House Democrats appear to be in full-steam-ahead mode as they pursue the impeachment of President Donald J. Trump. While Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler (two-thirds of which were pretty gung-ho about impeachment even before the Ukraine scandal erupted) are really excited about finally appeasing their rabid liberal Resistance base of voters, they have lied repeatedly to the American public about the strength of their case.
In an excellent analysis of how far off the mark that case is, former defense lawyer and longtime legal expert Gregg Jarrett penned an op-ed for Fox News explaining why the Democrats, in trying to impeach Trump over that infamous call with the Ukrainian president, are stretching the Constitution well beyond the breaking point.
From the column:
With a shove from the chronically vapid Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, D-N.Y., Pelosi and her confederates have now settled on the most implausible of all their impeachment schemes peddled during Trump’s presidency – that his conversation with Ukraine’s president somehow constitutes an impeachable offense. It does not. Not even close.
Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution defines the basis for impeachment as an act of “treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Anything less than that is not an impeachable offense. Were it otherwise, those who authored that esteemed document would have so stated.
Later, Jarrett acknowledges that even though the criminal justice division of the DOJ concluded that President Trump had violated not a single law on the phone with Zelensky, it could be argued that a vague “abuse of power” could still stand as reason enough for impeachment. Jarrett does not necessarily disagree with that argument, but he disagrees strongly that the Democrats have such a case against the president.
“Did Trump mention former Vice President Joe Biden and his son toward the end of the conversation? Of course he did. He was right to do so,” Jarrett insists. “If, in addition to meddling, Ukraine possesses evidence that the former vice president’s bragging about a ‘quid pro quo’ was a corrupt act intended to benefit his son by extorting $1 billion in U.S. taxpayer funds. It is incumbent on Trump to ask Zelensky to investigate.
“Biden,” Jarrett writes, “isn’t entitled to a ‘get out of jail’ free card simply because he is now running for president.”
Exactly. All of this “oh, he’s going after his political opponents” talk falls flat if there actually WAS wrongdoing by one of Trump’s political opponents. And there is plenty of smoke (if no visible flame yet) to indicate that there was.
This was no act worthy of impeachment. No treason. No bribery. No high crime and no misdemeanor.
Alas, the Democrats know they have very little chance of winning next year with this class of clownish candidates. This is their only alternative option, so they’re going for broke.