Connect with us

News

Time to Impeach Biden Using the Democrats’ Own Standards

After ignoring the SCOTUS eviction moratorium decision, can Biden be impeached based on Dems broad Abuse of Power definition written to impeach Trump

Published

on

This week President Biden’s CDC extended the eviction moratorium despite the fact that the Supreme Court ruled that the executive branch did not have the power to make that decision. In fact, even Biden recognized that his action was probably unconstitutional.

The first thing that pops up in my mind when realizing that Biden is disregarding a Supreme Court ruling is impeachment. After all, the court ruled that an eviction moratorium could only be made by Congress. On the other hand, Biden would never be impeached by his own party, and even if they would do it—America has to be sick and tired of impeachment (I know I am), especially after the two nonsensical impeachments of Donald Trump. The Trump impeachments had nothing to do with “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and everything to do with partisan politics.

There used to be a saying “every little boy can become president.” With the Trump impeachments, the Democrats changed that to “every president can be impeached.” But it wasn’t meant to be that way.

No one knows more about the Trump impeachments than my friend Fred Lucas. His page-turning tome “Abuse of Power: The Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump” explains, his quest to impeach Trump began neither with a Capitol Hill riot nor a Ukraine phone call. While pondering the question of Impeachment I asked Fred if he could provide another excerpt from his book that would explain how the Democrats made impeachment almost meaningless. That excerpt follows below:

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

By Fred Lucas

(Note: the e-book version of “Abuse of Power” is available now for a $2.99 limited time offer)

The House majority, along party lines, finally settled on two articles of impeachment: Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress.

The Abuse of Power article was designed to be easy to understand but broad enough to not have to define. The second is because the White House didn’t cooperate with the impeachment investigation. However, the dispute was never litigated.

If a Republican House had been inclined, it could have impeached President Barack Obama for Abuse of Power for taking unilateral executive action on immigration and even boasting about having a “pen and a phone” in lieu of congressional action. The House could have impeached him for Obstruction of Congress for declaring executive privilege to shield records from Congress during the investigation of the Justice Department’s botched Fast and Furious gun-running operation. That’s not what-about-ism. It’s simply stating what the new House standard would mean if retroactively applied.

During the impeachment hearing [the first one impeachment] in the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Ken Buck, R-Colo., asked if any president short of William Henry Harrison—who died thirty-two days into his term—would escape the broad definition of abuses of power Democrats were trying to apply to Trump.

Buck noted that Abraham Lincoln took extraordinary measures during the Civil War. Franklin Roosevelt directed the IRS to conduct audits of his political enemies, including Huey Long, William Randolph Hearst, Hamilton Fish, and Father Charles Coughlin. John F. Kennedy directed his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, to deport one of the president’s mistresses by claiming she was an East German spy.

JFK further directed the FBI to use wiretaps on congressional staffers who opposed him politically, Buck added. Then, JFK’s successor Lyndon Johnson directed the CIA to place a spy in Republican opponent Barry Goldwater’s campaign, get advanced copies of speeches that were delivered to the Goldwater campaign, and wiretap the Goldwater’s campaign plane.

Buck also addressed the Supreme Court’s 9–0 ruling that Obama bypassed the Senate by recess-appointing members to the National Labor Relations Board when the Senate was still in session. While the NLRB matter seems less than scandalous, it’s a solid parallel to the Trump impeachment article for obstruction of Congress, but only if Congress had decided to impeach before the courts had a chance to rule.

What these weak and vague impeachment articles against Trump say about past presidents is far less important than what it says about future presidents. Despite being disposed of in the Senate, the House set a new broad and vague precedent that will likely turn impeachment into a regular political football game every time the House and the presidency are controlled by different parties.

Or like I said every president can be impeached (but Fred said it better).

Jeff Note: Regular readers know that The Lid has previously featured segments of Fred Lucas’s Books. Fred is a veteran White House correspondent who has reported for The Daily Signal, FoxNews.com, National Review, Newsmax, Townhall, and other outlets. Having read “Abuse of Power: Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump,” I can vouch for the fact that it’s a page-turner. Sara Carter described it as “A devastating and comprehensive takedown of Trump’s impeachment, and a thoughtful look at the historical context of past impeachments, with strong reporting and research to combat the Left’s inevitable rewrite of history.” If you haven’t read the book yet, I urge you to take advantage of this special offer. The Abuse of Power” e-book version is available for just $2.99 limited-time basis.

Get your copy today:

Adam Schiff’s imperfect call

News

Donald Trump Gets Bad News from SCOTUS Regarding January 6th

The Democrats just gained a whole lot of 2022 and 2024 ammunition.

Published

on

In their pursuit of political points, the January 6th committee has exuded a nonstop barrage of actions taken at the expense of former President Donald Trump, generally believed to be in the interest of stymying his plans for the 2024 presidential election.

Their attacks have fairly transparent of late, subpoenaing anyone and everyone who had contact with the former President in and around the date in question, and even some who had nothing to do with the attack on the Capitol at all.

This week, the group scored a rather major win in the Supreme Court, which will allow them access to a trove of documents from the Trump White House.

The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a blow to former President Donald Trump, rejecting his request to block release of White House records being sought by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

The court’s order paves the way for the release of records from the National Archives. The records could shed light on the events that led to the riot by Trump supporters protesting the results of the 2020 presidential election, which was won by Democrat Joe Biden.

In its decision Wednesday, the Supreme Court noted that the question of whether a former president can claim executive privilege need not be answered in this case, because a lower court had already decided.

And they didn’t beat around the bush.

“Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision,” the court said in its order.

There is little doubt that this access will only cause the scope of the already-controversial investigation to widen, and allow the Democrats a plethora of new angles from which to launch their politically-focused onslaught.

In their pursuit of political points, the January 6th committee has exuded a nonstop barrage of actions taken at the expense of former President Donald Trump, generally believed to be in the interest of stymying his plans for the 2024 presidential election. Their attacks have fairly transparent of late, subpoenaing anyone and everyone who had contact with the former President in and around the date in question, and even some who had nothing to do with the attack on the Capitol at all. This week, the group scored a rather major win in the Supreme Court, which will allow them access to a trove of documents from the Trump White House. The U.S. Supreme Court has delivered a blow to former President Donald Trump, rejecting his request to block release of White House records being sought by the House select committee investigating the Jan. 6 attack on the U.S. Capitol. The court’s order paves the way for the release of records from the National Archives. The records could shed light on the events that led to the riot by Trump supporters protesting the results of the 2020 presidential election, which was won by Democrat Joe Biden. In its decision Wednesday, the Supreme Court noted that the question of whether a former president can claim executive privilege need not be answered in this case, because a lower court had already decided. And they didn’t beat around the bush. “Because the Court of Appeals concluded that President Trump’s claims would have failed even if he were the incumbent, his status as a former President necessarily made no difference to the court’s decision,” the court said in its order. There is little doubt that this access will only cause the scope of the already-controversial investigation to widen, and allow the Democrats a plethora…

Continue Reading

News

PUTIN POKES THE BEAR: Russian Troops Move Toward Ukraine as World Warns

There may be no peaceful end to this situation.

Published

on

While it has long been understood that Vladimir Putin is a figure representing chaos on the world’s stage, (whether covertly or proudly), the sort of trouble that he’s stirring up this week won’t likely have a peaceful end.

Putin appears hellbent on finding a way and a reason to take Ukraine back under Russian control.  The tiny nation, rich in natural gas and other resources, is far too minuscule to put up a fight, and so it will be up to the rest of the world to deter the Kremlin.

And despite a number of unmistakable warnings, Putin appears unfazed.

Russia is a sending an unspecified number of troops from the country’s far east to Belarus for major war games, officials said Tuesday, a deployment that will further beef up Russian military presence near Ukraine amid Western fears of a planned invasion.

take our poll - story continues below

Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?

  • Did SCOTUS make the right decision on medical mandates for large businesses?  

  • This field is for validation purposes and should be left unchanged.
Completing this poll grants you access to Flag And Cross updates free of charge. You may opt out at anytime. You also agree to this site's Privacy Policy and Terms of Use.

Amid the soaring tensions, the White House warned that Russia could attack its neighbor at “any point,” while the U.K. delivered a batch of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine.

Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin said the joint drills with Belarus would involve practicing a joint response to external threats.

Ukrainian officials have warned that Russia could launch an attack on Ukraine from several directions, including from its ally Belarus.

As for any attempts to stop the Russian invasion?  They were squashed when a well-known Putin mouthpiece announced on television that any push to keep Putin from getting what he wants could end in the opposition being turned into “radioactive dust”.

 

While it has long been understood that Vladimir Putin is a figure representing chaos on the world’s stage, (whether covertly or proudly), the sort of trouble that he’s stirring up this week won’t likely have a peaceful end. Putin appears hellbent on finding a way and a reason to take Ukraine back under Russian control.  The tiny nation, rich in natural gas and other resources, is far too minuscule to put up a fight, and so it will be up to the rest of the world to deter the Kremlin. And despite a number of unmistakable warnings, Putin appears unfazed. Russia is a sending an unspecified number of troops from the country’s far east to Belarus for major war games, officials said Tuesday, a deployment that will further beef up Russian military presence near Ukraine amid Western fears of a planned invasion. Amid the soaring tensions, the White House warned that Russia could attack its neighbor at “any point,” while the U.K. delivered a batch of anti-tank weapons to Ukraine. Russia’s Deputy Defense Minister Alexander Fomin said the joint drills with Belarus would involve practicing a joint response to external threats. Ukrainian officials have warned that Russia could launch an attack on Ukraine from several directions, including from its ally Belarus. As for any attempts to stop the Russian invasion?  They were squashed when a well-known Putin mouthpiece announced on television that any push to keep Putin from getting what he wants could end in the opposition being turned into “radioactive dust”.  

Continue Reading
The Schaftlein Report

Latest Articles

Best of the Week