The Impeachable Hypocrisy Of The Congressional Democrats

061215-D-7203T-182tru

 

I’m proud to be one of the prescient millions who foretold the almost immediate crash and burn of Donald Trump in the White House. If a wink is as good as a nod to a blind man, even the blind could see this coming from the onslaught of winking eyes as far back as the primaries. Make no mistake, Trump will turn the heat up on the Republicans so high they’ll have to doff their ongoing participation in providing cover for him and stand out alone in the cold light of common sense and allow themselves to be blown toward the inevitable: either the impeachment and conviction or the resignation of Donald John Trump, destined to have the shortest tenure in the White House of a tenant (I will not refer to him as the president) who was not forced to leave due to serious illness or death.

But, being the faIr-minded Farlefty that I am, it’s now time to out the Democrats for the partisan, opportunistic hypocrites that they are. Granted, Trump has committed more impeachable offenses in the shortest period of time after moving into the White House than all the other real presidents. But, his treasonous, unethical, and illegal transgressions haven’t cost any lives—so far. Contrast that with the treasonous, unethical and illegal transgressions of George W. Bush, Dick Cheney, and Donald Rumsfeld. They conspired to concoct a lie that would not only result in thousands (and counting) of American troops and the deaths of millions (and counting) Iraqi troops and citizens, and led to the total destabilization of the Persian Gulf, Mediterranean Sea and the Arabian Peninsula regions. They assassinated Saddam Hussein without having a single coherent and workable plan in place on how to fill the governmental vacuum left by his death.

And I said this was all built upon multiple lies, right? And from those lies they started multiple wars, decimating an entire part of the world for their own personal gains and those of their business cronies. Yet, in 2006, with the Democrats once again the controlling majority after winning the midterm elections, Nancy Pelosi made the announcement that impeachment of Bush &n Co. was off the table. The Democrats weren’t even actually in power until January 2007 yet she still kicked the shovel out of all liberals’ hands. And Harry Reid was right there with his foot on the shovel to make sure it remained impotently on the ground.

So, all this public outcry calling for the impeachment of Trump over his dangerously immature, illegal and treasonous activities has a very hollow ring to it. I want the guy out of the White House and relegated to an existence of public disgrace and humiliation, as well as the butt of stand-up comic and late night show host jokes for the rest of his miserable and hopefully less wealthy and connected life. But again, the high crimes and misdemeanors he’s perpetrated up to this point don’t even rise up to the level of the Bush administration outing Valerie Plame as a CIA operative through a Robert Novak column just to wreak revenge on her hubby Joe Wilson. But I digress.

So, save me from all this self-righteous chest thumping of the Democrats (albeit rightfully) demanding Trump’s head on a platter held by Paul Ryan and Mitch McConnell. They had and blew their chance at positioning themselves as the sole guardians of the Constitution and safeguarding our democracy and governmental institutions. And following on the heels of the Republicans impeaching Bill Clinton over virtually nothing, they not only wimped out, they sold us out.  Yes, Trump deserves to be both impeached and convicted. But spare us the dramatic posturing and the self-righteous indignation, Democrats. You sound just as phony and self-serving as the Republicans back in 1998-99.

Advertisements

Department of Justice: Home Of The Whopper

“Due process and judicial process are not one and the same, particularly when it comes to national security,” Holder said. “The Constitution guarantees due process, not judicial process.”

With that statement, Attorney General Eric Holder joined the ranks of those who have made the greatest misleading or untrue statements in U.S. history.

“Saddam Hussein has chemical and biological weapons, and he is moving ever closer to developing a nuclear weapon.” – George W. Bush

“I did not have sexual relations with that woman, Miss Lewinsky.” – Bill Clinton

“I have earned every cent. And in all of my years of public life I have never obstructed justice. People have got to know whether or not their President is a crook. Well, I’m not a crook. I’ve earned everything I’ve got.” – Richard M. Nixon

“I pledged in my campaign for the Presidency to end the [Vietnam] war in a way that we could win the peace. I have initiated a plan of action which will enable me to keep that pledge. The more support I can have from the American people, the sooner that pledge can be redeemed.” – Richard M. Nixon

Those are some big footprints to follow in, and Holder is no slouch when it comes to big feet. And the bigger they are, the harder their illogic reasoning falls to the ground. And this illogical reasoning is a whopper.

Let’s parse his statement. What exactly is “due process” which is guaranteed by the Constitution in both the 5th and 14th Amendments?

Here’s how it’s typically described:

  • Right to a fair and public trial conducted in a competent manner
  • Right to be present at the trial
  • Right to an impartial jury
  • Right to be heard in one’s own defense
  • Laws must be written so that a reasonable person can understand what is criminal behavior
  • Taxes may only be taken for public purposes
  • Property may be taken by the government only for public purposes
  • Owners of taken property must be fairly compensated

This seems to also describe the judicial process, mentioning a fair and public trial by impartial jury and all. But let’s find out for sure, shall we?

The Judicial Process

Article III of the Constitution of the United States guarantees that every person accused of wrongdoing has the right to a fair trial before a competent judge and a jury of one’s peers.

The Fourth, Fifth, and Sixth Amendments to the Constitution provide additional protections for those accused of a crime. These include:

  • A guarantee that no person shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without the due process of law
  • Protection against being tried for the same crime twice (“double jeopardy”)
  • The right to a speedy trial by an impartial jury
  • The right to cross-examine witnesses, and to call witnesses to support their case
  • The right to legal representation
  • The right to avoid self-incrimination
  • Protection from excessive bail, excessive fines, and cruel and unusual punishments

That, folks, is straight from http://www.whitehouse.gov/our-government/judicial-branch

Check it out yourself.

So, the judicial process under the Constitution guarantees US citizens that we can’t be deprived of life and stuff without “due process of law”.  Due process under the Constitution guarantees US citizens that we have the right to a “fair and public trial” which is further expanded on by judicial process. So, in effect, the one is dependent on the other and can’t be separated.

Disclaimer: I’m not a lawyer, have never studied law, and do not pretend to be the high muckety-muck Attorney General of the United States.

And what was this illogic put to use to sell to the American people? That the United States has the right to hunt down an kill any American citizen anywhere in the world that the Government deems his hostile and represents a danger to the safety and well-being of the United States. In other words, if an Anwar al-Awlaki has been paling around with Osama bin Laden planning terrorist attacks against Americans here or in foreign countries but have no legal proof that he personally carried them out, there’s no need to attempt to capture him alive, extradite him back to a federal or military courtroom, prove the charges, and then imprison or execute him.  Nope, the President, acting upon the advice of his security and military advisers can simply order “Take him out”, and one drone bomb later, al-Awlaki is history.

Now, I’m in no way arguing for leniency for avowed terrorist enemies of the United States. If I had lost friends and/or family in the 9/11 attack, or at Fort Hood or aboard an airplane, I’d take a 9mm Glock to the suspected terrorist mastermind who’s an American citizen and first kneecap him and then work my way up.  But that’s me, I’m not the United States government sworn to uphold the Constitution of the United States, so help me God.

This isn’t the first hole the Obama administration has poked in the Constitution. The USA PATRIOT Act, the Military Commissions Act of 2006—which was extended by Congress and Obama, NDAA for 2012, the Espionage Act of 1917 all precede this legal opinion rendered by Holder.

The U.S. Supreme Court has already decided that the police can break down the door to your home to arrest you—based on hearsay or what they might think they overhear outside your home-without a warrant. Even if they have a warrant but that warrant is written incorrectly, as long as the police in their professional opinion think you should have been arrested, that’s just dandy with Chief Justice John Roberts and the gang. So our domestic rights under the Constitution have been steadily eroding since 2001. What the Obama administration is now enacting is the erosion of constitutionally-guaranteed rights to any American citizen at any time anywhere in the world for any reason for an indeterminate length of time. You see, you, an American citizen, can be snatched from the streets anywhere and held in some prison without ever being told why you were snatched and imprisoned. Maybe you don’t get tortured or maybe you do but the Commandant has plausible deniability over knowing about it. Maybe you’re sitting in a Pakistani café and your table explodes, or the waiter slips behind and delivers your check behind your left ear. Or you’re camping in the desert and a drone bomber flies overhead and rains bombs on your picnic.

Yes, realistically speaking, almost none of us will ever experience these scenarios. But this erosion of personal and civil rights has been a common tactic in every country where the democratically-elected government was overthrown and the people subjected to tyrannical rule. I don’t believe that President Obama is a tyrannical dictator—but this is the way it starts too often, with the slow erosion of basic rights with the acquiescence of a people kept so frightened by the enemy boogeyman held up to them by their government they’ll agree to anything to feel safe and protected by that same government.

Eric Holder is wrong, and not nearly enough people in the media are saying so. I would have expected this type of specious argument from Republican Alberto Gonzales, the 2nd Attorney General under Republican President George W. Bush. But not an A.G. under the Democratic President Barack Obama. When the Democrats start to resemble the Republicans, it reminds one of the famous Zen koan, “What is the sound of one political party running America?”