts of “administrative law judges” in their courtrooms. What a sweet way around the prohibition of double jeopardy: An administrative law trial, followed by an appeal to the judiciary. “Good job, boys! Got to keep all those lawyers coming out of law school busy.”
So cutting back the power of the administrative state to act as judge, jury and executioner is President Donald Trump’s real crime. Imagine the left upset because Donald Trump is in bed with Putin. Ha, ha, ha! To the Democrats, there is no greater crime than attacking the administrative state, which is their religion.
To the rest of us, however, “high crimes and misdemeanors” have a rather different meaning. They are the actions of any president, high-level bureaucrat or federal judge that strike at the heart of constitutional government, the separation of powers, or an office holder’s oath of office (which is now considered meaningless by today’s insiders).
None of the actions discussed so far are going to result in the removal of a president from office. That’s because although impeachment requires a simple majority vote in the House to start the process, it requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict. No conviction, no bye-bye.
Technically, Richard Nixon was never impeached and convicted for his cover-up of the Watergate wiretaps. Practically speaking, he was impeached and convicted, because he resigned from his office after being informed that the votes were there to convict him – even though no evidence had yet been presented to senators.
Now let’s add Maxine Waters, the gift that just keeps on giving to the Democrats. In 2013 she blabbed about a database Obama had, and how there had never been anything else like it. “The president has put in place an organization with the kind of database that no one has ever seen before in life.”
Right from the start, that sounded like the NSA’s intercepts to me. So it was “put together” by the American taxpayer, without his or her consent, to be used against him. Of course, to those of us who followed the law, the idea that the phone calls, faxes, emails, social media posts, searches and whatever else they are able to collect now – the idea that this would be held on American citizens for blackmail purposes was unthinkable! Once it became clear that an American citizen was on either end of a conversation, it was dropped, immediately, or you were toast.
Obama, having access to this tool, determined at some point early on to use it for political purposes. Being a self-certified genius, he had the foresight to tell Maxine Waters about it. That’s pretty much like Face-twitting it (but lacking Maxine’s charm and wit).
Having the tool was not enough. Obama had to try it out. That was Romney’s job in the 2012 presidential election. Guinea pig.
NSA’s database was used extensively in the 2016 election. It was used not only against Donald Trump, but against anyone who looked like he might become a contender.
Justice Scalia believed the Supreme Court was being monitored. Did you hear that, John Roberts? Or have you experienced it firsthand? Is that why you took over Congress’ job and re-wrote Obamacare? Was this knowledge why Justice Scalia met his untimely demise?
Richard Nixon was de facto impeached because he had a private party break into and bug (wiretap) an office in the Watergate building. Barack Obama turned the United States’ foreign security apparatus against those running for election against himself and in 2016 against the Democrat waiting for her presidential coronation. Is this why insiders thought it was impossible for Hillary to lose?
Who’s more deserving of impeachment? (And yes, he can still be impeached, which opens him to further prosecution in the court system for specific crimes, and that would include whatever punishments were appropriate for his crimes.)
All this is just one opinion, of course. What else could it be? On the other hand, if you were to look over the evidence, perhaps it would become your opinion, as well.