Archive for the ‘The Constitution’ Category

When Sen. Chuck Schumer attempted to intimidate Supreme Court Justices Neil Gorsuch and Brett Kavanaugh, it wasn’t the first time Senate Democrats criticized members of the Supreme Court. Senate Democrats attempted to intimidate the Supreme Court when they submitted this brief, which closed by saying “The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be ‘restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.’ Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.”

That’s a thinly veiled threat by Senate Democrats to pack the courts because they don’t like the Supreme Court’s rulings. What’s clearly meant here is that the Supreme Court could avoid the Democrats’ court-packing if the justices delivered the right ruling in that lawsuit. This highlights the fact that Democrats view the Supreme Court as a legislature.

The Supreme Court is supposed to rule on cases by determining whether a statute lives within the Constitution’s limitations on government. The Constitution was designed to limit the reach of the federal government. The federal government was built by the states to take care of a limited, enumerated, list of things.

The Constitution’s Bill of Rights sought to expand individuals’ rights by codifying the right to seek redress of grievances before one’s government, the right to defend one’s family. It also guaranteed the right to a speedy trial and the right to confront one’s accusers. Article III wasn’t written to give Democrats political victories it couldn’t earn through the legislative process.

Democrats should stop using the courts in this fashion. That isn’t what they were designed to do. The reason why there are protests in front of the Supreme Court is because Democrats politicized it 50-75 years ago. President Trump is depoliticizing the Supreme Court by picking judges that apply the Constitution to the lawsuits they hear. Democrat justices rule in favor of the outcome they prefer, regardless of whether it fits the Constitution’s mandates.

Expect Democrats to continue their intimidation tactics as President Trump straightens out the judiciary.

The SC Times editorial board apparently didn’t learn from President Trump’s impeachment. At least, that’s the impression I got from this Our View Editorial. The editorial starts by lecturing its readership, saying “The scariest aspect of the impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump is how both sides of the aisle dramatically weakened the tools the Founding Fathers provided to allow the three branches of government to hold each other accountable.”

This isn’t that complicated. Jonathan Turley, a far wiser man than anyone sitting on the Editorial Board, made an important point when he made an emphatic point when he said this:

I can’t emphasize this enough and I’ll say it just one more time: If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts; it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power.

It isn’t surprising that the Editorial Board didn’t notice their intellectual stupidity was showing.

This is how the Editorial Board expressed their foolishness:

Had that been the case, the Democrat-led House impeachment team would have used the full force of the courts to enforce subpoenas issued to key witnesses, hear their testimony and gain access to key documents the Trump White House refused to release. Instead, with eyes clearly focused on the next election, they rushed through their process, apparently hoping the Senate trial would do that hard work for them. Or perhaps they realized their case was not going to rise to the justifiably high standards for removal from office set by the founders.

The Republican-led Senate proved even more pathetic. When confronted with overwhelming proof that the House did not provide all the evidence, a majority of senators chose blind allegiance to party and voted in favor of the president instead of pursuit of the truth. Among the tools at their disposal, but not used, are hearing witness testimony and cross-examining those witnesses.

I’d love hearing the Times’ explanation for them saying that House Democrats probably “realized their case wasn’t going to rise to the justifiably high standards for removal from office set by the founders”, then have them say that Republicans, “when confronted with overwhelming proof that the House didn’t provide all the evidence” … “chose blind allegiance to party” rather than pursuing the truth. The case can’t have overwhelming proof and not rise to the justifiably high standards for removal from office.”

The Constitution gives the House “sole authority for impeachment.” That means the House receives the report from the special counsel or their own investigation, then the House Judiciary Committee writes up the articles of impeachment. This isn’t a joint responsibility shared between the House and Senate. That’s because the Constitution gives the Senate “sole authority” to try impeachments. They aren’t investigators. They are, literally, both judges and jury. The Senate determines what comes in as evidence. The Senate can overrule the Chief Justice of the United States. They are also the jury.

The Senate sent the message that they wouldn’t accept House Democrats’ shoddy investigation. Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell called these articles of impeachment “a half-baked censure resolution.” That’s being charitable. They also sent the message that they wouldn’t accept a flimsy case because articles of impeachment are considered a privileged resolution. That means, literally, that everything stops in the Senate until the verdict is reached.

Finally, this paragraph is downright stupid:

Rather read this for what it is: a commentary about elected officials from both parties who put their partisan allegiances above the constitutional oaths they took after you elected them.

The Founding Fathers were reluctant to put impeachment into the Constitution. When they finally agreed that such a provision was required, they established 2 important requirements. They required a) a two-thirds majority to convict and remove and b) that people could only be impeached for “Treason, Bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

They wanted to guarantee that impeachment was only used as a tool of last resort. That didn’t happen here. The Founding Fathers wanted impeachment used only when it was clear that something so egregious had happened that a bipartisan majority agreed that such a high crime had been committed. House Democrats impeached knowing that there wasn’t a chance of conviction and removal.

The simple fact is this: House Democrats screwed things up badly. Senate Republicans rendered the only just verdict allowed by the Constitution.

The Democrats’ warped thinking is actually a little frightening. After it became clear that the Democrats faced an uphill fight on witnesses, Democrats started with a new chanting point. According to Speaker Pelosi, President Trump “He will not be acquitted. 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. Does the president know right from wrong? I don’t think so.”

Using Pelosi’s logic, there’s no need for acquittal since President Trump wasn’t impeached. You can’t be impeached if you weren’t allowed the right to counsel during the investigation. You can’t be impeached if you weren’t allowed to call witnesses during the investigation. You can’t be impeached if transcripts of depositions (taken in the downstairs bunker, aka SCIF) were kept offlimits to House Republicans while those testifiers testified in front of the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, aka HPSCI, aka the House Impeachment Committee.

Speaker Pelosi’s vitriol didn’t stop there. After criticizing President Trump with her made-up, arbitrary opinions, Pelosi trashed his defense team:

“I don’t know how they can retain their lawyer status, in the comments that they’re making. I don’t think they made the case. I think they disgraced themselves terribly in terms of their violation of what our Constitution is about and what a president’s behavior should be.”

Trusting in Pelosi’s understanding of the Constitution is as foolish as taunting a cobra with quick movements. I won’t be nice about this. Pelosi’s understanding of constitutional principles is situational. She cares as much about the Constitution as she cares about the homeless in her district.

President Trump’s defense team didn’t need to make a case. It’s the prosecution’s burden to prove that the defendant committed a crime. This isn’t the United States of Hirono, where Republican defendants (think Brett Kavanaugh) are required to prove their innocence.

In the Constitution written by Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton, not the Constitution imposed by Pelosi and Hirono, defendants are presumed innocent. In the courts, the prosecutor has the burden of proving its accusations. Pelosi wasn’t finished with the misinformation. Here’s more misinformation:

“Some of them are even lawyers. Imagine that you would say — ever, of any president, no matter who he or she is or whatever party, if the president thinks that his or her presidency … is good for the country, then any action is justified, including encouraging a foreign government to have an impact on our elections. [That] is exactly what our Founders were opposed to — and they feared.”

As usual, Pelosi omitted a key part of what was actually said. In his presentation, Professor Dershowitz talked about 3 situations. One situation is where the president acts solely in the country’s best interest without regard to whether it helps him politically. That, he said was perfectly fine but fairly rare.

Another situation is the president did something for thoroughly corrupt reasons. Think Nixon demanding kickbacks. He said that’s a situation where the president isn’t above the law.

The third situation is where a president does something in the national interest but does it with an eye on how it’ll help him politically. Professor Dershowitz said that’s fairly common and is ok. President Bush used to say that “good policy is great politics.” Would Pelosi disagree with that statement? I can’t imagine she would.

The Democrats haven’t done a thing to make people more prosperous or more safe. Democrats haven’t done a thing to prevent human trafficking on our border or homelessness in our streets. San Francisco, the city that Pelosi represents, used to be one of the world’s most beautiful cities. Now, it’s literally a feces-infested dump just a block or 2 outside of the rich people’s gated community.

It’s time to throw these disgusting people out of office en masse. They’ve hurt the US enough.

Pat Cipollone, the White House Counsel, and Jay Sekulow, President Trump’s personal attorney, made their first official impeachment filing this weekend. Immediately, they let it be known that they weren’t interested in taking prisoners on this particular battlefield.

They started their filing by saying “The Articles of Impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the American people to freely choose their president. This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the 2016 election and to interfere with the 2020 election, now just months away.”

Next, they write “The Articles of Impeachment are unconstitutional on their face. They fail to allege any crime or violation of law whatsoever, let alone “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” as required by the Constitution. They are the result of a lawless process that violated basic due process and fundamental fairness.”

“In order to preserve our constitutional structure of government, to reject the poisonous partisanship that the Framers warned against, to ensure one-party political impeachment vendettas do not become the ‘new normal,’ and to vindicate the will of the American people, the Senate must reject both Articles of Impeachment,” Trump’s legal team wrote. “In the end, this entire process is nothing more than a dangerous attack on the American people themselves and their fundamental right to vote.”

It’s worth reading the entire Trump team briefing. This team sought to send the message that there’s little, if anything, in the Articles of Impeachment that meets the Constitution’s requirements.

Cipollone and Sekulow note that House Democrats “sought testimony disclosing the Executive Branch’s confidential communications and internal decision-making processes on matters of foreign policy and national security, despite the well-established constitutional privileges and immunities protecting such information.” Then Mssrs. Cipollone and Sekulow write “As the Supreme Court has recognized, the President’s constitutional authority to protect the confidentiality of Executive Branch information is at its apex in the field of foreign relations and national security.”

Notwithstanding these abuses, the Administration replied appropriately to these subpoenas and identified their constitutional defects. Tellingly, House Democrats did not seek to enforce these constitutionally defective subpoenas in court. To the contrary, when one subpoena recipient sought a declaratory judgment as to the validity of the subpoena he had received, House Democrats quickly withdrew the subpoena to prevent the court from issuing a ruling.

Why would House Democrats withdraw a legitimate subpoena if the information sought was important? Did House Democrats withdraw the subpoena because they didn’t want the court to rule that the subpoena wasn’t legitimate?

Check LFR for the House Democrats’ reply to this filing.

If you didn’t watch tonight’s Almanac Roundtable discussion, you’re in luck. I watched it so you didn’t have to. Predictably, impeachment was the main topic discussed by former DFL State Senator Ember Reichgott-Junge and former GOP Lt. Gov. Candidate Annette Meeks. My first impression of the discussion is that it’s painful to watch Ember Reichgott-Junge mix the Democrats’ political talking points with the Constitution.

At one point in the discussion, Junge trotted out the latest Democrat talking point. Junge said that “It isn’t just President Trump that is on trial. The US Senate is on trial, too.” She then posed a hypothetical question, saying “What happens if new information comes out 6 months from now?” Here’s what I’d say had I been debating her Friday night:

Ember, you’ve got it backwards. It isn’t the US Senate that’s on trial. It’s the US House that’s on trial. Specifically, it’s Speaker Pelosi, Chairman Schiff and Chairman Nadler that are on trial. They’re the people who were tasked with the responsibility of conducting a thorough impeachment investigation. If this was truly about patriotism, Speaker Pelosi would have stopped the investigation once she learned that Chairman Schiff’s committee didn’t unearth proof that President Trump committed high crimes or misdemeanors.

She didn’t stop the investigation because she wanted to use impeachment as a partisan weapon. Democrats have wanted to impeach President Trump since the morning after he won the election. This wasn’t an investigation. It was a search-and-destroy mission. That isn’t about finding the truth. That’s about crippling the President of the United States for purely partisan purposes.

Democrats who voted for impeachment aren’t as guilty as Pelosi, Nadler and Schiff but they’re guilty, too. They’re guilty of impeaching a president who didn’t commit a crime. House Democrats voted to impeach a president without investigators identifying a single piece of direct proof that verifies the crime President Trump committed.

Prof. Jonathan Turley’s ‘indictment’ of the House Democrats still stings. In his testimony, Prof. Turley said “If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power. You’re doing precisely what you’re criticizing the president for doing.”

Honestly, it’s exceptionally dishonest to blame the US Senate for US House Democrats not finishing their investigation. The Constitution states that the House of Representatives has the sole responsibility for impeachment. If House Democrats don’t properly finish their investigation, then that’s their fault. Honest historians won’t criticize the US Senate for conducting a sloppy impeachment investigation.

Senate Democrats better think this through thoroughly. If Senate Democrats want to call witnesses, they’d best be prepared to get buried with fact witnesses by the defense attorneys. That means the trial lasts until well after Super Tuesday. By then, Bernie Sanders, Elizabeth Warren and Amy Klobuchar will have been forced to suspend their campaigns.

By the time an extended trial ends, President Trump will be well on his way to winning re-election, Republicans will be well on their way to regaining their House majority and well on their way to solidifying their majority in the Senate. That’s the Democrats’ worst nightmare.

When impeachment started, Nancy Pelosi insisted that she loved the Constitution. I suspect that she loves the Constitution like she loves the Bible. I suspect that she loves them when it’s to her advantage. Yesterday, the House voted on a resolution that ignored the Constitution. Article 1, Section 8 gives Congress the authority to declare war.

While it’s fitting for Congress to weigh in on policy matters, it isn’t fitting that the Legislative Branch should tell the Executive Branch what it should or shouldn’t do. Yesterday’s non-binding resolution told President Trump how Congress wanted to restrict him in prosecuting military operations. That’s far outside the Legislative Branch’s authority.

The military is 100% within the Executive Branch’s authority. They take orders from the Commander-in-Chief, not 100 egotistical senators, not from an aging Speaker of the House, not from anyone in the Legislative Branch. The Legislative Branch’s constitutional authority over the military is confined to declaring war (then getting out of the way) and appropriating money to fund the military.

Democrats insist that they love the Constitution. If that’s true, why don’t they appreciate it all the time? The Democrats’ “living, breathing document” line apparently means that they like it when it says what they want it to say but they’ll change it when they don’t like what it says.

This interview says everything:

Congress doesn’t have the authority to tell presidents how to prosecute war. The Constitution only gives them the authority to declare war. Declarations of war have nothing to do with prosecuting wars.

Speaker Pelosi might not like that but she can’t ignore that fact.

Despite what her Praetorian guard say, this hasn’t been a good week for the Swamp Mistress, aka Nancy Pelosi. It just got much worse. This morning, Ms. Pelosi decided that impeaching a president who didn’t commit a crime without producing a single piece of proof that would be admitted in a court of law wasn’t enough. She’s decided that she’s taking the ‘full tyrant’ route by censoring House Republicans. Nothing says solemnity like a black dress and a week of censorship. Nothing says ‘I love the Constitution’ more than violating House Republicans’ First Amendment rights.

Under the current rules, members are allowed five minute speeches in the morning. The leadership on each side are allowed a full hour each at the end of the day and then each side is given two half hour slots. No floor speeches are allowed past 10 pm even if everyone has not had a chance to speak. In January, the House passed a rule that allows members only one Special Order speaking slot per week.

Pelosi not only shut down end-of-the-day special order speeches, on Thursday, she also cancelled the five minute speaking slots in the morning, effectively barring the Minority from speaking out against the biased and unfair impeachment process after the vote.

Saying that this has Louie Gohmert fired up is understatement:

According to the rules, the Minority is supposed to be allowed to have their own witness hearing before an impeachment vote, but Chairman Nadler (D-NY) denied them that right. Gohmert said that the majority could have voted to change the rules, but they didn’t even bother to do that much. They just straight-out violated the rules in their haste to impeach the president.

Gohmert also said he was going to point out the hypocrisy of Democrats who have been claiming that the rushed process was warranted because “time was of the essence.” If impeaching the president was such an urgent matter, why isn’t the Speaker sending the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate, Gohmert wanted to ask on the House floor.

Democrats don’t have an answer for Rep. Gohmert’s questions. That’s proof that the Democrats’ impeachment wasn’t fair, wasn’t thorough and didn’t meet the Constitution’s criteria for impeachment.

Rep. Gohmert was already fired up after this:

At times yesterday, Jerry Nadler tried needling Republicans. Mr. Nadler isn’t bright enough to win that fight. He got excoriated multiple times by Rep. Doug Collins, the Republicans’ floor manager yesterday, and by other Republicans, including Mr. Gohmert.

I’ve said it before and I’ll repeat it again. This wasn’t a fair fight despite the fact that the Democrats tilted the rules in their favor. Republicans proved themselves to be people of gravitas. Democrats proved themselves to be intellectual lightweights incapable of sustaining a coherent fight. Here’s one of the Republicans with gravitas:

Here’s another Republican with gravitas:

Here’s another Republican with gravitas:

Alan Dershowitz’s latest article highlights an old phrase attributed to Stalin. According to the article, Stalin said “show me the man and I will find you the crime.” Appearing on America’s Newsroom, former Clinton Independent Counsel Ken Starr told this horrific story:

“The text of the Constitution just entrusts [impeachment] to the good judgment, whether it’s being exercised or not, to the House of Representatives,” Starr said. “But history will, I think, judge this not well. It should judge it not well. [You] didn’t have a full debate on the floor of the House — and that just lends itself to, ‘then to let’s go to court and have this litigated.’ “And of course, the chairman then says, ‘you go to court, you’re in contempt.’

“For [Schiff to] essentially declare guilt… is another procedural irregularity. He should try his best… to give the appearance of fairness and open-mindedness,” he said. “He’s already declared the president substantively guilty, as well as procedurally guilty.”

This isn’t about fairness. It’s about hating the outcome of the 2016 election, then doing whatever it took to string up the guy who defeated the woman who was going to shatter that last glass ceiling. This isn’t an impeachment inquiry. It’s an inquisition:

an official investigation, especially one of a political or religious nature, characterized by lack of regard for individual rights, prejudice on the part of the examiners and recklessly cruel punishments.

Point to anything that Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, has done to guarantee President Trump’s civil rights. Point to anything that Adam Schiff, the Democrats’ Impeachment Chairman, has done to guarantee the civil rights of anyone who served on the NSC were protected. It’s impossible to highlight such a thing because Schiff isn’t interested in such things. He’s interested in making history even if it means destroying the nation.

The gospel of Dershowitz

Under our constitutional system of separation of powers, Congress may not compel the Executive Branch to cooperate with an impeachment investigation absent court orders. Conflicts between the Legislative and Executive Branches are resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by the unilateral dictate of a handful of partisan legislators. It is neither a crime nor an impeachable offense for the president to demand that Congress seek court orders to enforce their demands. Claims of executive and other privileges should be resolved by the Judicial Branch, not by calls for impeachment.

This isn’t a constitutional crisis. It’s the Constitution working the way Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton codified it to work. The first step is to let the political branches fight things out amongst themselves. The only time the courts should get involved is after the political branches have proven they can’t resolve their differences.

As Dershowitz has said, a dispute isn’t cause for voting on an article of impeachment. It’s cause for letting the Constitution function the way Madison, Jefferson and Hamilton intended it to work. The legislative branch doesn’t resolve disputes. The executive branch doesn’t resolve disputes. Only the judicial branch gets to resolve disputes between the political branches. If Schiff wasn’t in such a rush to impeach President Trump, he’d let the judiciary settle this dispute.

Notice the slap that Prof. Dershowitz gave Mr. Schiff. Prof. Dershowitz said “Schiff calls it a rope-a-dope. There’s another word for it. It’s called checks and balances.” Schiff’s political animus is so strong that he isn’t capable of controlling himself. When Nixon was all but officially impeached, Chairman Rodino put together this roadmap for the House to follow. There isn’t a snowball’s prayer in hell that this roadmap will be considered, much less adopted. Adam Schiff won’t let this be considered. Nancy Pelosi is too partisan to let this become the law of the land.

Speaker Pelosi is spinning like a top after pulling a 180 on a formal impeachment vote. Pelosi insists that this isn’t an admission that Democrats have run an illegitimate investigation thus far. That spin doesn’t pass the laugh test, though. A complete 180 can’t be seen as anything except a reversal/admission.

Ms. Pelosi’s statement is filled with misleading statements. For instance, Ms. Pelosi’s statement says “the Constitution does not mandate the process for impeachment and there is no constitutional requirement that the House of Representatives authorize an impeachment inquiry before one begins.” Technically, that’s right. Actually, it’s deceptive as hell. While it’s true that the Constitution doesn’t provide a checklist to be followed, there are constitutional principles that must be upheld.

One such constitutional principle that must be upheld is the principle of separation of powers. Congress has subpoena power but only in the context of fulfilling its legislative responsibilities. Their subpoena power disappears the minute it’s used for investigative purposes. The term used is “legislative purpose.” If the thing that’s getting subpoenaed isn’t being used to write legislation, then it’s an invalid use of subpoena power.

Further, the Constitution doesn’t permit people in the Legislative Branch to impanel a grand jury. Only people in the Executive Branch have the authority to impanel grand juries. Adam Schiff isn’t part of the Executive Branch.

Just last week, a federal court confirmed that the House is not required to hold a vote and that imposing such a requirement would be “an impermissible intrusion on the House’s constitutional authority.”

That ruling is stupid. First, the Constitution says that “The House of Representatives shall chuse their Speaker and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” The courts have defined “The House” as being the entire House of Representatives, not just the Speaker. This isn’t insignificant. When Speaker Pelosi stated that the House was conducting an impeachment investigation, there wasn’t a vote of the whole House. It was just a declaration by Speaker Pelosi. Official votes are the only things recognized as official actions of the House and Senate. This statement is worthy of a snot-nosed little brat, not the Speaker of the House:

They argue that, because the House has not taken a vote, they may simply pretend the impeachment inquiry does not exist.

Until the Constitution’s requirements have been met, the impeachment inquiry doesn’t exist in the eyes of the courts. Who’s stupid enough to think that a court would think that an investigation whose rules change daily would pass muster on due process? An Obama-appointed airhead might buy that but that’s about it. Further, past precedent matters. The rules that governed the Nixon impeachment governed the Clinton impeachment, too. The ‘Rodino Rules’ weren’t adopted for President Trump. Why haven’t they? Are they too transparent for Schiff and Pelosi? Do Schiff, Pelosi and the Democrats realize the flimsiness of their case, which leads them to think that a secret investigation, filled with Schiff leaks, is the only chance they have at gaining an impeachment?

It’s interesting that the CNBC correspondent characterized this as a reversal by Speaker Pelosi. It isn’t interesting because I disagree. It’s interesting because I didn’t expect that from a media organization.

Greg Jarrett’s op-ed is must reading if you want to know the difference between the Democrats’ definition of impeachment and the Constitution’s definition of impeachment.

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.

Sadly, then-Republican Rep. Gerald Ford, as House minority leader in 1970, forever mangled the impeachment provision when he mistakenly observed: “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history.”

This was precisely what our framers did not intend. This is what they feared. They did not want a sitting president to be removed because a capricious Congress controlled by an opposing party disliked a chief executive or disagreed with his policies.

Republicans better get their act together on this. Democrats have declared war on President Trump and Republicans. Senate Republicans better prepare for warfare. They should opt to shut down the trial, if the House of Representatives approves articles of impeachment.

Here’s why: Nothing that President Trump has done comes close to meeting the constitutional test of “treason, bribery or high crimes and misdemeanors.” In fact, President Trump hasn’t come close to committing a crime, much less a high crime. When Bill Clinton was impeached, a grand jury identified a series of felonies that he’d committed.

Let’s remember that, in the end, President Clinton paid Paula Jones a small ton of money and surrendered his law license in Arkansas. He wouldn’t have had to do those things if he hadn’t initially been indicted.

Mentioning Biden’s name and Biden’s son’s name in the phone call with Ukraine’s President Zelenskyy wasn’t the best thing to do but it doesn’t come close to a high crime. That isn’t just my opinion. That’s Alan Dershowitz’s opinion, too.

The charade may eventually succeed in the House, where Democrats holds a comfortable advantage and a simple majority is all that is needed to impeach. But conviction in a trial in the Republican-controlled Senate will fail miserably because a two-thirds majority is constitutionally required.

This was the wisdom of the framers. They knew that unscrupulous politicians would inevitably try to subvert the democratic process for purely political reasons. The framers made it exceedingly difficult for such politicians to achieve that end.

I wrote about this recently because I’m convinced that governments shouldn’t be overthrown for “light and transient causes” any more than presidents should be impeached for light and transient causes. This isn’t a joke. This is serious stuff.

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 isn’t entitled to a “get out of jail” free card simply because he is now running for president. Hillary Clinton coveted such a card, and it should never happen again.

Vice President Biden shouldn’t get that get-out-of-jail-free card because nobody is above the law, not even former vice presidents. This video sums things up nicely:

Hunter Biden was put on the board of Burisma Holdings and paid $83,000 a month for 5 years. What’s worse is that he didn’t have any expertise in the energy industry or in the Ukraine. Then, when investigators started checking out potential corruption, Vice President Biden threatened to pull $1,000,000,000 in loan guarantees from Burisma if Viktor Shokin, the prosecutor general, wasn’t fired.

Impeachment is a political act because it involves the political branches of government. That being said, it also uses judicial principles if done properly. If articles of impeachment are passed on a straight party-line vote, Republicans should essentially throw the case out for not fitting the constitutional definition of impeachment.