House Democrats ‘impeachment inquiry’ is a kangaroo court
U.S. NEWS – BY HUGH HEWITT
On my Wednesday radio show, I spoke with Beltway reporters and pundits from across the spectrum of outlets and points-of-view: Jonathan Allen of NBC News, Karen Tumulty of The Post, Chris Cillizza of CNN, Eliana Johnson of the Washington Free Beacon and Jim Geraghty of the National Review. To each, I posed the key question: Do the House Democrats run the risk of turning their impeachment “inquiry” into a kangaroo court by so obviously and repeatedly bending or breaking with the precedents of impeachments past? All agreed it is a risk, though each evaluated the risk differently.
Americans generally are far from being as attentive to national politics — even impeachment proceedings — than Beltway reporters and pundits. But Beltway reporters and pundits are every bit the same depth-of-deranged sports fans as the rest of the country, so we analogized the risk using sports. Nothing so upsets a sports fan than a game blown by the officials because of a bad or missed call or the misapplication of a rule. There’s no more infamous incident of this than the gold-medal game in men’s basketball during the 1972 Olympics, during which the referees seemed hellbent on the Soviets beating the Americans. The list is actually endless, and “worst moments in officiating lists” abound. Worse than blown calls are rigged games (which the ‘72 Olympics may have been, and which the 1919 World Series definitely was.) When the “fix is in,” everyone leaves angry at the refs and the league.
Similarly, the fix appears in with the House’s so-called impeachment inquiry. Hashtags are no longer as powerful as they once were, but President Trump might want to try out #KangarooCourtImpeachment, because the House “inquiry” is just that: a kangaroo court.
White House Counsel Pat Cipollone laid out the argument for concluding as much on Tuesday. Cipollone’s entire letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) and the relevant Democratic committee chairs in the House should be read in its entirety, but three key passages stand out:
First, Cipollone argues that “precedent for the rights to cross-examine witnesses, call witnesses, and present evidence dates back nearly 150 years. Yet the Committees have decided to deny the President these elementary rights and protections that form the basis of the American justice system and are protected by the Constitution.”
Next: “In addition, the House has not provided the Committees’ Ranking Members with the authority to issue subpoenas. The right of the minority to issue subpoenas subject to the same rules as the majority — has been the standard, bipartisan practice in all recent resolutions authorizing presidential impeachment inquiries.”
Finally, the White House counsel adds: “It is transparent that you have resorted to such unprecedented and unconstitutional procedures because you know that a fair process would expose the lack of any basis for your inquiry.”
These are arguments that Democrats and their media supporters will dispute, but they are anchored in the recent past and the impeachment proceedings against Bill Clinton and Richard M. Nixon. That Democrats are abandoning these precedents — and the deeply embedded ideals of due process for the accused — is a terrible strategic mistake by Pelosi and her party.
Cipollone’s arguments are powerful because they are indisputably true. Repetition will drive these stakes deep into the American consciousness. And after the failed attempt to “get Trump” via the Mueller inquiry (and a laugh at people who don’t believe the special counsel’s probe is understood that way), fair-minded Americans will indeed note and refuse to forget that Democrats cheated when they could not persuade.
Secret hearings, witness tampering, refusal of basic and long-standing rights such as the minority party’s right to summon witnesses add up to a rush job, a con job and a collapse of the Democrats’ faith in their own assertions. U.S. Attorney John Durham and Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s investigations into the origins of the Russia probe may further deepen suspicion of the Democrats’ pretend impeachment. Trump could hardly ask for more incompetent opponents than Pelosi, Rep. Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.). They have time to correct their ill-conceived rush to judgment, but not much.
*********
(TLB) original source here and here
Pictorial credit Susan Walsh/AP
Articles about impeachment from The Liberty Beacon
••••
••••
••••
Stay tuned to …
••••
The Liberty Beacon Project is now expanding at a near exponential rate, and for this we are grateful and excited! But we must also be practical. For 7 years we have not asked for any donations, and have built this project with our own funds as we grew. We are now experiencing ever increasing growing pains due to the large number of websites and projects we represent. So we have just installed donation buttons on our websites and ask that you consider this when you visit them. Nothing is too small. We thank you for all your support and your considerations … (TLB)
••••
Comment Policy: As a privately owned web site, we reserve the right to remove comments that contain spam, advertising, vulgarity, threats of violence, racism, or personal/abusive attacks on other users. This also applies to trolling, the use of more than one alias, or just intentional mischief. Enforcement of this policy is at the discretion of this websites administrators. Repeat offenders may be blocked or permanently banned without prior warning.
••••
Disclaimer: TLB websites contain copyrighted material the use of which has not always been specifically authorized by the copyright owner. We are making such material available to our readers under the provisions of “fair use” in an effort to advance a better understanding of political, health, economic and social issues. The material on this site is distributed without profit to those who have expressed a prior interest in receiving it for research and educational purposes. If you wish to use copyrighted material for purposes other than “fair use” you must request permission from the copyright owner.
••••
Disclaimer: The information and opinions shared are for informational purposes only including, but not limited to, text, graphics, images and other material are not intended as medical advice or instruction. Nothing mentioned is intended to be a substitute for professional medical advice, diagnosis or treatment.
Leave a Reply