The article points out that both Democrats and Republicans have made their verdicts known before there is even a trial. Kamala Harris, Cory Booker, Elizabeth Warren and Bernie Sanders have all called for Trump’s impeachment long before Nancy Pelosi publicly changed her mind and rolled down this path. Interesting that the article doesn’t mention if Durbin called them out by name.
Later in the article, the authors attempted to prop up the Illinois senator who was in retreat to the warm embrace of the “Constitution”.
“I’m going to take an oath of office when it comes to this impeachment on the floor of the Senate, as I did 20, 21 years ago with President Clinton’s impeachment. And in that, I promise impartial justice, so help me God. And I want to stick by that. I basically want to hear the evidence, read the documents, make a decision that’s right for America,” he said.
There were definitive statutory crimes in Clinton’s impeachment. Durbin didn’t see fit to remove President Clinton because, at the time, it was what was best for America, or something. There are no statutory crimes in the articles of impeachment against Trump. Will Durbin suddenly decide the bar should be lowered after the reading articles and seeing the evidence? How will he square that with history?
Who knows how he will vote (actually we already know he’s going to vote for impeachment), but that isn’t the point. What he’s trying to say is that it is the Republicans who have sullied the process. Durbin, ironically, believes that Pelosi has a point in withholding the impeachment articles because McConnell is tainted and will not hold a “fair” trial.
If the most biased liberal constitutional law professor, who also testified that Trump should be impeached during the House impeachment inquiries, says that it’s not impeachment until the House sends the articles to the Senate, then perhaps Durbin should take a step back and re-think using the Constitution in support of his arguments. Cherry picking parts of the Constitution does little to help his already weak history.
Jerry Nadler’s report provided to House members and the public, explains that the proceedings were open and transparent (a lie, but work with me here.) He also publicly proclaimed that the evidence was ironclad in support the impeachment articles. In fact, he boasted that if his case was to go to a jury, they would convict the President in less than three minutes.
It would be ignorant to assume that sitting Senators have been oblivious to this disgraceful public spectacle. House democrats have been pushing impeachment since the inauguration. Despite their confidence in the Mueller report having given democrats solid obstruction of justice crimes to use, they chose not to use anything from the report.
Instead, they focused on election interference of Trump asking for an investigation of corruption for former Vice President Joe Biden during a call to the Ukraine President in formulating an “abuse of power” article; and “obstruction of Congress” for Trump asserting his constitutionally protected privilege in denying his advisors to testify. Despite clear evidence of past presidents’ committing similar acts, and got away with them, Democrats have drawn the line. Public hearings should finally convince the public that Orange Man BAD!!!
And yet, polling says that very few people who have made up their minds weren’t persuaded either way; and those who were sitting on the fence came down against impeachment and in growing numbers.
If Durbin was actually a human being to be taken seriously, he would immediately scold Chuck Schumer for sending a pre-emptive letter to Senator Mitch McConnell, delivered via the press. Instead, he thinks Schumer is the good guy! Go figure.
Before the impeachment vote was held, Schumer’s letter pushed for a trial to be handled like it was during Clinton’s impeachment; except for the parts where Schumer wanted to use the trial to subpoena witnesses that democrats in the House didn’t want to wait on through the courts. In effect, Schumer loudly implied the House’s case is not as ironclad as it Nadler said it was his remedy was to usurp the House’s “sole power of impeachment”.
Is that in keeping with the Constitution? Of course not, but you have to laugh because many democrats claim the heralded founding document written in the latter half of the 1780’s is nothing more than a tribute to white supremacy and should be discarded. Durbin is swinging it around like a flag bearer on a battlefield. Wonder how those white anti-white people are looking at this?
Here’s the thing: Democrats are known for scrapping precedent and tradition and getting burned by it. Senator Harry Reid was frustrated by Republicans blocking President Obama’s appointments of liberal judges to the courts. Reid saw the cloture requirement of 60 members to end debate for judicial appointments in the lower courts as causing harm to Obama’s legacy. Senator McConnell warned they would regret it. Reid pushed ahead. The next year, the democrats lost the Senate. Trump’s going to leave a long lasting court legacy that Obama had dreamt.
The same thing is happening here. Democrats are trying to use the constitutional provisions in a way that would allow the opposing party in Congress to make impeaching the President routine. Representative Al Green from Texas has promised continuous impeachments, not understanding that he is opening the door for Republicans to do the same.
With Congress’ approval ratings trailing cockroach feces, I predict this fiasco will hurt the institution’s ratings even more. Thanks Durbin. What an accomplishment.