How Trump’s Impeachment Record Can Be Wiped Clean

5dc7487a25fce.image_

An idea has been floated by Republican leaders to pass a resolution that would fundamentally alter the impeachment record of President Donald Trump.

The means that would be used to bring about the auspicious outcome is a legislative approach commonly known as expungement. When finalized, the “impeached” label would be amended in the record books, as would the “forever” characterization attached to it by the House Speaker.

More than merely a sound idea, expungement is a necessary one because of the fatally flawed process that the House of Representatives used to pursue the impeachment of the president in the first place.

The impeachment inquiry began without a vote. The hearings featured secret witness “auditions.” The evidence produced was largely inadmissible hearsay and opinion. And rules that were imposed during the process prevented the accused from mounting a defense.

The above mentioned, as well as other defects in due process, make it imperative for the GOP to re-take the House of Representatives and for the new leaders to expunge the impeachment of the president, which will thereby restore integrity to the record.

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy is on record as being in support of this concept.

“This is the fastest, weakest, most political impeachment in history,” McCarthy told the New York Post. “I don’t think it should stay on the books.”

In addition to McCarthy, influential GOP members of the House, including Rep. Jim Jordan (R-Ohio), Rep. Louie Gohmert (R-Tex.), Rep. Mike Johnson (R-La.), Rep Lee Zeldin, (R-N.Y.), and Rep. Chip Roy (R-Tex.), have all voiced approval of the idea.

So has President Trump. When asked by a reporter whether he believed the House should expunge his impeachment from the congressional record, the president responded, “They should because it was a hoax. It was a total political hoax.”

Expungement of a presidential impeachment remains the subject of debate by legal scholars. In my personal legal opinion, though, it clearly can be done.

If we take a look back at the seventh U.S. president, Andrew Jackson, we see where the precedent for an expungement was set

In 1832 President Jackson, a Democrat, ran for re-election. His opponent was National Republican Party candidate Henry Clay. Jackson won.

However, Clay’s party took control of the Senate. Under Clay’s leadership, the Senate demanded the delivery of documents from the Jackson cabinet related to a dispute over a presidential veto. After President Jackson refused to release the documents, Clay introduced a resolution to censure him, and after weeks of debate the resolution was passed.

Then in 1837 the Democrats regained the majority in the Senate. They proceeded to have President Jackson’s censure expunged from the record.

If a federal legislative body has the power to expunge a resolution that censures the president, I contend that it likewise has the ability to expunge an impeachment.

Some cable news experts have argued that if the House could expunge an impeachment, it would have done so with President Bill Clinton. Interestingly, this is precisely what Democrats tried to do.

The year was 2010. A dozen years had passed since the impeachment of President Clinton had taken place for misconduct relating to an affair with a White House intern named Monica Lewinsky.

Rep. Chaka Fattah (D-Pa.) introduced legislation to expunge the Clinton impeachment. He was unsuccessful in his effort, and later he himself wound up in prison for bribery, money laundering, and fraud.

A Republican House can and should work to expunge from the record the impeachment of President Trump. A GOP-controlled House would not be bound by an impeachment resolution passed by a previous House.

Although it is unlikely that some of the more vocal opponents would be silenced, an investigation by a GOP-controlled House may have an effect on the way in which history would be interpreted.

House Republicans plan to investigate lead impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and/or his staff’s potential connections to the so-called whistleblower. There is an origin story to the manner in which the whistleblower’s information came to light and the reason why it conflicted with the actual transcript of the president’s telephone call.

The withholding of the 179-page transcript of testimony given by the eighteenth witness, a.k.a., the inspector general of the intelligence community, will be one of the first documents a future Republican House will want to see.

Supporters of President Trump and many independent voters observed how the House hearings were conducted and largely concluded that the impeachment process was unfair to the president.

Increasing public awareness of the potentiality for an expungement will have a ripple effect in the political world and may ultimately boost an already high GOP enthusiasm level, which will assist Republicans in flipping the 18 seats needed to regain control of the House.

Expungement just may be right around the 2020 corner.

Democrats Try to Undermine a Trump Acquittal

190108-chuck-shumer-nancy-pelosi-snip-ac-918p_aa101e7d92c9e80dcc5bb8e9d9f46cab.fit-1240w

As the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump comes to a close, Democrat resistors are having a hard time coming to grips with an impending acquittal.

Perturbed members of the opposition party have now chosen to engage in a smear campaign that characterizes the Senate proceedings as illegitimate.

Using a worn-out playbook from past attacks, some of the more spiteful Dems are trying to massage the minds of a would-be unsuspecting public that the acquittal of President Trump somehow lacks legitimacy because of a supposed deficiency of witnesses or documents.

In an appearance on Bill Maher’s HBO show on January 17, 2020, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said the following: “You are impeached forever,” punctuating her comment with the line, “No matter what the Senate does, it [impeachment] can never be erased.”

On January 30, 2020, the day before the Senate voted against subpoenaing additional witnesses or documents, Pelosi said to a reporter, “You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial. You don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation and all of that.”

The very next morning, which was also prior to the pivotal Senate vote, Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer said, “The president’s acquittal will be meaningless, because it will be the result of a sham trial. If there are no witnesses, no documents in this trial, there will be a permanent asterisk next to the acquittal of President Trump written in permanent ink.”

Other Democrats joined in with the spin, as did most of their willing media accomplices.

Many will recall when the Democrats flooded the media with a similar set of talking points at the conclusion of the confirmation process for then-Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh. Some of the more spiteful Dems contended that the process would be unfair and tainted if there was not a delay for an FBI investigation.

After the president and the GOP relented to a week-long FBI investigation, certain Democrat office-holders ran to the microphones to assert that the investigation was insufficient and the confirmation process flawed.

Once again, it really would not have mattered how the GOP senators had proceeded with the impeachment trial. If the trial did not match the outcome that the removal-oriented Democrats wanted, they would have followed up with a coordinated negative message anyway.

The Constitution grants the Senate the sole power to try all impeachments. The Speaker of the House has no real role in an impeachment trial. However, as Pelosi did when she conditioned the delivery of the Articles of Impeachment, the House speaker is attempting to exercise influence and exert control over the Senate impeachment function.

In stark contrast to the way in which the House hearings unfolded, the Senate conducted the impeachment trial process in a fair and dignified manner. While carrying out its constitutional duty, the Senate received and considered a record produced by the House of Representatives. Seventeen of the 18 witnesses from whom the House obtained testimony had their transcripts released. Noticeably absent was the transcript of Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson, who gave testimony that is widely believed would have been helpful to the president’s case.

During the Senate trial, members of the Senate, acting as a jury, listened to more than 190 portions of testimony from 13 of the House witnesses, and additionally had access to almost 29,000 documents.

It was the House Democrats who made the decision to disallow any witnesses that would support the president’s case. It was also the House Democrats who chose not to subpoena other witnesses, because they apparently did not wish to take the time to allow the judicial branch to do its job; that is, the job of dealing with the important constitutional issue of executive privilege.

Some of the more spiteful Dems seem to enjoy projecting the image of wrapping themselves in the Constitution, while they slice it to ribbons with deceitful words and duplicitous conduct.

A Bipartisan Acquittal May Be in President Trump’s Future

trump-manchin-rt-hb-180131_10x7_992

When the Senate impeachment trial wraps up, a supermajority of 67 votes will be necessary for the president to be removed from office.

The math indicates that even if all 47 Democrats in the Senate vote to convict, 20 Republicans would still have to break ranks with their Party and their base in order for the Dem’s dream to actually materialize.

Unlike the House vote on the articles of impeachment, the Senate vote that will ultimately exonerate the president is likely to be bipartisan, with at least one Senate Democrat voting against the president’s removal.

Although attention has been focused on how so-called moderate Senate Republicans may vote, three Democrat senators may serve as potential swing votes in favor of the president.

Sen. Kyrsten Sinema (D-Ariz.) looms as a potential vote to acquit. Sinema has a somewhat centrist voting record, and the state that she represents went for President Trump in 2016.

The Arizona senator has not revealed what she thought about the case that was presented by House Democrats. However, as the first Democrat sent to the U.S. Senate from Arizona in 30 years, she is no doubt aware of the eyes that are fixed upon her.

Sinema voted with the GOP to confirm both Attorney General William Barr and Interior Secretary David Bernhardt. She also voted in the positive to confirm many of President Trump’s judicial nominees and to pass a bill that enhanced immigration screening and expedited the cases of those who lack valid asylum claims. Putting herself directly in the crosshairs of the far-left wing of the Democratic Party, Sinema voted against the Green New Deal.

Democrats still carry a grudge, when as a member of the House of Representatives, Sinema voted against the Iran nuclear deal that was put together in 2015 by the Obama administration.

Sen. Doug Jones (D-Ala.) is the most vulnerable Democrat senator on the ballot this year, as he seeks to win a full term after his upset victory in a 2017 special election in the solidly red state of Alabama. In 2016 Trump took the state by nearly 28 points. Jones will be seeking a full term in 2020.

The Alabama senator has voted to confirm the vast majority of the president’s judicial nominees. He has additionally voted in favor of appropriations that included border wall funding. He also voted against the Green New Deal.

An outside group aligned with President Trump has targeted Jones in an advertising campaign, which aired during the Senate impeachment trial. The ad, which is appearing on television and other digital platforms, features images of House Manager Rep. Adam Schiff, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and Rep. Maxine Waters discussing impeachment.

Jones has joined other Democrats in calling for witnesses and documents to be part of the Senate trial. However, he is aware that if he votes against the president at the conclusion of the Senate trial, his upcoming election chances are likely to be negatively impacted.

The most likely of all Democrats to vote in the president’s favor is Sen. Joe Manchin (D-W.Va.), who was once considered for a cabinet position in the Trump administration. Manchin was the only Democrat to vote to confirm Supreme Court Justice Brett Kavanaugh in 2018. Displaying more support than any other Democrat senator, according to the website FiveThirtyEight, Manchin has voted with the president the majority of the time. And he, too, voted against the Green New Deal.

Not only does Manchin represent a state that President Trump won by more than 40 percentage points, he reportedly enjoys a friendly relationship with the president. He has been a guest at White House movie screenings and has lunched with the president. President Trump posed for pictures with Manchin, which were used in the senator’s 2018 campaign.

On Manchin’s urging, the president signed a bill into law in 2019 that dealt with pension and health care benefits for coal miners. After Manchin lobbied the president to do so, President Trump gave two basketball stars, Jerry West and Bob Cousy, the Medal of Freedom.

A recent Club for Growth poll of West Virginia voters indicates that almost 70 percent of those surveyed are opposed to the impeachment of the president.

Many Democrats have concerns about how Manchin will vote, but another issue may carry even more weight.

In December of 2019, Jeff Van Drew, a Democrat congressman from New Jersey, switched parties and became a Republican.

Manchin may find it’s the perfect time to follow suit.

‘Christianity Today’ Becomes a Tool of the Left

billy-and-franklin-graham

Although a lot of people link “Christianity Today” with evangelical Christian ideology, the magazine’s editor, Mark Galli, recently nixed that idea with a click of his keyboard.

Galli penned a column that appeared to be written with the goal in mind of putting grins on the faces of leftists and garnering gobs of attention from the Trump-hating faction of the media.

Whether the above stated goal was mapped out or not, the end result was the same. The magazine’s image took a hit, the president was unfairly maligned, and the liberal media ate it all up.

Galli used the pages of the magazine, which happened to be founded by the late legendary preacher extraordinaire Billy Graham, to call for the removal of President Trump from office.

As his days with the magazine are on the wane, the liberal-minded editor put forth a constitutionally vapid case with an apparent purpose of reversing the results of the 2016 presidential election. Galli argued for the president’s removal because of behavior that he chooses to characterize as immoral.

What Galli apparently doesn’t understand is that the U.S. Constitution sets forth a specific and elevated standard in order for the nation’s chief executive to be removed, not just a mere allegation of subjectively questionable behavior.

Because Galli’s publication was originally founded by Reverend Graham, the article referenced the evangelist. It is fitting that Graham’s son, Franklin, who now leads the ministry that his father envisioned and brought to fruition, was one of the first to comment on Galli’s opinion piece.

In a compelling social media post, Franklin let the world know that his dad both “believed in” and “voted for” President Trump.

“… they invoked my father’s name, so I felt I should respond. Yes, @BillyGraham founded Christianity Today; but no, he would not agree w/ their piece. He’d be disappointed,” Franklin stated.

Other leading evangelicals joined in with the countering of Galli’s assertions.

Jerry Falwell Jr. of Liberty University stated that “Christianity Today” has been “unmasked” as part of what he called the “liberal evangelicals who have preached social gospel for decades.”

In an appearance on Fox News, Faith and Freedom Coalition Chairman Ralph Reed said of the magazine, “You cannot imagine a publication more out of step with the faith community that it once represented.”

And President Trump himself joined in with a comment, calling the publication “a far left magazine” and tweeting that Christians are not very likely to be “looking for Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, or those of the socialist/communist bent, to guard their religion.”

When they found out that an ostensible spokesperson for evangelical Christians essentially used Democratic Party talking points to go after the president, the left-leaning media were filled with delight. Galli was predictably offered numerous media spots.

Guesting on NPR’s Morning Edition turned out to be a perfect venue in which to double down on his attacks on the president while letting loose with some additional jabs that seemed tailor-made for a CNN audition.

Galli, of course, repeated his call to negate the choice of America’s voters, but this time came up with other justifications, claiming that the president is in “psychological and moral confusion.”

As propagandists are prone to do, Galli used highly manipulative and corrosive language that is designed to plant negative seeds and is deliberately crafted to poison the minds of potential voters. He compared the president to a physically abusive husband and then left the notion there to lie.

During his appearance, Galli denied that his publication is left-leaning. But the truth is, he and his magazine don’t even come close to being objective.

On February 20, 2015, “Christianity Today” featured a commentary written by none other than Galli himself, titled “Amnesty is Not a Dirty Word.” The main assertion of the piece was that “…the one thing we Christians especially should not run from is any action accused of offering ‘amnesty.’”

In his article, Galli refers to the Evangelical Immigration Table (EIT), a group that has received financing from the George Soros-backed National Immigration Forum.

An article published in the November 2019 magazine, titled “Another Way for Immigration Reform? How Evangelicals Can Help Lead It,” is highly critical of the president’s approach to securing the border. Conversely, it advocates for policies that are consistent with the president’s political opponents. The author of the article is Matthew Soerens, the national coordinator for the aforementioned EIT.

Although it is unlikely that “Christianity Today” will be able to get many of its readers to return to the publication, a name change might help to attract a new crop of subscribers.

“Un-Christianity Today” might do the trick.

In the Aftermath of the Mueller Report, Democrats Are Deeply Divided

hoyersteny_071918am2_lead

Over the course of the past two years, President Donald Trump has stoically endured two congressional investigations, a counterintelligence probe, and a pervasively broad special counsel investigation, while the Mueller Report has essentially obliterated the Russia collusion narrative, which was repeatedly pitched to the public via partisan politicians and news outlets.

Much to the chagrin of the Democratic Party, the president projects an even greater strength than when the attempt to neutralize his agenda first began.

The former outsider is now an incumbent in the highest political office in the land, having acquired invaluable experience over the last two years as well as important knowledge. The president and the American people know so much more about the high-profile federal agencies and corruption on the part of some.

It turns out that the total deconstruction of the Trump/Russia narrative has actually harmed the Democrats, serving to deeply divide its members over the question of whether to pursue impeachment, which is a major priority for its activist left-wing base.

Political leaders in both parties are aware that if the House of Representatives were to hypothetically impeach the president, the Constitution requires a trial in the Senate, whereby a two-thirds majority would need to be secured in order to remove the president from office. Of course, this scenario is highly unlikely, since the GOP holds a 53-47 majority in that chamber.

Over this past weekend three Democrat committee chairmen refused to let go of the idea of moving forward towards an impeachment of the president. Chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.), and House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) made it a point to keep the impeachment door wide open.

Those who use reason as opposed to emotion to analyze the situation realize that continuing to participate in a small-minded and vengeance-based pursuit of the president is an ill-advised strategy. Leaders of the Democratic Party are no doubt aware that the House takeover during the mid-term elections was fueled in large part by Democrat candidates who were running in red or purple districts, and who assured voters that they were moderate or even conservative in their political ideology. These candidates oftentimes further asserted that they would not be pulled toward the radical side of the political spectrum.

It stands to reason that those who came into office touting middle-America bona fides are likely to be hurt by an attenuated and seemingly spiteful impeachment process against a president who has been cleared of the false collusion charges that were lodged against him. With this in mind, Majority Leader Steny Hoyer recently characterized an impeachment agenda as inadvisable, echoing House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s (D-Calif.) warning that impeachment would divide the country.

“Based on what we have seen to date, going forward on impeachment is not worthwhile at this point,” Hoyer told CNN. “Very frankly, there is an election in 18 months, and the American people will make a judgment.”

Why would the Democrat leadership speak publicly against the pursuit of an impeachment investigation? The answer emerges from the numbers with which Democrat politicians are mesmerized.

A meager 31 percent of rank and file Democrats who self-identify as liberal or moderate view impeachment as worth pursuing, according to a recent Business Insider poll. However, 50 percent of those who see themselves as “very liberal” would like to see Democrats in the House pursue impeachment.

The far-left base, which by all appearances is the center of energy and media attention in the current Democratic Party, embraces the radical rhetoric of the freshman trio of congressional representatives: Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY), Ilhan Omar (D-Minn.), and Rashida Tlaib (D-Mich.).

Media figures aligned with the Democratic base have propagandized the subject of impeachment on television and radio shows as well as websites, using out of context language found in the gossipy second section of the Mueller Report. And so-called progressives use amplified social media posts to keep the impeachment option alive.

However, the enlightened know that party unity is a fragile commodity. It is also a mandatory one, if national elections are to be decisively won.

The Democratic Party currently finds itself in the precarious position of being deeply divided on whether to go after the president. The liberal wing, which typically dominates the presidential primaries, is pressuring Democrat presidential candidates to adopt a pro-impeachment position.

They do so at their own peril.