This is a tale of two impeachments.<\/p>\n\n\n\n
On January 7, 1999<\/strong>, the impeachment trial of William Jefferson\nClinton began in the U.S. Senate. Although\nthe original charges presented to the House Judiciary Committee by independent\ncounsel Kenneth Starr included eleven impeachable offenses, including perjury, subornation of perjury, obstruction of\njustice, witness-tampering, evidence tampering, abuse of power, and others, the\nHouse of Representatives was able to reach agreement on just two counts: 1) lying under oath in a court of law, and 2) obstruction\nof justice\u2026 both serious felonies. <\/p>\n\n\n\n Under Article I,\nSection 3 of the U.S. Constitution, the Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court\nis required to preside over all presidential impeachment trials. As Chief Justice William Rehnquist called the\nmembers of the senate to order, he called each of the 100 senators to the well\nof the senate where he administered the following oath to each one, in\nturn: <\/p>\n\n\n\n \u201cDo you solemnly swear that in all things\nappertaining to the trial of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton,\nPresident of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice\naccording to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?\u201d<\/em> With their right hands raised and their left\nhands on the Holy Bible, each senator responded, \u201cI do!\u201d Although most of us who\u2019ve fought in the\ntrenches against Democrats for many years could accurately predict how the Democrats\nwould ultimately vote, only God, himself, and the 100 senators, knew which of\nthem possessed the strength of character and the integrity to live up to that\nsolemn oath.<\/p>\n\n\n\n House managers began\npresenting evidence on January 7, 1999 and completed their closing arguments on\nFebruary 12. When the final votes were tallied\non the perjury count, all 45 Democrats voted \u201cnot guilty,\u201d in spite of undeniable\nevidence to the contrary. Forty-five\nRepublicans listened to the evidence, did their duty, and voted \u201cguilty.\u201d Ten\nRepublicans, after being presented with undeniable video evidence, voted either\n\u201cnot guilty\u201d or \u201cnot proven.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n To be alive at that\ntime and to have a clear understanding of Clinton\u2019s irrefutable guilt, and then\nto watch as forty-five Democrats and ten Republicans flagrantly voted \u201cnot\nguilty,\u201d violating their solemn oaths to \u201cdo impartial justice,\u201d was a\ndevastating blow to all who love our country and who respect the rule of law.. <\/p>\n\n\n\n When votes on the\nobstruction charge were tallied, the Senate split evenly: 50 senators voted\n\u201cguilty\u201d and 50 voted \u201cnot guilty.\u201d \nThroughout the voting on the two articles of impeachment, and in spite\nof the undeniable evidence of guilt on both counts, not a single Democrat voted\nto convict the one man most responsible for seeing to it that our laws are \u201cfaithfully\nexecuted\u201d and that he\/she will \u201cpreserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n But now, in late December 2019, as we gather together\nwith family and friends to celebrate the birth of Jesus Christ, it is\ndevastating to hear every Democrat in Congress, House and Senate, demanding\nthat Donald Trump be removed from office, even though they are unable to find\nhim guilty of any offense that would qualify as \u201ctreason, bribery, high crimes,\nor misdemeanors.\u201d <\/p>\n\n\n\n Of the 100 senators who voted to either convict or\nacquit Bill Clinton in 1999, seven Democrats and eight Republicans are still\nthere, preparing to vote on the question of whether or not our current\npresident is guilty of impeachable offenses of such magnitude that he deserves\nto be removed from office. So, what can\nwe expect from those seven long-serving Democrats and eight Republicans? Knowing what we do about Democrats, we know\nthat they are evil, vile, disgusting, and loathsome people, totally lacking in\nintegrity and self-respect. In fact,\nthey are so despicable and so contemptible that we are able to predict with a\nhigh degree of certainty that they will all vote to remove Trump from office,\ninnocent as he may be of any impeachable offense. All eight of the Republicans can be expected\nto stand with their more junior colleagues and vote to deny the Democrats their\nbitter revenge for having defeated Hillary Clinton in 2016.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Anyone with access to the mush-filled brains of a\nmillennial might want to keep a very short parable on the tip of their\ntongue. What every young person needs to\nunderstand as they reach voting age is that, in February 1999, every single\nDemocrat in the U.S. Senate voted to acquit a Democratic president who was\nindisputably guilty of the charges for which he was impeached, while it is readily\npredictable, with a high degree of certainty, that those same Democrats will vote\nunanimously to convict a Republican president whom they\u2019d managed to impeach on\nthe flimsiest of \u201ctrumped-up\u201d charges, with no supporting evidence whatsoever. <\/p>\n\n\n\n The Clinton administration is a perfect example of the\nDemocrats\u2019 approach to law and justice. \nWhen the Clintons left the White House in January 2001, the American\npeople had an opportunity to take stock of what was the most criminal\nadministration in U. S. history.<\/p>\n\n\n\n During the Clinton years in the White House, some 113\nindividuals were known to have committed felony crimes. Of these, 54 went unindicted and 59 were\nindicted. Of the 59 who were indicted,\nthree\u2026 two Buddhist nuns and Monica Lewinski\u2026 were granted immunity in exchange\nfor their testimony; two were found guilty, but were later pardoned; two\nresigned from office rather than submit to a jury trial; one, a black cabinet secretary\nfrom Mississippi, was acquitted by a D.C. jury; and 39 faced a jury and were\nfound guilty, as charged. The final disposition\nof the remaining 12 felony indictments is unknow. <\/p>\n\n\n\n It should be obvious to all patriotic Americans that,\nin the absence of a free and unbiased press, it is impossible to have a free\ncountry, and that, in the absence of an honest, educated, and fully informed\ncitizenry, it is impossible to have a justice system that guarantees equal\nprotection of the law to all citizens. \nAt this point in time the American people have reason to doubt that we\nhave either. We no longer have a free\npress, and we have a justice system that is increasingly administered based on nothing\nmore than the (D) or the (R) that we place behind our names.<\/p>\n\n\n\n So, who is to blame for this unmitigated failure of\nthe greatest experiment in self-government in the history of mankind? While there is no doubt that the Democratic\nParty\u2026 the party of slavery, secession, and segregation\u2026 has played a major role\nin everything damaging, destructive, and deadly in our nation\u2019s history, the\nopposition party, the party of Lincoln, must also accept its share of the\nblame.<\/p>\n\n\n\n For example, in the present circumstance regarding the\nimpeachment of Donald Trump, the Republican Party has abdicated its leadership\nand abandoned its strategic responsibilities in ways too numerous to\nmention. For example, when Democrats\nbegan developing their bogus impeachment claims against Donald Trump by\ncriticizing his July telephone conversation with the newly elected president of\nUkraine, Volodymyr Zelensky, Democrats immediately placed Trump and\ncongressional Republicans on the defensive. \nThey did so by creating the impression that the primary purpose of\nTrump\u2019s call was to congratulate Zelensky on his election victory and to seek\nhis assistance in investigating evidence of Ukrainian corruption involving former\nvice president Joe Biden and his 49-year-old son, Hunter. <\/p>\n\n\n\n What the Trump administration and congressional\nRepublicans fail to make clear is that, when Trump placed a telephone call to\nPresident Zelensky, he was \u201cwearing two hats.\u201d \nThe first, and most significant hat, was his presidential\/commander-in-chief\nhat. There is only one hat like it on\nthe face of the Earth, and Donald Trump owns it until at least noon on January\n20, 2021. The fact that he also wears\nthe hat of a candidate for reelection, and that one highly visible American, whose family member appears to be closely tied\nto Ukrainian corruption, is also a candidate for president of the United\nStates, is purely coincidental. In other\nwords, when Trump called president Zelensky he was, first and foremost,\ncarrying out his sole responsibility as chief executive of the United\nStates. Any other topics of conversation\nwere of secondary importance.<\/p>\n\n\n\n Congressional Democrats sprang their trap when it\nbecame known that a \u201cwhistleblower,\u201d an unnamed lower-level official of the\nU.S. intelligence community, had written a letter to one of the principal\nTrump-haters in the Congress, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff\n(D-CA). As it was soon made clear, the\n\u201cwhistleblower\u201d complained about what he\/she felt was an improper request made\nby President Trump in his July 25 telephone call. However, when Republicans asked for details\nof the identity of the so-called \u201cwhistleblower,\u201d Democrats refused, claiming\nthat they had a duty to protect the identity of the individual. In short, Donald Trump could be the first man\nin U.S. history to be indicted, tried, and convicted without being allowed to\nface his accuser, introduce witnesses in his own defense, or to cross examine his\naccuser or other prosecution witnesses. <\/p>\n\n\n\n At that point, congressional Republicans proceeded as\nif the \u201cwhistleblower\u201d actually existed, although they had absolutely no proof that\nhe was a real person. Instead of putting\nAdam Schiff and congressional Democrats on the defensive by questioning or\ndenying the existence of a \u201cwhistleblower,\u201d Republicans simply proceeded as if Democrats\nwere being truthful about the source of the accusations against Trump. Had they taken the strategic offensive at\nthat point, the Trump impeachment process may have had an entirely different\noutcome.<\/p>\n\n\n\n But there is hope. \nOn Christmas Eve, December 24, 2019, Attorney General William Barr announced\nD.C. grand jury indictments against eight high-dollar Democratic\nfundraisers. The charges include conspiracy, making conduit contributions, causing\nexcessive contributions, making false statements to the FBI, causing false\nrecords to be filed, and obstruction of a federal grand jury investigation. The recipients of the more than $3.3 million\nin illegal contributions include four super PACs; forty-one party\norganizations, mostly state Democratic committees; and sixty-nine candidates,\nincluding Hillary Clinton (2), Cory Booker (5), Amy Klobuchar (3), and Kirsten\nGillibrand (3). <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n The Christmas Eve indictments of the nine Democratic fundraisers\nis just the first shoe to drop in what promises to be an election year filled\nwith surprises for Obama administration officials and Clinton campaign\noperatives. If Attorney General Barr\nlives up to his stellar reputation, 2020 will be a very difficult year for Democrats. So, here\u2019s wishing them the Happy New Year\nthat they so richly deserve. <\/em><\/p>\n\n\n\n Paul R. Hollrah is a\nretired government relations executive and a two-time member of the U.S.\nElectoral College. He currently lives\nand writes among the hills and lakes of northeast Oklahoma\u2019s Green Country.<\/em><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" This is a tale of two impeachments. On January 7, 1999, the impeachment trial of William Jefferson Clinton began in the U.S. Senate. Although the original charges presented to the House Judiciary Committee by independent counsel Kenneth Starr included eleven … Continue reading