Political Poison: Demands for Trump’s Impeachment or Resignation

This article contains commentary which reflects the author's opinion
Get The Real News Delivered To Your Inbox

Long-Standing Legal Precedent Requires That Impeachment Talk Needs to Be Put to Rest

The debate over the impeachment of President Donald Trump should never have started in the first place. Hillary Clinton’s “#resist” speech was an open act of rebellion by the woman who said that anyone who did not accept the results of a constitutional election was “dangerous.”

The extension of the investigation by an unconstitutional special counsel who was, in reality, investigating a person and not a crime, was a waste of taxpayer dollars. Even with the wasted money, the Mueller report indicated that there was not enough evidence to indict the President of the United States (whether or not a sitting president can be indicted is another question). Once again, this “investigation that should not have been” should have gone away.

Political demagogues like Nadler, Tlaib, and Warren, who themselves rely on the “witch hunt” to keep attention away from their indiscretions, keep pursuing this violation of the rights of millions of Americans. We need to put the impeachment argument to rest and tell Congress that it should be doing its job rather than just harassing the President of the United States.

The case against Trump is a non-starter because the government violated several of the fundamental principles of our republic in its rush to condemn the lawfully elected leader of the United States. These violations are so fundamental to the country’s operations that we risk losing the nation’s soul if we allow this nonsense to continue.

The government violated fundamental principles in its rush to condemn the lawfully elected leader of the US.

Whether you were on the Trump Team from the beginning, came to support him in the 2016 election, or are a “Never Trumper,” if you call yourself a conservative or a constitutionalist, you need to call for the end of this investigation.

A Three-Part Problem

Problem 1: There was no crime stated. At the beginning, Democrats demanded an investigation of Donald Trump on a faulty premise. Remember that the initial concept was “he should not have won, so he must have cheated.” Millions of Democrats plus Never Trumpers combed through data looking for the reason that the anointed one of the globalist agenda was not voted as leader of the free world. Donald Trump, however, was elected by the people of the United States to be the leader of, well, the United States.

The problem is that in we prosecute crimes, not individuals, in the US. Thus, we do not take a person to court and look for a crime. Instead, we go to court with a crime and search for a suspect. When the investigation into Trump was initiated, it was with a “sham” statement that the the government was looking into the collision (which is not a crime) between “United States citizens” (read Trump) and the Russians. They had no evidence of the crimes, only a slim hope that President Trump actually cheated.

Problem 2: The investigation was based on the poisonous tree. in the field of law, one of the tools that a defense attorney can use is the “fruit of the poisonous tree” doctrine. Basically, any evidence that comes from an illegal search or methods is inadmissible, even if the evidence would have been obtainable by other means (unless another whole process was conducted to correct the error).

Steele Dossier Made Warrants Unlawful

In the case of the “obstruction,” which evolved from a finding of no collusion (which still is not a crime), the investigation was based on a piece of evidence called the “Steele dossier.” This was a file of opposition research from Fusion GPS and paid for by the Democrat Party. The Steele dossier has been discredited several times, even before it was submitted as evidence for the FISA court. The government knew that the Steele dossier was fraudulent and still continued to use it for the FISA court purposes. As such, it effectively “poisoned” any warrant issued pursuant to that hearing. In turn, this makes any information gained by wiretaps, raids on Trump affiliates’ offices, and even the “honeypot” attempt to seduce George Papadopoulos the “fruit of the poisonous tree.”  

Roger Stone and Paul Manafort should be appealing their cases, per legal counsel advice, because the whole process was illegal. The Muller Report, both the parts that exonerate and condemn the President of the United States, are “fruit of the poisonous tree.” The whole document should be prohibited from being introduced in any judicial proceedings. The exception is for legal action against those who pushed the Steele dossier and even vouched for its authenticity, even after they knew that it was an outright fraud.

Problem 3: Without a crime, there is no cause for impeachment. While this may seem like a rudimentary social studies word, the Democrats in Congress seem to miss the point that you cannot impeach without a crime.  As the jester of the Republican Party, Rep. Justin Amash, has noted, the Constitution says, “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”  In his mind, this means that anything that is an “affront to the government” qualifies as a “high Crime.”

This is a sentiment echoed by academics such as Jeffery Engel, director of the Southern Methodist University Center for Presidential History, who says that “A high crime is an affront to the state, to the people, the body politic.” The professor seems to ignore the fact that we are a nation where crimes are defined rather than made up on an ad hoc basis as fits the fancy of the mob.  

Amash Fails American History

The problem with Amash’s “liberal” interpretation of the Constitution is that it does not line up with history. A cursory examination of this by PolitiFact.com, states that three of the founders wanted a very liberal process for the removal of government officers; however, they were voted down three times by their colleagues. First, the framers rejected the phrase “malpractice or neglect of duty,” which on its own was a reasonably high standard. Next, they rejected “maladministration.” Another phrase which was not included in the Constitution was from the Federalist 65, which states “offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”  

As noted above, the final text listed four reasons for removal from office:

  1. Treason
  2. Bribery
  3. high Crimes — to be a crime there must be a law against it
  4. Misdemeanors — which also must be enumerated

This means that President Gerald Ford’s statement that “An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history” is not really the truth. The House of Representatives is still beholden to the requirements of the Constitution.

A Fraud on the American People

What people are not discussing is the Honest Services Fraud as established through McNally v. United States and re-defined by Sorich v. United States and Skilling v. United States. This would apply to all elected officials receiving any campaign contributions from those actively, implicitly, or can be seen by a reasonable person to be promoting the removal of the lawfully elected President of the United States for political reasons.  

This means that Amash, and all of the Democrats who are “campaigning” and actively fundraising on impeachment, fall under the bribery definition of McNally and by extension the Impeachment Clause of the United States Constitution. Recall that impeachment does not just apply to the president, but any civil officer of the United States.

This debate in Congress and in the media/industrial complex is costing Americans millions and becoming a risk to the national security of the country. As the McNally violations, they include a three-step test:

  1. A person making the bribe (the donor);
  2. A person receiving the bribe (the candidate);
  3. Someone who is harmed by the transaction (the American voter)

No Confidence in Congress

We must assume that if Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is unwilling to bring charges against people who are in direct violation of the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution, the people of the United States should have a no-confidence vote on the House of Representatives in 2019, ahead of the 2020 elections.

An impeachment is a powerful tool, and like all powerful tools, it must be respected. With Democrat presidential candidates swinging impeachment around like a child with a hammer throwing a tantrum, we need to carefully look how we maintain representation in Washington. If our elected representatives are not doing their jobs, we need a mechanism to recall them wholesale. The rights of the people must be preserved, even if it “offends” the sensibilities of the political elite in Washington.

Author Profile

Dr. Christopher W. Smithmyer
Dr. Christopher W. Smithmyer
Dr. Christopher Smithmyer is a writer for NRN, the Vice President of International Affairs at Brav Online Conflict Management, and an Adjunct Professor of MBA Business at Doane University. He is also part of the founding team at BlackWalletLTD, one of the leaders in stable coin 2.0 ecosystem maintenance. Dr. Smithmyer’s focus is international business and finance, along with reviews of board games, weapons platforms, and survival items.