in ,

DEMS & their media puppets, having hard time keeping Ukraine hoax believable (Video)

The Duran’s Alex Christoforou and Editor-in-Chief Alexander Mercouris discuss the Ukrainegate hoax narrative, that is so ridiculous and stupid, that even the Democrats’ mainstream media mouthpieces are having a hard time keeping the impeachment story somewhat believable.

Remember to Please Subscribe to The Duran’s YouTube Channel.

Follow The Duran Audio Podcast on Soundcloud.

Authored by Andrew McCarthy, op-ed via The Hill:

There is no impeachment inquiry. There are no subpoenas.

You are not to be faulted if you think a formal inquest is under way and that legal process has been issued. The misimpression is completely understandable if you have been taking in media coverage — in particular, reporting on a haughty Sept. 27 letter from House Democrats, presuming to direct Secretary of State Mike Pompeo, on pain of citation for obstruction, to cooperate in their demands to depose State Department officials and review various records.

The letter is signed by not one but three committee chairmen. Remember your elementary math, though: Zero is still zero even when multiplied by three.

What is portrayed as an “impeachment inquiry” is actually just a made-for-cable-TV political soap opera. The House of Representatives is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. To the contrary, congressional Democrats are conducting the 2020 political campaign.

The House has not voted as a body to authorize an impeachment inquiry. What we have are partisan theatrics, proceeding under the ipse dixit of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). It raises the profile, but not the legitimacy, of the same “impeachment inquiry” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) previously tried to abracadabra into being without a committee vote.

Moreover, there are no subpoenas. As Secretary Pompeo observed in his fittingly tart response on Tuesday, what the committee chairmen issued was merely a letter. Its huffing and puffing notwithstanding, the letter is nothing more than an informal request for voluntary cooperation. Legally, it has no compulsive power. If anything, it is rife with legal deficiencies.

The Democrats, of course, hope you don’t notice that the House is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. They are using the guise of frenetic activity by several standing committees — Intelligence, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, Oversight and Reform, Financial Services, and Ways and Means — whose normal oversight functions are being gussied up to look like serious impeachment business.

But standing committees do have subpoena power, so why not use it? Well, because subpoenas get litigated in court when the people or agencies on the receiving end object. Democrats want to have an impeachment show — um, inquiry — on television; they do not want to defend its bona fides in court.

They certainly do not want to defend their letter. The Democrats’ media scribes note the chairmen’s admonition that any failure by Pompeo to comply “shall constitute evidence of obstruction of the House’s impeachment inquiry.” What a crock.

In criminal proceedings, prosecutors demand information all the time and witnesses often resist — just as congressional Democrats encouraged the Justice Department and FBI to resist when Republican-controlled committees were trying to investigate such matters as Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act abuse. Presumptively, resisting an information request is not evidence of obstruction. It is evidence that the recipient of the demand believes he or she has a legal privilege that excuses compliance. The recipient can be wrong about that without being guilty of obstruction.

Congressional Democrats know this, of course — many of them are lawyers. They are issuing partisan letters that pose legally offensive threats, rather than subpoenas, because this is a show, not an impeachment inquiry. Subpoenas don’t require chest-beating about obstruction. Everyone knows they are compulsory, but everyone also knows they may be challenged in court. Such challenges take time, though, and Democrats are in a hurry to close this show after a short run.

To be sure, the Constitution vests the House alone with the power of impeachment (as opposed to impeachment trials, which are the sole responsibility of the Senate). The judiciary has no authority to tell the House how to conduct impeachment proceedings. And the House is a “majority rules” institution, so if Speaker Pelosi and her partisans want to ipse dixit their way to impeachment articles, no one can stop them.

That said, the courts maintain their authority to protect the legal rights of persons and institutions ensnared in kangaroo tribunals. The fact that House Democrats invite you to their circus does not require you to beclown yourself.

Any competent court asked to evaluate a demand for information under the rubric of impeachment will observe that the process has a history. When the Framers debated whether to include an impeachment clause in the Constitution, they had serious concerns. They were designing a separation-of-powers system that endowed the coordinate branches with checks and balances to police each other. They understood that impeachment authority was necessary, but feared it would give the legislature too much power over the executive.

They also worried that impeachment could be politicized. If it were too easy to do procedurally, or it could be resorted to for trifling acts of maladministration, factions opposed to the president would be tempted to try to overturn elections and grind the government to a halt.

To address these concerns, the Framers adopted a burdensome standard — high crimes and misdemeanors (in addition to treason and bribery) — that would restrict impeachable offenses to truly egregious abuses of power. Then they erected an even higher bar: a two-thirds supermajority requirement for conviction in the Senate.

All this was to ensure that the electoral will of the people must never be overturned in the absence of misconduct so severe that it results in a broad consensus that the nation’s well-being requires removing the president from power.

Although the House has the raw power to file articles of impeachment based on frivolous allegations and minor abuses, the Senate supermajority requirement for removal is designed to have a sobering effect on the lower chamber. Impeachment should not be sought out of partisanship. There must be misconduct that would convince objective Americans, regardless of their politics, that the president must be ousted — not merely criticized or censured, but stripped of authority.

In defending against any congressional demand for information, the president has various privileges against disclosure. Executive components such as the State Department are also repositories of highly sensitive information involving national security and foreign relations — conduct of the latter being a nearly plenary executive authority. The judiciary is generally deferential toward the executive’s claims of privilege. But Congress is given wider latitude to probe in a real impeachment inquiry. When the House, as an institution, endorses such an inquiry in a formal vote, the courts must presume the inquiry is based on a reasonable suspicion of grievous misconduct.

By contrast, any reasonable judge asked to weigh the demands for information presented to Pompeo would not give them the time of day. They do not reflect the judgment of the House. They are reflective, instead, of partisan House leadership that realizes it does not have impeachable offenses — so much so that Pelosi & Co. fear the wrath of voters if Democrats in districts friendly to President Trump are put to the test of voting to authorize a formal impeachment inquiry.

Every presidential impeachment inquiry, from Andrew Johnson through Bill Clinton, has been the subject of bipartisan consultation and debate. The House has recognized that its legitimacy, and the legitimacy of its most solemn actions, must be based on the consideration of the whole body, not the diktat of a few partisan bosses.

Not this one. This one is a misadventure in exactly the bare-knuckles partisanship the Framers feared. To be sure, no one has the power to prevent willful House leadership from misbehaving this way. But we’re not required to pretend the charade is real.

Democrats are mulishly determined to ram through an article of impeachment or two, regardless of whether the State Department and other agencies cooperate in the farce. Their base wants the scarlet-letter “I” attached to Trump. The party hopes to rally the troops for the 2020 campaign against Trump (although smarter Democrats know it could boomerang on them).

If Democrats truly thought they had a case, they wouldn’t be in such a rush — they’d want everyone to have time to study it. But they don’t have a case, so instead they’re giving us a show.


Former federal prosecutor Andrew C. McCarthy is a senior fellow at National Review Institute, a contributing editor at National Review, and a Fox News contributor. His latest book is “Ball of Collusion.” Follow him on Twitter @AndrewCMcCarthy.

Liked it? Take a second to support The Duran on Patreon!

Report

What do you think?

22
Leave a Reply

avatar
9 Comment threads
13 Thread replies
1 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
11 Comment authors
Monte George Jr.ThraxitepogohereSmoking EagleGuy Recent comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
cudwieser
Guest
cudwieser

I’m getting more and more perplexed. For sanity and clarity tell me why so many are genuinely taken in by such drivel like the Ukraine hoax. Why is Russia such an easy bogieman. Russia is corrupt, duplicitous and has its skeletons in the Volga, but…America is just as bad and yet here we are in the self belief that what Trump says is true, the Dem’s are beyond reproach and Russia and China are inherently evil. Do we need to challenge Russia, China and Iran. Of course, but we must challenge our own first Let they without sin cast the… Read more »

The Odessa Massacre
Guest
The Odessa Massacre

Never forgive, never forget. That was more than enough for me to establish good vs. evil. Everything else is shades of gray and secondary.

AM Hants
Member
AM Hants

Will never forget 2 May 2014, watching the young kids, set on fire, jumping from the building, and being beaten as they fell to the ground. Accelerants used, on the young kids, courtesy of the mob our Governments happily supported. Merkel and Obama, standing in the Rose Garden of the White House, moaning, whinging and whinging about Russia.

Funny, how they are trying similar in Hong Kong, financed by the same crowd, who tried to set fire to the Hong Kong Police Officer.

Guy
Member
Guy

They keep using the same tactics and it is getting old already .China seems to be handling it properly at least given the circumstances , by not falling into the trap .So far they have not used the army and if they do ,will wait until the right time of their choosing .The dragon is patient .

Tjoe
Guest
Tjoe

Ukraine is not a “hoax” it was a coup. Gloria said it cost the US $5 billion. Here is the part you don’t seem to know….the man that was in charge of prosecuting corruption had a full investigation complete and prosecution developed but was told to back off. He refused and was fired (made to resign). He made testimony as to what occurred if you look up “Shokin Statement” that describes what occurred completely and under oath for an Austrian court. It vindicates Trump….totally. Chew on that Statement for a while.

Guy
Member
Guy

Thank you so much for the link .I had not heard that the general Prosecutor Shokin had made such a statement .Sure puts everything out in the open doesn’t it .So many deserve to be behind bars .Where are they going to put them all ?The jails are so full already .

AM Hants
Member
AM Hants

I would trust President Putin, over any leader. Every nation has their problems, but, at least with President Putin, he slung out the oligarchs that could not be loyal to Russia and sent them to live in exile. Funny, how the same oligarchs, exiled from Russia, are still causing problems.

Thraxite
Member
Thraxite

“Do we need to challenge Russia, China and Iran”

Unless we live there, why do we need to challenge them? What business is it of yours (or mine) what they do in their own countries?
Disagree with you there, but I can’t argue with your gist.

Marcus
Guest
Marcus

From the historic view, I would say that Russiagate was/is a tragedy. Not only for America and Russia but because of the “paths not taken” for the whole world. Ukrainegate is just another chapter in “The Decline and Fall of the American Empire”. The last chapter on this is still not written but I fear it will be a sad chapter. I fully agree that this Democratic leadership ……… I am at a loss for words to describe their stupidity and viciousness. Where are the adults and realists in the American governing elites? Sadly, you have to ask this of… Read more »

cudwieser
Guest
cudwieser

I’m being a little pedantic, but they are Democrats in name only. They are not Democratic. Their party name is a misnomer, something evident throughout political history the world over. As for Trump, he has been the right man at the right time. He is polarizing and has been the wedge we need to rock the poor foundations. Alas we are facing a very rocky future, but if the foundations of old persisted we’d be in greater trouble down the road. Now more than ever the good are getting a chance to rise imo.

Marcus
Guest
Marcus

I just throw up my hands about this Democratic establishment. The only way I can see them becoming relevant is if they have “a come to Jesus moment” and nominate Tulsi as their candidate. Even then I would have I would be somewhat skeptical, but it would be a good start. As for Trump, yes he was unimaginably better than the alternative. And I guess you can say his lack of knowledge (God, I’m charitable here) gave him the delusion that it would be simple to “turn this rig around”. This polarizing is also coming with a frightening escalation feedback… Read more »

Smoking Eagle
Guest
Smoking Eagle

You’d think that a government of such a rich and powerful country would want to present itself to the world in a dignified manner, and one that supports everything it professes to be with respect to democracy. Instead of that it comes across as completely deranged and untrustworthy as well as childish and imbecilic, bullying, laughable, and dangerously out of control. Yes, as far as hoping that the US can somehow right itself goes, you are probably dreaming in technicolour. Its shenanigans of the past 243 years of its history haven’t really changed all that much. The difference between then… Read more »

Guy
Member
Guy

Well said and we have our own deep state up here in Canada .Same roots though.

Legal Beagle
Guest
Legal Beagle

An excellent forensic autopsy of the entire affair.

Michael R. Roberts
Guest
Michael R. Roberts

It is true the 2020 Republican campaign had not begun before the Pelosi announcement of the impeachment inquiry. However, Trump ran a TV ad this morning Sunday Oct 6, 2019 (less than a week after the announcement) during Meet the Press (CBS, hosted by Chuck Todd, notorious for its pro-liberal bias). The ad showed the video of Biden speaking at the CFR threatening to withhold $1B in aid to Ukraine unless Ukraine fired the prosecutor investigating Burisma, the company paying Biden’s son (about $50K/mo) as a board member. The ad ended with Trump stating he approved this message. Aside from… Read more »

AM Hants
Member
AM Hants

Biden has been on tape, bragging about it and not forgetting he covered it in his biography. Weird how the MSM, have no problems with Biden being on the take in Ukraine, whilst Vice President of the US.

Tjoe
Guest
Tjoe

The China disclosures should really get things interesting for the Biden’s. I’m all for Trump leveraging China relations with turning over wrongdoing evidence of US public officials at all levels going WAY back. Here is the thing…Joe Biden is not just a candidate that has no history with government, he was a public official…an office holder. He held important office and every bit of his work should be out in the open. Joe was not only privy to what Hunter was doing, attempting to play a role as a legitimate board member, but he would have master-minded the scheme to… Read more »

Monte George Jr.
Guest
Monte George Jr.

“now if he just realizes…”

He realizes. Trump was one of the first public figures to speculate openly that the towers were subjected to controlled demolition.

AM Hants
Member
AM Hants

What confuses me, is where does the Logan Act come into it all and why do they ignore the Logan Act?

Plus, how many of the Dems have interests in the Ukraine Energy Industry, including Pelosi, Biden, Kerry, Schiff, McCain and looks like even Trump’s Energy Secretary, judging by his defence of Ukraine.

How can you impeach a President, on hearsay charges and completely excluding all opposition from the action?

Guy
Member
Guy

That the Democrats can actually pull off this impeachment procedure on fabricated evidence lead us to believe that the US political system is completely broken .God help them all as the swamp is too full to drain and they will just have to live with the smell.

pogohere
Guest
pogohere

“The House of Representatives is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry.

The House has not voted as a body to authorize an impeachment inquiry.”

The Truman Show is off and running.

Thraxite
Member
Thraxite

I’m pretty sure that Pelosi didn’t just jump on board the impeachment train. I think her donors told her to. Nancy will do whatever the money tells her to do. When you see how politics are run in the US and UK, does anyone think that the whole of history is now suspect? After all, look at all the fake media we get today, that can only be exposed due to the internet and immediate research being available. The fact that these US politicians are all octogenarians (or nearly) and are too old to truly understand the “age of communication”… Read more »

CJ Hopkins: Trumpenstein Must Be Destroyed!

Can Holy Synod vote fairly under pressure from Constantinople?