On three separate occasions, Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, has introduced a resolution to impeach President Donald Trump. Each time, the House of Representatives has voted it down.

And with good reason. Consider Green’s latest resolution. No matter how much one opposes Trump, it would have been a serious misuse of the House’s impeachment power. The 95 members who voted for it either do not understand or do not care about the purpose and proper use of this procedure.

Green’s resolution said that the president should be impeached because he is “unfit to represent” American values of “decency and morality” and “respectability and civility.” It also cited Trump’s criticism of four Democratic House members.

There is no doubt that Green deplores Trump and disagrees with his policies on many important issues. The question, however, is whether such matters are properly the basis for seeking to nullify the last election by removing the president from office. They are not, as we explain in a new research paper on the history of impeachment.

In drafting the Constitution, America’s founders provided for impeachment not as a partisan political weapon, or as an alternative to elections, but as a way to address serious misconduct by the president or other federal officials — conduct that betrays the public trust, breaks the law, or otherwise renders them unfit for office.

The 1787 convention that produced the Constitution carefully defined the conduct that warranted impeachment. The delegates rejected broad, vague language such as “malpractice or neglect of duty” as well as a narrow category limited only to treason and bribery. Instead, they chose the phrase that appears today in Article II, Section 4: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

This phrase had been in English law for centuries, and the founders knew what it meant. It designates behavior that, as Professor John McGinnis puts it, is “serious objective misconduct that bears on the official’s fitness for office.”

To date, neither Green nor any other representative has made the case that the president has engaged in such misconduct. In fact, Green’s resolution doesn’t attempt to do so. It is simply an expression of outrage at the personality, character, behavior and speech of the president.

America’s founders were clear about the meaning and proper use of impeachment, and American history counsels against abusing this power. In the 19th century, radical Republicans impeached President Andrew Johnson because they disagreed with his plans to implement President Abraham Lincoln’s conciliatory policies towards the Southern states. The impeachment articles claimed that even Johnson’s speeches amounted to “high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

Historians have condemned the Johnson impeachment as rash, reckless, and unwarranted. House members improperly turned Johnson’s legitimate decisions as president into impeachable offenses simply because they disagreed with those decisions. With rhetorical excesses similar to those directed today against Trump, radical Republicans tried to portray Johnson as a “wild-eyed dictator bent on overthrowing the government.”

Shortly before the Johnson impeachment, C.M. Ellis addressed “the causes for which a president may be impeached.” Neither the House nor Senate, he wrote in The Atlantic, may act arbitrarily. Rather, they must be guided by rules about the proper purpose and use of impeachment. That counsel is needed just as much today as it was in 1867.

The arbitrary, partisan use of impeachment represented by the Green resolution is at odds with the nature of impeachment as it was practiced in England and understood by those who drafted and ratified the Constitution. It is incompatible with the republican form of government guaranteed by the Constitution. It would allow 285 members of Congress — a simple House majority and two-thirds of senators — to remove a duly elected president for partisan reasons or over matters of personality and style.

This should not be laughed off as just partisan fun and games. It’s a dangerous, anti-democratic maneuver that flouts the principles on which our republic was founded and threatens its stability.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/64799?mailing_id=4468&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4468&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

So on at least three occasions now, Maher has clamored for more unemployment, more bankruptcies, lower wages, and deteriorating stock-market portfolios due to his animosity toward Trump. And if workers’ livelihoods must languish to purge Trump from office, then that’s a noble sacrifice in his warped mind. Of course, it’s easy for elitists like Maher to feel that way because they wouldn’t be significantly affected by a recession. Maher makes millions of dollars every year by giving his devoted audience ridiculous lectures on TV. But those of us he sees as deplorables are necessary collateral damage in a recession that will, the Left hopes, result in Trump being a one-term president.

The Media Research Center’s Brent Baker rightly responded, “Maher couldn’t have provided the people in ‘flyover country’ with a better example of the disdain for them from a coastal elite. Maher puts his personal hatred of President Trump ahead of the welfare of the American people. No wonder middle America has so embraced Trump as a fighter for them against the elites.”

No kidding. Sadly, even the leftmedia supports Maher’s sentiments. According to The Washington Free Beacon, “NBC News foreign correspondent Richard Engel … sided with … Maher after he expressed desire for an economic recession to help defeat President Donald Trump in 2020.” Engel went so far as to say, “Short-term pain might be better than long-term destruction of the Constitution.” Engel is what some would consider a “journalist.”

Late last year, our own Mark Alexander ominously wondered, “Will Democrats Get the Impeachment Recession They Want?” Alexander noted:

Caught in the Democrats’ political crossfire are tens of millions of American workers and their families whose jobs and income prospects will fall victim to the Demos’ politically induced recession — the direct result of having thrown economic confidence under the bus in order to attack Trump. May I remind you, there is precedent for Democrats seeding economic recession under sitting Republican presidents ahead of presidential elections. Recall how, in 2006, they set up the 2008 mortgage financial crisis (almost collapsing the entire banking system) just in time for Barack scumbag/liar-nObama to ride that wave of fear into office.

And make no mistake, the Leftmedia is doing its darnedest to make it happen, much to the joy of Bill Maher. According to Reuters, “‘Reasonably good’ is not what Trump promised to deliver during his 2016 campaign, and at this point he heads into a reelection year short of the key economic goals he set and worried a recession could undermine his bid for a second term.” In a piece titled “Is the economy turning against Trump?” Washington Post columnist Robert J. Samuelson surmises, “There is growing evidence of a possible recession. If one materializes, President Trump could lose his most powerful argument for reelection: a strong economy.” And just for good measure, The Washington Post’s Aaron Blake delved into “How a recession could doom Trump’s 2020 reelection.”

Memo to voters: If Democrats truly cared about your welfare, they wouldn’t be hankering for your livelihoods to crater for the sake of their political agenda.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64790?mailing_id=4468&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4468&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body  

After the assassination of Abraham Lincoln, investigators discovered that the lone man assigned to guard the president, John Parker, had abandoned his post to watch the play from an adjacent box at Ford’s Theater. Worse, at intermission, Parker adjourned to a nearby saloon to have drinks with some friends. It was during the second act that John Wilkes Booth entered the president’s box and shot him.

Maybe something as simple and explainable as that will be the conclusion of an investigation into the death of billionaire financier and convicted sex offender Jeffrey Epstein in a Manhattan federal prison. Attorney General William Barr has ordered the FBI to look into how someone so recently on suicide watch, but later removed, could hang himself in his cell when he was supposed to be monitored.

Among numerous questions: What method did Epstein use? Was there a chair in the cell and if so, why? Was there something on the ceiling that a sheet, or rope, could go over? How did Epstein obtain a sheet or rope? Was it really suicide?

An unnamed source working as a chaplain in a Los Angeles psychiatric hospital responded to my inquiry concerning monitoring protocols: “I have seen and know the protocols for suicidal patients and usually they are given meds to keep them calm. The patient is not simply under observation but is physically watched 24/7 … not every 10 minutes or 30 minutes, but minute by minute. I can’t even give them a Bible with a hard cover or even a rosary … there’s no way to commit suicide without help from someone else … this is wrong!”

Conspiracy theories immediately surfaced, including one disseminated by President Trump. In a tweet, the president, who knew Epstein, but claims they had a falling out some years ago, tried to link Epstein’s death to former President scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton. That one quickly began trending on Twitter, mostly because so many people associated with the scumbag/liar-Clintons have died, some under curious circumstances.

Not all conspiracy theories turn out to be wrong. If one is known by the company one keeps, those named in recently released court documents that visited Epstein’s “fantasy island,” allegedly stocked with underage girls, were pretty bad company. Those named deny the allegations, but given the details of witnesses and the known behavior of some of them, that hardly seems credible. Now that Epstein is dead, perhaps some are breathing a little easier knowing he won’t have to testify at trial and be asked whether he served as a pimp to the wealthy and well-connected.

FoxNews.com alleges there is more to come: “Former President scumbag/liar-Bill Clinton was a much more frequent flyer on a registered sex offender’s infamous jet than previously reported, with flight logs showing the former president taking at least 26 trips aboard the ‘Lolita Express’ – even apparently ditching his Secret Service detail for at least five of the flights…

"scumbag/liar-Clinton’s presence aboard Jeffrey Epstein’s Boeing 727 on 11 occasions has been reported, but flight logs show the number is more than double that, and trips between 2001 and 2003 included extended junkets around the world with Epstein and fellow passengers identified on manifests by their initials or first names, including ‘Tatiana.’ The tricked-out jet earned its Nabokov-inspired nickname because it was reportedly outfitted with a bed where passengers had group sex with young girls.”

It would be a convenience, to say the least, for Epstein to be out of the way before his trial and it wouldn’t be the first time someone got knocked off in prison for revenge or to guarantee their silence. Whitey Bulger, the Irish-American crime boss, was killed by inmates shortly after arriving at the U.S. Penitentiary, Hazelton, in West Virginia, last October.

An old joke says, “Just because you’re paranoid doesn’t mean they’re not out to get you.” And just because conspiracies might make you suspicious, doesn’t mean this might not be one.

Let the investigation begin, let it be thorough and let it be conducted without favor to anyone.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/64794?mailing_id=4468&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4468&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body 

Opponents of election integrity lost the latest in a long string of cases recently when a three-judge panel of the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals reinstated North Dakota’s voter ID requirement and tossed out an injunction that had been issued by a lower court.

In Brakebill v. Jaeger, Judge Steven Colloton, writing for the 2-to-1 majority, concluded that the supposed burden of obtaining an ID by the less than 0.5% of all eligible voters who do not already have one did not justify a statewide injunction that prevented the state from implementing the ID requirement.

North Dakota is the only state in the Union that does not require citizens to register to vote.

You can show up on Election Day and vote in North Dakota — as long you show identification.

The state Legislature passed a series of laws delineating the forms of identification that could be used to vote.

Effective Aug. 1, 2017, North Dakota required either a driver’s license, a nondriver’s identification card issued by the state Department of Motor Vehicles, or an “official form of identification issued by a tribal government to a tribal member residing in the state.”

The law requires the ID to provide the voter’s legal name, current residential address, and date of birth.

However, if a voter’s ID is missing any of those three items, the voter will still be able to cast a ballot if he provides the missing information with a current utility bill, bank statement, paycheck, or a check or other document issued by a federal, state, or local government agency.

Voters have up to six days after the election to present an acceptable ID or supplemental documents. Despite the fact that the lower court thought this provision would not be understood by the average voter, the appeals court noted that there was “no evidence of voter confusion over this provision.”

Six members of the Turtle Mountain Band of Chippewa Indians sued, claiming that the ID requirement restricted the ability of tribal members to register and exercise their right to vote, in violation of the U.S. Constitution, state law, and Section 2 of the Voting Rights Act of 1965.

The tribal members argued that “Native Americans often live on reservations or in other rural areas where people do not have street addresses; even if they do … those addresses are frequently not included on tribal IDs. Moreover … Native Americans in North Dakota are ‘disproportionately homeless.’”

Although it should be pointed out that all six of these plaintiffs actually have residential addresses.

The majority rejected the plaintiffs’ contention that requiring voters to have a residential street address is discriminatory, citing former Associate Justice John Paul Stevens’ opinion in Crawford v. Marion County Election Board (2008), in which the Supreme Court upheld Indiana’s voter ID requirement.

A “residential street address furthers North Dakota’s legitimate interest in preventing voter fraud and safeguarding voter confidence, so unlike a poll tax, it is not invidiously ‘unrelated to voter qualifications.’”

The number of North Dakotans, just like the residents of other states, who already possess a photo ID is overwhelming. The court found that less than 0.5% of eligible voters in the state do not already have an ID or the supplemental documents that can be used to meet the ID requirement.

More importantly, the plaintiffs in the case presented no evidence whatsoever to detail how many of these “voters attempted to obtain a supplemental document and were unsuccessful.”

It was clear to the court that the state ID law did not place “a substantial burden on most North Dakota voters.” Thus, a “statewide injunction” was “unwarranted.”

The clamor around mythical claims of “voter suppression” over legislation like North Dakota’s ID requirement is misguided.

Such laws are designed and intended to shore up current deficiencies in the electoral system.

As pointed out in a recent study by the National Bureau of Economic Research, voter ID laws have no discernible effect on reducing the turnout of voters. Over the period 2008 to 2016, the researchers concluded that voter ID “laws have no negative effect on registration or turnout, overall or for any group defined by race, gender, age, or party affiliation.”

The purpose of North Dakota’s election laws is rooted in a desire to promote election integrity. Far from being a trivial concern, election fraud has been and continues to be an unfortunate part of American elections, as can be seen in The Heritage Foundation’s election fraud database.

Although election integrity measures such as voter ID requirements are often presented as a partisan issue, they should not be. Everyone has an interest in fair and secure elections.

As noted in a 2005 study by the Commission of Federal Election Reform, headed by former President Jimmy Carter and Secretary of State James Baker:

The electoral system cannot inspire public confidence if no safeguards exist to deter or detect fraud or to confirm the identity of voters. Photo IDs currently are needed to board a plane, enter federal buildings, and cash a check. Voting is equally important.  ~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/opinion/64764?mailing_id=4466&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4466&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body    

Why? Because when it comes down to making their own choices between money and morality in what is soon to become the world’s largest film market, it’s no contest. “For almost a decade Hollywood has rolled over and had its fluffy belly tickled by grim-faced CCP censors,” writes  columnist Will Lloyd, who further notes that the party has other conditions that must be met before Hollywood can cash in. “The movie must feature a certain number of Chinese actors, a certain number of Chinese locations and cannot portray China as a villain,” he adds.

It’s worse than that. At San Diego’s ComicCon convention last month, the trailer for “Top Gun: Maverick,” the sequel to the 1986 action film starring Tom Cruise, was aired, and some fans noticed the iconic leather flight jacket worn by his character in the original film had been altered. “All of the patches from the original film were there except for flags representing Chinese adversaries Japan and the Republic of China (Taiwan). Those flags were missing,” columnist John Fund reveals.

Why? “The Hollywood Reporter found that the Chinese company Tencent is co-financing the sequel,” Fund adds. “Co-producing the film along with Paramount Pictures is Skydance, which is partially owned by Tencent.”

Top Gun Marverick is hardly an outlier. “Mission: Impossible — Fallout” (2018), “Venom” (2018), “The Meg” (2018), “Pacific Rim: Uprising” (2018), “Wonder Woman” (2017), “Kung Fu Panda 3” (2016), “Miss Peregrine’s Home for Peculiar Children” (2016), “Doctor Strange” (2016), “Star Trek Beyond” (2016), “The Hunger Games Mockingjay — Part 1” (2014), “Iron Man 3” (2013), “World War Z” (2013), “Looper” (2012), “Red Dawn” (2012), and “Karate Kid” (2010) are some of other movies where Hollywood was eager to accommodate CCP “sensibilities” in a nation where the government has also decreed that a maximum of 34 American films per year can be shown on Chinese movie screens.

Examples of Hollywood’s obsequiousness abound. In “Iron Man 3,” Tony Stark’s arch-nemesis, The Mandarin, was “reconfigured” and four minutes were added to the film to make sure fans knew that Iron Man derived his power from Gu Li Duo, a milk-based drink found in Chinese convenience stores. “Karate Kid” was no longer about a Japanese karate master living in America teaching an American boy about that discipline, but rather a teacher in China teaching a teenager about the Chinese martial art of kung fu. In “World War Z,” a zombie outbreak that was to have begun in China was changed to North Korea. The same transformation took place in the 2012 remake of “Red Dawn,” where filmmakers changed the uniforms and flags of Chinese invaders to North Korean in post-production, at a price of more than $1 million. And in “Looper,” a time-traveling boss from the future tells his employee who wants to go to France he’s making a mistake. “Go to China,” the boss states. “I’m from the future. Go to China.”

“The line was inserted at the direct order of the film’s Chinese distributors,” Fund reveals.

“Wouldn’t it be powerful to see a movie about the struggles of Chinese artists, writers, and (yes) even filmmakers facing the monumental censorship machine of Communist China?” asks columnist Matt Daniels. “For all their bravado in front of captive American audiences, Hollywood shows its true colors by groveling voluntarily at the feet of the master censors in Beijing.”

Nonetheless, their ego-driven hypocrisy remains unbound. In May, Alyssa Milano and other equally zealous Hollywood elitists called for a boycott of Georgia because the state passed a restrictive abortion bill. It was their second call for such action. The first one came after Republican Brian Kemp officially won the state’s gubernatorial contest, defeating Democrat Stacey Abrams. That’s the same Stacy Abrams who has become the self-promoting, Hollywood-assisted icon for “stolen” elections arising from “racist suppression.”

How does Georgia figure into the entertainment industry? It’s the state that has earned the nickname “Hollywood of the South” because in 2017, it surpassed Hollywood and New York as the place where the most top-grossing films were made. It is also home to several television series, such as Netflix’s “Stranger Things” and “Ozark” and AMC’s “The Walking Dead.”

Why Georgia? Generous tax incentives. In other words, the same Hollywood elitists who routinely rail about the rich not paying “their fair share” have opted to abandon New York and California in favor of “Deploraville” to save themselves a buck, while denying the uber-leftist, high-tax fiefdoms of California and New York the revenue they would otherwise accrue from some of the most ardent champions of big — and expensive — government.

Even more hypocritical? The same Hollywood community that has hammered our “white supremacist” president and his “equally guilty” supporters for the carnage perpetrated in El Paso, Texas, Dayton, Ohio, and Gilroy, California, is currently “re-evaluating its strategy” regarding the release of “The Hunt,” according to Hollywood Reporter columnists Kim Masters and Tatiana Siegel.

What is “The Hunt”? “The violent, R-rated film from producer Jason Blum’s Blumhouse follows a dozen MAGA types who wake up in a clearing and realize they are being stalked for sport by elite liberals,” the duo explains.

Will Universal shelve the picture? At first, it hesitated. “Out of sensitivity to the attention on the country’s recent shooting tragedies, Universal Pictures and the filmmakers of ‘The Hunt’ have temporarily paused its marketing campaign and are reviewing materials as we move forward,” a Universal Pictures spokesperson told Fox News late Wednesday.

By Saturday — a day after President Trump rightly  condemned this Hollywood effort to “create their own violence, and then try to blame others” — Universal backed down. "We stand by our filmmakers and will continue to distribute films in partnership with bold and visionary creators, like those associated with this satirical social thriller, but we understand that now is not the right time to release this film,“ the studio said in a statement.

Not the right time to release — in America. A Hollywood picture heartily celebrating Trump Derangement Syndrome? Bet the farm it ends up released in China — where it will likely sail right past CCP censors.  

~The Patriot Post

https://patriotpost.us/articles/64769?mailing_id=4466&utm_medium=email&utm_source=pp.email.4466&utm_campaign=snapshot&utm_content=body