OPINION| Lawrence David| It will be of little avail to the people that the laws are made by men of their own choice if the laws be so voluminous that they cannot be read, or so incoherent that they cannot be understood. – James Madison
It has come to this. Laws so complex, and the media echo chamber so pervasive, that corrupt politicians can justify the removal of a president investigating their criminal wrongdoing. According to the Constitution:
Article II. Section. 3. [The President] … shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, …
The Framers gave no such guidance to the Congress. Apparently, they trusted that a Congress comprised of multiple members would police itself when it discovered corruption in its midst.
They could not have contemplated a time when more than half the chamber would conspire together to ignore/protect leveraging the power vested in them to feather their own nests.
Apparently, that time has come. President Trump has promised to “Drain the Swamp.” Their response has been to call him an “Existential Threat.” Apparently he is in my view … to their personal enrichment schemes.
Congressman Jerrold Nadler spoke for corrupt congressman and senators when, immediately following Donald Trump’s election, he said:
Having failed to prove the great Russia impeachment hoax, Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi yesterday released a sheet of cherry-picked facts – talking points – outlining the latest impeachment fantasy. This one is over an alleged quid pro quo with Ukraine.
Let’s suppose there was a quid pro quo. Let’s suppose President Trump did threaten to withhold funding from Ukraine until President Zelensky assured our president that he was indeed cleaning up the corruption that has plagued his country.
What would be wrong about that? Should American taxpayers expect their president to allow their money to subsidize corruption in a foreign country with no recourse?
Or, should they expect their president to release future payments contingent on that country cleaning up their act?
Expecting that kind of oversight becomes even more critical when there are suspicions that high-level American politicians and their appointees may have been involved in that corruption.
That is at the core of the oversight one branch of government exercises over the others.
Isn’t that precisely the justification we are told is the basis for the House’ current investigation of Donald Trump?
And, wasn’t that the reason Donald Trump was elected?
“Our movement is about replacing a failed and corrupt establishment with a new government, controlled by you the American people.
“The Washington establishment and the financial and media corporations that fund it exists for only one reason, to protect and enrich itself.
“The establishment has trillions of dollars at stake in this election for those who control the levers of power in Washington.
“And for the global special interests they partner with, these people that don’t have your good in mind, our campaign represents a true existential threat…
Yesterday, CD Media, claiming to have reviewed documentary evidence, released this report:
(CD Media – 10/21) … The first thing readers must realize is that the National Anti-Corruption Bureau of Ukraine (NABU) was an organization set up (extra-judicially) by the Obama Administration within Ukraine to help the Democrats cover up the vast corruption that had been going on, and as a tool to go after then-candidate Donald J. Trump. In fact, the initial head of the bureau engineered by the U.S. State Department in Ukraine, Artem Sytnyk, has been tried and convicted of conspiring to help presidential candidate Hillary Clinton defeat Donald Trump in the 2016 election.
That reports came days after CD Media reported this:
(CD Media – Oct. 18) CD Media has been on the ground in Kyiv for some time now investigating corruption of the U.S. State Department in Ukraine, along with multiple Democratic Party operatives in-country, who have been involved in a massive money laundering operation of IMF aid funds, along with corrupt Ukrainian officials, including former Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko…
…The theft totals in the billions of dollars.
We have not seen the evidence that CD Media purports to have but the allegations appear to be consistent with Rudy Giuliani’s claim that he’s in possession of hundreds of documents also pointing to Ukrainian corruption.
Given the seriousness of the allegations, that ‘billions’ of your tax dollars were diverted to corrupt US politicians and their special interests, President Trump would be derelict in his duties if he refused to investigate.
[The President] … shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed, …
President Trump is supported by the comprehensive agreement Bill Clinton signed with Ukraine authorizing cooperation in rooting out corruption.
The treaty was ratified by the U.S. Senate on Oct. 18, 2000.
Speaker Pelosi and corrupt Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), who has been empowered by her, are attempting to turn the treaty on its head.
Schiff actually read into the congressional record a false narrative skewing the telephone conversation between presidents Trump and Zelensky of Ukraine:
“I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of it.
“On this and on that. I’m gonna put you in touch with people and not just any people. I’m going to put you with the attorney general of the United States, my attorney general Bill Barr. He’s got the whole weight of the American law enforcement behind him.”
Schiff might find it inconvenient to learn that Article 2 of the Ukraine treaty designates the U.S. Attorney General, or his designee, as the ‘Central Authority’ for the United States.
Pelosi-led Democrats may not be willing to put their names to a vote to open an official impeachment inquiry but neither are they stepping forward to denounce her impeachment efforts.
The failure of any of the 235 Congressional Democrats to publicly denounce this faux impeachment of a president efforting to enforce the law, makes them complicit in protecting the corruption that many of them weren’t even a party to when it occurred.
Attempting to make the investigation of corruption illegal is neither legal, moral, or forgivable.