Guest Post by Pat Buchanan
Nowhere in the articles of impeachment is “treason” mentioned. Nor is “bribery” or “extortion,” the other crimes alleged. Where are the “high crimes” in this impeachment resolution? There are none.
“Quid pro quo” was the accusatory Latin phrase most often used to describe President Donald Trump’s July 25 phone call asking for a “favor” from the president of Ukraine.
New Year’s prediction: The Roman poet Horace’s Latin depiction: “Parturient montes, nascetur ridiculus mus” — “The mountains went into labor, and brought forth a mouse” — will be used to describe the articles of impeachment drawn up by Nancy Pelosi’s House.
Article II is titled “Obstruction of Congress.” What does it allege?
That Trump “directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued by the House of Representatives pursuant to its ‘sole power of Impeachment.’”
Undeniably, there is truth here.
Trump did direct the Executive branch not to provide witnesses and documents subpoenaed by the House Intelligence and Judiciary Committees, both of which are partisan, pro-impeachment and chaired by unapologetic Trump-haters Jerrold Nadler and Adam Schiff.
But what the substance of Article II is really about is the eternal conflict between the first and second branches of the government over their respective rights and powers.
Such clashes are usually decided by the third branch, the Supreme Court. But Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff are unwilling to wait for the court to decide. They are declaring the issue decided and settled in the House’s favor, and treating Trump’s recourse to the courts as a new impeachable offense: “Obstruction of Congress.”
Can Pelosi seriously expect a Republican Senate to convict and remove a Republican president for defending what that president is claiming in open court are the constitutional rights of the Executive Branch that he, as its present occupant and leader, is obligated to defend?
Trump would be derelict in his duty if he allowed a rogue House to run roughshod over the White House.
Consider Article I, “Abuse of Power.”
The heart of this charge is that Trump briefly held up delivery of $391 million in “vital military and security assistance to oppose Russian aggression.” So doing, Trump “compromised the national security of the United States.”
Is the House serious? It was the Trump administration that began the transfer of the lethal aid — sniper rifles, Javelin missiles — that President Barack Obama had denied to Ukraine for three years.
If Trump’s brief hold on a second tranche of lethal aid to Ukraine imperiled our “national security,” was not Obama’s yearslong denial of lethal aid to Ukraine a far greater peril to our national security?
Still, it is absurd to declare U.S. national security as threatened by a Russian presence in Crimea or in the Russian-speaking Donbass.
Russia has been in Crimea since Catherine the Great’s reign in the 18th century. When FDR visited Yalta in Crimea in 1945, and when Richard Nixon visited Crimea during his 1974 summit, Ukraine was a Soviet republic ruled from Moscow.
When did a Russian presence or Russian flag flying over Crimea or Luhansk and Donetsk become a threat to U.S. national security?
Soon after the victory of Lenin’s revolution, and from then, for seven decades, to the end of the Cold War, Ukraine was one of 15 Soviet republics.
When did Ukraine’s territorial borders become a U.S. vital interest?
George H. W. Bush in 1991 implored the Ukrainians not to indulge a “suicidal nationalism” by declaring independence. Stay with Russia, said Bush. Was Bush 41 committing an impeachable act and imperiling U.S. national security?
Under the Constitution, a president shall be impeached and removed on conviction by the Senate of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
During the years of the Mueller investigation, Trump was accused of “treason,” of being a Kremlin ally and asset.
With Trump, said Pelosi, “All roads lead to Putin!”
Yet nowhere in the articles of impeachment is “treason” mentioned. Nor is “bribery” or “extortion,” the other crimes alleged. Where are the “high crimes” in this impeachment resolution? There are none.
Were the Democrats demagoguing? Did they have nothing to back up the charges of criminal conduct? Were the charges just designed to smear Trump, whom Democrats fear they cannot defeat in 2020?
Trump’s offense is that he asked Ukraine’s president to investigate the Bidens and Burisma Holdings, which paid son Hunter Biden $50,000 a month while Vice President Joe was the White House point man for rooting out corruption in Ukraine.
But if Trump had no justification for his suspicions about Joe and Hunter, why is the press corps traveling with candidate Biden demanding more answers than Joe seems prepared to give?
And is it truly impeachable to ask Ukraine’s president to look into the smelly Biden-Burisma deal before being awarded an Oval Office meeting?
In Article I, Trump is accused of taking actions in Ukraine “that would help his election.”
But when did it become a crime to consider the probable electoral consequences of decisions taken in foreign policy?
Admirers of JFK tell us he was ready to pull out of Vietnam, but only after the 1964 election, so as not to increase his vulnerability to the hawkish Republicans of the Goldwater era.
If true, was JFK guilty of impeachable inaction?
It is my sincere desire to provide readers of this site with the best unbiased information available, and a forum where it can be discussed openly, as our Founders intended. But it is not easy nor inexpensive to do so, especially when those who wish to prevent us from making the truth known, attack us without mercy on all fronts on a daily basis. So each time you visit the site, I would ask that you consider the value that you receive and have received from The Burning Platform and the community of which you are a vital part. I can't do it all alone, and I need your help and support to keep it alive. Please consider contributing an amount commensurate to the value that you receive from this site and community, or even by becoming a sustaining supporter through periodic contributions. [Burning Platform LLC - PO Box 1520 Kulpsville, PA 19443] or Paypal
-----------------------------------------------------
To donate via Stripe, click here.
-----------------------------------------------------
Use promo code ILMF2, and save up to 66% on all MyPillow purchases. (The Burning Platform benefits when you use this promo code.)
Ever since Al Grabass Franken got Jeff Sessions to recuse himself from everything important, the DOJ was run by coup plotter Rod Rosenstein. So the investigation of Crowdstrike – the outfit that declared that Russia had hacked the DNC servers – was never going to happen. (His name was Seth Rich.) Since one of Crowdstrike’s founders is Ukrainian, it made perfect sense to ask the newly-elected, corruption-attacking president of Ukraine to look into Crowdstrike. Note that in the July 25 call, Trump mentioned Crowdstrike, not Burisma. Of course, it was rumored that Dems had been laundering money through Ukraine for years, so looking into Hunter Biden and Burisma made sense. And what better way to ensure that an investigation was completed than to have its kickoff announced publicly?
Trump’s request of Zelensky was entirely benign, non-political and appropriate – unless you cling to the fiction that there was no conspiracy to pin the DNC leak on Russia, to falsely accuse Trump of colluding with Russia and to spy on the Trump campaign. Horowitz’ report reveals a few elements of the plot (while refraining from labeling their obvious political motivation). Durham will reveal more.
They had their impeachable offense the minute Trump called a guy a Mexican. I understand not wanting to be called a Mexican, but it hardly seems an impeachable offense.
Shutup. Extortion and kidnapping are impeachable offenses .
Johnson is mildly retarded, or stoned.
Did you catch how him stumbling on the Latin phrase “quid pro quo” was butchery in process, so he bailed on trying to say that, substituting the word pressure instead.
Further, the height difference between 6’4″ and 5’11” is a mere 5 inches taller, Stank.
Whoa.
Intimidation would be a new impeachable offense, if that idiot held sway.
Or maybe chair size allocation, huh?
What a disgrace.
To educated blacks, to all politicians wielding power and influence, and Americans in general.
Guam.
A tipping point.
How that moron is a Congressman is beyond understanding, by anyone who errantly believes their elected leaders deserve prominent consideration.
And Max Ugly is just as bad.
Now Q makes sense, saying
These People are Stupid.
Truly, truly they are.
https://m.youtube.com/watch?v=eKwps5fjjCYt=30s
Congress is code for Crime Cartel. They do not work for US.
Congress Learns Pentagon Wasted $1 Trillion, Promptly Gives It Bigger Budget
http://nymag.com/intelligencer/2019/12/afghanistan-papers-ndaa-congress-defense-bill.html?utm_source=tw&utm_campaign=di&utm_medium=s1
Wise up Pat. The crime is not being a Globo Homo Democratic Communist.