Header Ads

ad

Georgetown Law Professor Stomps...

February 03, 2020

Georgetown Law Professor Stomps All Over, Jumps Up and Down on, Then Sets Fire to the House Democrats' Narrative

Georgetown Law Professor Stomps All Over, Jumps Up and Down on, Then Sets Fire to the House Democrats' Narrative
House Intelligence Committee Chairman, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., speaks before Acting Director of National Intelligence Joseph Maguire testifies before the House Intelligence Committee on Capitol Hill in Washington, Thursday, Sept. 26, 2019. (AP Photo/Pablo Martinez Monsivais)

In the following tweet thread, Georgetown Law School Professor Randy Barnett expertly identifies the House Democrats’ hypocrisy and profound dishonesty, destroying their entire case.

Barnett writes that the Senate gave the Articles of Impeachment all the respect they deserved.

He points out that “criticizing Senators for rejecting the *substance* of the House case is entirely different than criticizing them for not allowing the House to correct any deficits in their case in the Senate.” They brought an incomplete case to the Senate and it’s not the Senate’s role to finish it. They are tasked with reviewing the evidence gathered by the House and making a judgment on whether or not to remove the President.

“Based on what I’ve seen with my own eyes these last few years, I am convinced the USA would be very well served to intensely review every single case Adam Schiff has EVER prosecuted.” I agree 100%. The Senate Committee Chairmen, surely including Lindsey Graham who chairs the Senate Judiciary Committee, must investigate the origins of the whistleblower’s complaint and Schiff’s level of involvement. Did he orchestrate the whole scheme? If it’s proven that Schiff coordinated with the whistleblower to create a case of impeachment against the President, I would go so far as to say that he belongs in jail. He has not only distracted the country, he has created further division between Americans.

I find Schiff to be such a malevolent, dishonest figure. Although Schiff arrived in Washington in January 2001, it wasn’t until the 2016 Democratic National Convention that he first became nationally known. Following Wikileaks’ release of a trove of DNC emails, Schiff seized the opportunity to become the Democrats’ go-to person on all things having to do with Russian collusion. Although he briefly let go of the fight (at least he appeared to publicly) after the Mueller report failed to deliver, it wasn’t long before he found another hoax to cling to.

Barnett seems pretty convinced the House will continue their crusade to remove the President, but reminds them that “even a majority in the House of Representatives is not above the law.”

Read the thread.



Spare me the lamentations of those who remained silent when the House Intel committee conducted secret one-sided impeachment proceedings unauthorized by House resolution, without counsel for the President, etc*, because the Senate will decide on the basis of this record evidence.
“*Etc. covers a wide range of due process deficits, including the inability to call witnesses and cross examine others–both being fundamental to due process. I won’t bother to list more. Anyone who cares already knows; anyone who doesn’t know, won’t care about a new list.

The impeachment process in the House was, quite obviously, designed to reach a pre-ordained result. This fact is blinked by those who are now rending their garments about the supposed failure to give *the House* “due process” in the Senate.

The due process of law is for everyone but, first and foremost, it is for the accused. “Not so,” we were instructed back then. What the House Democrats lacked in a basic sense of fairness in their proceedings, they have now made up for with chutzpah in these.

This is not whataboutism. This is about the Senate giving the Articles of Impeachment all the respect they are due based on how they were generated. The best way to do that is to judge the case on the basis of the record the House thought sufficient to bring charges to the Senate.

Criticizing Senators for rejecting the *substance* of the House case is entirely different than criticizing them for not allowing the House to correct any deficits in their case in the Senate–with all the serious ancillary consequences of such an attempt.

These consequences include the incentive it would create for the House’s abuse of its impeachment powers in the future. If House Democrats want to continue with impeachment–as they likely do–let them do it right next time.

Due process is not just a good idea, it’s the law. And even a majority in the House of Representatives is not above the law. True, the due process violations of the House are not justiciable by the courts. But these due process violations are fairly justiciable by the Senate.

Don’t start me on the analogy to a grand jury. A grand jury is administered by a judge, not the prosecutor; it’s proceedings are kept secret to protect the accused; and a transcript of it’s entire proceedings is made available to the defense. The House flunks even this ? analogy.

Of course, the modern grand jury has long been criticized for being too subservient to prosecutors. Most jurisdictions–like Cook County where I prosecuted–have supplanted it with preliminary hearings with a judge, rules of evidence, witnesses, counsels, & cross examination.

Progressives: House impeachment: No due process because “grand jury” Kavanaugh: No due process because “job interview” Title IX students: No due orocess because not “criminal” House managers: Due process for US!! Progressives: Due Process for Me, but Not for Thee.

Based on what I’ve seen with my own eyes these last few years, I am convinced the USA would be very well served to intensely review every single case Adam Schiff has EVER prosecuted.”

Bravo, Professor Barnett!


Post a Comment