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.
No comments:
Post a Comment