George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley testified at the House Judiciary impeachment hearing, and was asked about actions taken by previous Presidents. His professional opinion is that each of these would be considered an impeachable offense given the wide latitude now being considered by the current congress for this category of crime.
• Franklin Roosevelt, as president, directed the Internal Revenue Service to conduct audits of his political enemies, including Senator Huey Long and publisher William Randolph Hearst.
• Lyndon Johnson wiretapped Senator Barry Goldwater’s campaign plane during the 1964 elections.
• He also enlisted a Central Intelligence Agency operative to infiltrate Goldwater’s campaign staff.
• John Kennedy directed his brother, Attorney General Robert Kennedy, to deport one of his mistresses as an East German spy.
• Barack Obama declared the U.S. Senate to be in recess so he could make recess appointments to the National Labor Relations Board, an action the Supreme Court later overruled as unconstitutional.
• He also was party to a cover-up of information about the 2012 Benghazi attack that killed four Americans, including the U.S. Ambassador.
• Abraham Lincoln sent federal troops to Maryland to arrest pro-Confederacy legislators while they sat in session, in an effort to keep Maryland from succeeding from the Union.
In the three years since President Trump took office, the current Congress has been consumed by an effort to undo a legitimate election of the people.
In hundreds of hours of secret testimony, many written reports, and written transcripts of telephone calls, no concrete evidence has been produced which would lead to a finding that warrants impeachment.
The Ukrainian president has stated there was no pressure from President Trump in the phone call. At the time of the call, the Ukrainian government didn’t even know that aid was being withheld. How could that be construed as pressuring them for an investigation?
In the meantime, no investigation has been started regarding the actions of the younger Biden in his role with the energy company in the Ukraine, which is the incident at the core of this entire proceeding. Congress has accomplished nothing in the matter of meaningful immigration reform, correcting our health care system, passing the USMCA trade agreement, or a host of other important issues.
It’s up to us as voters next year to elect people who pledge to look after the country’s business instead of chasing ghosts.
I place much of the blame in the hands of our current media companies, as they continue to report on this story and keep it in the public view without merit.
This includes coverage of House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff’s parody of the key transcript.
Also, the up-and-coming Representative Jerry Nadler, key player in the current impeachment effort, stated in 1998 regarding impeachment of President Clinton, that “We must not do so without an overwhelming consensus of the American people and of their representatives in Congress.”
There are no Republicans supporting this current effort to impeach President Trump, and there are at least two Democrats who have spoken against it. What has changed since 1998? Just the party affiliation of the sitting President.
On a different note, but along the same vein as media looking at both sides of an issue, consider these two incidents from university press houses. These are supposed to be the institutions that are building our future leaders.
At Harvard, the student government association passed a resolution condemning the school newspaper because one of the reporters contacted U.S. Immigration and Customs Enforcement to ask for a comment on a story they were writing.
The paper didn’t even go so far as to endorse ICE, and in fact no one from ICE responded to the request, but the student government felt even just reaching out for a comment was too excessive and threatened the safety of students on campus.
The student newspaper at Northwestern apologized for covering a campus event where Jeff Sessions, former Attorney General, spoke. Really? Shouldn’t the newspaper be reporting on what he had to say so students can form their own opinions?
What happens when these college students become the new political leaders and journalists in our land? If free speech is only that speech with which you agree, there will be no civil discussion left and no dissent allowed for whatever course the majority party chooses to take.
That’s not the principle this country was founded on. In Philadelphia in 1776, they argued about whether the turkey or the eagle should be the nation’s symbol, but they were still able to reconcile their differences and declare themselves independent of the strongest empire on earth at the time.
We need to demand that our media sources report on the news, not the wants of a select group of people, and that both sides of stories be investigated and told. In the meantime, don’t let yourself be taken in by just one source. Make the effort to educate yourself not only on what you think, but alsocon what the other side thinks, so that you can make an informed decision next year.