No Thanks, Dems

Bill Neinast

Precedent could be synonymous with pattern.  Its real definition, however, is an earlier event or action that is regarded as an example or guide to be considered in subsequent similar circumstances:

Nonetheless, whether you call the current folderol in our nation’s capitol a precedent or a pattern, the example or guide it is establishing is horrendous.

The first article of impeachment is labeled an abuse of power.  What is that?  What section of the criminal code defines what constitutes an abuse of power?

Who decides that an official has abused his power?

In the case at hand, a simple majority in the House of Representatives decided that our President had abused his power.  Their real motivation for trying to establish this new basis for removing a president from office was that Donald Trump had legally defeated their queen, Hillary Clinton, at the polls.

Becoming increasingly frustrated with not being able to establish a bribery or collusion charge, they invented the novel charge of abuse of power.

Think about that as a precedent.  Now anytime a simple majority in the House of Representatives disagrees with the President, they can claim that he abused his power and start impeachment proceedings.

Take a short trip back in history and look at what some could have considered an abuse of power.

Was FDR’s ordering innocent Japanese into concentration camps in 1942 an abuse of power?  What about his ordering or approving the development of the most deadly weapon of mass destruction?  Worst of all, he kept that weapon a secret from the all mighty House of Representatives.

Then there was President Harry Truman authorizing  a violation of the law of war by allowing FDR’s weapon of mass destruction to be used against civilians in Hiroshima and Nagasaki.

This was followed by President Eisenhower allowing the U-2 to violate the Soviet Union’s sovereignty and then denying that the plane was ours until it was learned that Gary Powers, the pilot, had been captured and was alive and well in Soviet hands.

All of these obviously were actions in the best interests of the United States.  Assume, though, that the House of Representatives was controlled by the president’s opposition party.  And assume that they hated the President as deeply as the current resentment.

If a precedent had been established of impeaching a president for an abuse of power, would FDR, Truman, and Eisenhower been allowed to complete their terms?

Now look at the second article of impeachment.  This is for obstruction of Congress.

What is that?  And what section of the criminal law is involved?

As a practical matter, most foreign relations have to be carried on in some measure of secrecy.  The same applies to discussions of those matters within the White House staff and the intelligence community.  

In the past, Presidents have been allowed to maintain that required secrecy by asserting that it was privileged communication or, in more common parlance, asserting Executive Privilege.

Today, though, the hate filled Democrats are claiming that an assertion of Executive Privilege is an obstruction of Congress.

So here’s the perspective.

A terrible precedent has already been established.  If members of the House of Representatives do not like a president but cannot find a crime or misdemeanor he has committed, just impeach him for abuse of power.  They can just pick any action he has taken and call it an abuse of power.  Then, ipso facto, he is impeached, which is the equivalent of an indictment.

Almost certainly, the Senate will recognize this bizarre act of crying babies for what it is, and dismiss the articles of impeachment without prolonged hearings.

Regardless of the outcome, a very dangerous and undesirable precedent has been established.

There are no thanks for that, Democrats.



HOME page>                  NEW STUFF page> 
          WRITING CONTENT page>       GUEST ARTISTS page>Home_1.htmlNew_Stuff.htmlEssays.htmlGuest_Artists.htmlshapeimage_1_link_0shapeimage_1_link_1shapeimage_1_link_2shapeimage_1_link_3