by Clarice Feldman, American Thinker:
I do not trust emotional reactions to events. In my experience, visceral reactions are a poor guide to action, and when I recognize that I’m responding emotionally to events, I step back and consider what facts are better brought to bear on the issue than are my immediate feelings. In fact, I’m not alone in thinking emotional reasoning is a kind of cognitive disorder.
Watching the impeachment theater (or rather reading about it to save time and avoid being influenced by the hypnotic effect of television) I’ve concluded that the congressional Democrats and their base live in a postfactual “inner child” world of fact-free enthusiasms and conniption fits. In their world, a Republican president they cannot manipulate to their will must be impeached and removed from office. That a Republican president must be stripped of his clear constitutional right to shape foreign policy instead of Democratic plants in the Civil Service. That words are not entitled to their clear and normal meanings but can be restated fraudulently to fit the removal goal. That Congress, not the President, can determine what constitutes executive privilege. That witnesses with no direct knowledge can impute whatever meaning they choose into the events and such hearsay and mind readings must be credited. That the House that decides whether to institute impeachment proceedings can, claiming urgency, speed through them in secret, deny the president the right to a defense and can keep hidden from him and his defenders evidence which totally exculpates him. That having expedited a star chamber proceeding, the Democratic House can then demand the right to drag out the process in the Senate under rules they, not the Senate, set. In sum, that none of the long-established guides to evidence and fairness and constitutional protections should be followed when Democrats have a multiyear temper tantrum because they lost status and power.
My friend Jeffrey S. Malashock quotes John Innes Clark Hale, paraphrasing Alexis de Tocqueville:
“A decline of public morals in the United States would probably be marked by the abuse of the power of impeachment as a means of crushing political adversaries or ejecting them from office.’ What House Democrats are doing is not only unfair to Mr. Trump and a threat to all his successors. It is an attempt to overrule the constitutional process for selecting the president and thus subvert American democracy itself. For the sake of the Constitution, it must be decisively rejected. If Mr. Trump’s policies are unpopular or offensive, the remedy is up to the people, not Congress.”
Scott Johnson at Powerline Blog calls this “a postmodern impeachment”
The House impeachment managers have wound up their case for the removal of President Trump from office. With lead impeachment manager Adam Schiff, Dems got the man they deserved. For those of us who followed the rise and fall of the Trump-Russia collusion hoax, Schiff must be the most notorious liar of the United States. He is certainly the most notorious liar to be celebrated by the mainstream media. We don’t need no stinkin’ fact-checkers to understand that Schiff will say and do anything — has said and done anything — to promote the destruction of Trump.
The mainstream media now celebrate the Schiff variation of the Epimenides paradox in his closing remarks Thursday evening (video below): “If right doesn’t matter — if right doesn’t matter, it doesn’t matter how good the Constitution is. It doesn’t matter how brilliant the Framers were,” he proclaimed. “Doesn’t matter how good or bad our advocacy in this trial is. Doesn’t matter how well written the oath of impartiality is. If right doesn’t matter, we’re lost. If the truth doesn’t matter, we’re lost.”
Adam Schiff, you’re lost.
How to wrap your thinking brain around such nonsense as the claim that the President abused his authority when he briefly delayed aid to Ukraine to encourage them to reinstitute corruption investigations Joe Biden had blackmailed them into abandoning? How to register the dissonance in the claim that Trump is Putin’s tool when he provided to Ukraine lethal aid that Obama refused to provide for fear of upsetting Putin? How is it an “abuse of power” for Trump to investigate Joe Biden and the overwhelming evidence of his corruption because Biden is running for election but not an “abuse of power” for House Democrats to investigate and impeach him while he’s running for reelection? Even more crazy is how is this is an “abuse of power” when the entire Obama and Hillary Clinton teams illegally spied on Trump’s campaign and filed false reports with the FISC (Foreign Surveillance Intelligence Court) to obtain warrants for this purpose and generously paid people like Stefan Halper out of the Treasury to spy on Trump’s team and leak anti-Trump stories to the Washington Post.
In any event, the Democrat show in the Senate was a total flop. Law professor Jonathan Turley predicts, as I have, this may go down as one of the great historic blunders.
Not only was instituting this a blunder, but the presentation itself probably cost them any chance of wooing on-the-fence Senate Republicans to their cause. Nadler’s insulting charge that Republican Senators engaged in “ a treasonous vote” when, in following the precedent of the Clinton trial, they decided to wait to decide whether witnesses will be called, seems to have riled Senators Lisa Murkowski and Susan Collins, two senators he needed to vote for compelling testimony from administration officials.