Articles, Blog

Fox Judge urges Republicans to impeach Trump in viral speech

December 28, 2019


Here’s what else is on my radar this week:
the president and the Constitution– AGAIN. In nearly 3 years in office, president Donald
Trump has spend federal dollars not authorized by Congress,
Separated families and incarcerated children at the Texas-Mexico border in defiance of
a federal court order, pulled 1,000 troops out of Syria, ignoring a commitment to allies
and facilitated war against civilians there, and send 2,000 American troops to Saudi Arabia
without a congressional authorization or declaration of war. He has also criminally obstructed a Department
of Justice investigation into him but escaped prosecution because of the intercession of
an attorney general more loyal to him than to the Constitution—the CONSTITUTION. At the outset of his presidency, Trump took
the presidential oath of office promising that he would faithfully execute
his obligation to preserve, protect and defend the Constitution. James Madison, the scrivener of the Constitution,
insisted that the word “faithfully” be in the presidential oath and that the oath
itself be in the Constitution to remind presidents to enforce laws and comply with constitutional
provisions whether they agree with them or not and to immunize the oath from Congressional
alteration. Can the president of the United States lawfully
enforce only the clauses of the Constitution with which he agrees and ignores those with
which he disagrees? In a word: no. The doctrine of the separation of powers,
which is the backbone of the Constitution, states that Congress writes the law, the president
enforces them, and the courts interpret them. It also offers that the government roles of
the three branches cannot be intermingled or traded without undermining the protections
for personal liberty that the separation of powers was intended to secure. If the president could pick and choose which
laws to enforce and which parts of the Constitution to ignore, he effectively would be deciding
what the laws mean– that’s a judicial function – and which laws have vitality and which
do not – that’s a congressional function. President Trump has become known for forceful
and often tasteless banter. He publicly calls people crude names, uses
foul language, and sends dog-whistles of lawless behavior to many of his supporters. All of that is a question of free speech,
personal taste, and political risk. But threats to ignore parts of the Constitution
are not matters of speech, taste or risk. They reveal character traits that question
the president’s fitness for office. This is what it looks like when a Republican
decides to put country over party and not discard every shred of integrity in blind
deference to a corrupt president. And rest assured, Andrew Napolitano, Fox News’
senior judicial analyst, is no Democrat or liberal. In this same profile, Napolitano is actually
asked if he would vote to impeach Trump if he was a Democrat in the House, to which he
responded, “If I could modify your question to ask if there’s a legal basis to argue
high crimes and misdemeanors, then the answer is yes. That’s really beyond dispute … If I were
a Democrat in the House, which I am not and never will be, I would vote to impeach.” And the fact that I even have to qualify his
party affiliation is a testament to just how far the GOP has fallen. That it’s news that a Republican can manage
to admit that, oh I don’t know, extorting a foreign country with legally allocated,
taxpayer funded military assistance for help in an upcoming election is NOT A GOOD THING
BUT A BAD THING goes to show exactly the state that the GOP is in these days. The only problem of course, is that Napolitano
isn’t in Congress, where you would THINK that our elected officials on the right would
have a better sense than ANYONE about what’s right and wrong. And yet they’re so scared of the backlash
that would come from daring to criticize Trump that they would rather be on record DEFENDING
a president extorting a foreign country for personal help in the next election, DEFENDING
a president hiding incriminating summaries of his calls in secure servers, DEFENDING
a president blocking his officials from showing up to testify to Congress in response to legally
binding subpoenas. Republicans are on record pretending – literally,
pretending – that there’s some equivalency between a debunked conspiracy theory about
Joe Biden and Trump’s own ADMITTED criminal behavior with regard to Ukraine. They’ve come out and tried to muddy the
waters with claims that the whistleblower can’t be trusted because he or she is a
partisan, despite not knowing who the whistleblower is; that you can’t have second-hand information
in a whistleblower complaint, even though it’s perfectly acceptable; that impeachment
is unconstitutional, even though it’s in the Constitution; that Adam Schiff personally
counseled the whistleblower, even though he’s never met the whistleblower and it was Intel
Committee staff who CORRECTLY advised the whistleblower to seek legal counsel and file
a complaint with the Intel Community Inspector General; that Democrats were holding secret
impeachment hearings in the basement of the Capitol, even though the entire process is
based on rules passed by REPUBLICANS in 2015; that quid pro quos are perfectly acceptable,
even though they are decidedly not perfectly acceptable. These are the hoops that Republicans are jumping
through to defend the indefensible. These are the ways that they’re debasing
themselves and what they’ve claimed to believe in, all for what? To protect a president who can’t even crack
50% approval? Who has presided over losses in deep red seats
in Kentucky, Virginia, Alabama, Wisconsin, Arizona, Florida, Pennsylvania, New Jersey,
Minnesota, Colorado, Texas, Iowa, Georgia, South Carolina, Illinois, Michigan, Utah,
Kansas, Nevada, Oklahoma, California and New Mexico? Who drove Democrats to the biggest victory
in the House in modern American history during midterms? I get that Trump’s base is with him no matter
what, but is tearing up the Constitution really worth it to appease that 30% of Americans
who couldn’t tell you the first line of the Constitution if their lives depended on
it? Is it really worth it to avoid an angry tweet
in Trump’s twitter feed? So far, the really unfortunate answer, it
that apparently, it is. So rest assured, Trump will continue to break
our laws so long as he knows those charged with passing them won’t have enough of a
collective backbone to speak out. He’ll continue to refer to the emoluments
clause as phony so he can self-deal, he’ll continue to extort and bribe foreign countries
so he can get a leg up in yet another election, he’ll continue to obstruct justice so that
warranted oversight gets shut down. The fact is, if you’re a Republican, you
can either be in favor of the rule of law or you can be in favor of protecting Donald
Trump, but you can’t be in favor of both.

No Comments

Leave a Reply