House Democrats vote to Impeach Trump
Dec 19, 2019
Here is the final result of last night’s impeachment vote.
It was essentially a partisan vote, with all Republicans voting “no” and all but 2 or 3 Democrats voting “yes.”
A High Standard for Impeachment
This was precisely the nightmarish situation that our founders tried to avoid. First, they set the standard very high so as to make only very serious crimes like treason and bribery worthy of impeachment.
Article II, Section 4 reads:
The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.
Treason itself was defined in Article III, Section 3,
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
Even murder is not an impeachable offense, since not even a congressman could be charged with murder if it were done on the floor of the House. (Believe it or not!) The biggest weakness of this provision comes over the definition of “Enemies.” This is why Congress insists on defining Russia as an “Enemy.” It was also behind the “Trading With the Enemies Act" of 1919 and its extension in 1933, when it defined all US citizens as “enemies.” This has allowed the new Socialist “Democracy” and their intelligence agencies opportunity to subvert the constitution’s intent and to enslave and oppress the people.
Article IV, Section 4 reads:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in this Union a Republican Form of Government.
Apparently, this was later interpreted to mean that the United States itself (federal government) was allowed to change itself into a Democracy. Only the individual states themselves were guaranteed a Republican form of government.
Division of Power: House and Senate
Our founders split up the power by giving the House the power to draw up Articles of Impeachment. Article I, Section 2 says,
The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
In 1813 the Judiciary Committee was established and was given the power to do any impeachment investigations. This was largely breached in 2019 when Speaker Pelosi assigned the House Intelligence Committee, under Adam Schiff, to hold the hearings. Only when these were completed was this passed on to the Judiciary Committee under Jerry Nadler to give it the appearance of legitimacy.
The White House and Republican House members saw this unprecedented rule change as an abuse of power. But since the Constitution itself did not say anything about which particular committee was supposed to call for such hearings, the Democrats were able to use this loophole for their own partisan advantage.
Other rule changes, however, were more problematic, as they did not allow the participation of White House lawyers, nor did they give Republicans the right to call their own witnesses. This caused Trump to refuse to allow any of his cabinet members to testify, invoking executive privilege, which has since been upheld by the courts.
Nonetheless, all but three of the House Democrats voted to impeach Trump on the grounds of “Obstruction.” It is not likely that this charge will be validated by the courts.
The founders also gave the Senate the sole power to try the case, and even this was to be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to limit partisanship and ensure that all is done in a Constitutional manner. This is found in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.
This Constitutional provision was another attempt to limit partisanship in the event that the party controlling the House did not like a president from an opposing party. Yesterday’s impeachment vote shows the wisdom of this provision, although the Democrats are trying to spin this as Republican partisanship in the Senate.
What the House Democrats have done is to set a precedent, whereby any time in the future, when a president from one party does anything that the House majority party dislikes, it is guaranteed that the House will impeach him. This breakdown in our federal government, if not corrected immediately, could mean that the House will always spend more time impeaching than in legislating. This would subvert the very purpose of congress.
Fortunately, our founders foresaw such possible problems and split power between the House and Senate. The partisanship of the House Democrats has put the Senate Republicans in the mood to engage in the same partisan behavior in return. It would be better to treat the Articles of Impeachment seriously, just to avoid such a partisan precedent.
Two Articles of Impeachment
Even though the House Democrats, at the beginning, charged Trump with treason and bribery over his telephone call with the Ukrainian president last July, those charges were mysteriously dropped when the Articles of Impeachment were actually drawn up. The Articles charged the president with (1) Abuse of power, and (2) Obstruction of Congress.
“Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage.
This is based solely on Trump’s use of the word “us” when he asked Zelensky to “help us out” in investigating possible crimes committed by Joe Biden (while he was Vice President). Though the context in the transcript shows quite clearly that he was referring to “us” as the USA itself, the Democrats chose to interpret “us” as Trump’s re-election campaign.
If the president had actually meant “us” in the way that the Democrats took it, why was he so eager to release the telephone transcript? Surely he would have known better! This Impeachment Article relies upon an unintended interpretation of a single word, which, at best, was obscure. No “witnesses” (by their own admission in the hearings) had any first-hand knowledge of any crime. The only reason they were allowed to testify was because the House Democrats changed the rules to allow hearsay.
The main whistleblower’s identity was concealed in order to hide the fact that he was one of Adam Schiff’s own office staff. Another’s testimony was what he read in the New York Times. By those standards, I could have qualified as a witness, too! It was surreal and little more than a circus to entertain their constituents.
Even if Trump had done exactly what the Democrats have charged, it would hardly rise to the level of treason or bribery, in spite of these claims. But all previous presidential impeachments have failed because their impeachment articles have not risen to the level needed to actually impeach a president.
Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1868 for firing his Secretary of War, even though any president has the right to fire a cabinet member. Clinton was impeached for his use of the word “is” when giving false testimony about his sex life in the Oval Office with Monica Lewinsky. Nixon resigned before impeachment for spying on the Democrats in the Watergate scandal, but even that hardly rises to the high levels of Treason and Bribery that the founders intended.
Pelosi’s Delaying Tactic
Now that the impeachment vote has been taken, Nancy Pelosi is now considering a new tactic. She is thinking of burying the Articles of Impeachment instead of passing them off to the Senate for trial. Here is an article that speculates on her political reasons:
No one questions the political prowess of Nancy Pelosi. So what was the purpose of impeaching a President if she knows it will be dismissed in the Senate? What if she does not submit the impeachment request to the Senate until after Donald Trump is reelected? At that point, she could claim that his election was invalid because he was still under a pending House impeachment….
If this premise is correct and the 2020 re-election of Trump is thrown into question, who will be in charge until this is resolved? After the expiration of Trump’s first term in January, both Trump and Pence would not hold office. The Constitution then appoints the Speaker of the House to be President.
Would she really try to become president in that way? Could she do so without causing a civil war? Probably not. The article below tells us why:
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) appears to be considering an idea Democrats have floated for several days of holding back the articles of impeachment to exercise leverage over the Senate and the president.
She declined formally to transmit the articles to the Senate on Wednesday evening after the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump.
Unfortunately for them, the Senate can act, regardless — and would vote to acquit.
That’s because the Constitution is absolutely clear about the Senate’s authority. Article I, Section 3 says: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”
That is all….
If Pelosi refuses to submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, McConnell can convene the Senate anyway, summon the Chief Justice, and swear in the Senators as jurors. Democrats can boycott, but they can’t stop the trial.
McConnell can then propose to dismiss the charges or even hold a vote to acquit the president.
Pelosi can hide the articles of impeachment in Adam Schiff’s basement forever, and it won’t make a bit of difference.
What a mess we are in! Who could have guessed how the Babylonians would thrash around as their beloved Babylon collapses before their eyes. It is a painful process, but we need to view these events as evidence of the end of an age and the end of a long-standing rule of the beast empires in Daniel 7.
There is no need to fear, since God will do what He will do, regardless of what men do and regardless of our opinions of what God is doing. We may misunderstand everything, but this will have little or no effect on the outcome of the divine plan.