Leo Conti: Three Thoughts on Trump’s Second Impeachment.
27 Gennaio 2021
Dear friends and enemies of Stilum Curiae, Dr. Leo Conti sent us this reflection on the impeachment proposed by the Democrats against Donald Trump. Enjoy reading.
THREE THOUGHTS ON TRUMP’S SECOND IMPEACHMENT
(Dr. Leo Conti – Washington DC)
The new Congress has taken off on the same tune that the previous one sang, namely a farce organized by the Democrats who control it (by a slim majority). As obedient soldiers (but aren’t progressives, unlike us, those who think with their own heads?!), all Democrats without exception voted for impeachment in the House of Representatives, while, among Republicans, ten followed them sheepishly, and all the others voted against. This second impeachment-charade (which has now moved to the Senate) marks a new record for Trump and, indirectly, renders him honor in that, if he were not the statesman of stature he has proven to be, he would not be the fixation that he has been for Democrats ever since he decided to run for the presidency five years ago. Three quick reflections on this second impeachment come to mind spontaneously:
- In the articles of impeachment, Trump was charged with “incitement to violence” (and even to “insurrection” – please, give me a break!). Now, which of these three sentences, in your view, amounts to incitement to violence, according to common sense?
- “We have come to demand that Congress do the right thing and only count the electors who have been lawfully slated, lawfully slated. I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard… if you don’t fight like hell, you’re not going to have a country anymore”.
- “They asked me would I like to debate this gentleman, and I said no. I said, ‘If we were in high school, I’d take him behind the gym and beat the hell out of him’”.
- “But they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop. They’re not. This is a movement. I’m telling you. They’re not going to stop, and everyone, beware. Because they’re not going to stop. They’re not going to stop before election day in November, and they are not going to stop after election day. And everyone should take note of that on both levels. That they’re not going to let up. And they should not, and we should not”.
The first sentence was pronounced by President Trump at the enthusiastic and peaceful rally that took place on the Mall on January 6, against the scandalous election “irregularities” (to use an understatement). Whenever huge numbers of people gather in downtown DC for demonstration, participants listen to the speakers and then march from the Mall to the Capitol or the Supreme Court to make their voice heard, as an expression of their constitutionally protected rights of freedom of opinion and speech. On January 6, before the dreadful events at the Capitol, nothing different had taken place from the hundreds of peaceful rallies led by Trump, at which the only instances of commotion, if any, had been instigated by anti-Trump provocateurs. After the Capitol events, it came out that the secret services had heard about possible disorders well ahead of Trump’s rally (hence his words could not have triggered what happened at the Capitol).
The third sentence belongs to Harris, as a comment on the violence that forced quite a number of American cities to their knees, under the ideological pretext of “systemic racism”. With a view to justifying Harris’s comment, as was to be expected, some observers engaged in acrobatic turns and tried to distinguish between “protests” and “violence”.But this was to no avail: protests were supposed to be violent, as their victims (many of whom belong to minorities) know too well.
To sum up, if the whole impeachment exercise were serious and not a pathetic comedy, who should be subject to impeachment for having incited violence? Trump or, much more plausibly, Biden and Harris?
- Jeffrey Scott Shapiro, who is an expert on incitement to violence and riots, has analyzed the facts and the applicable law. He concluded that President Trump “didn’t mention violence on [January 6], much less provoke or incite it”. And here we reach the crux of the matter. In this macabre charade (macabre on account of its sad consequences for the American democracy, but still a charade because the accusation is laughable), do the facts and the law really count for those who have masterminded this second impeachment? Not at all!
Almost a hundred years ago, after the Communist revolution in Russia, Andrei Vyshinsky, Stalin’s ruthless prosecutor-general who presided over the infamous Moscow show trials of the 1930s that got rid of Stalin’s competitors one by one, defined law as a body of rules of conduct “expressing the will of the ruling class”, the application of which is secured by the coercive force of the state “for the protection, consolidation, and development of the social relations and the public order, beneficial and desirable for the ruling class”. In other words, according to this vision, law is not an instrument of justice that protects all, but an arbitrary imposition at the service of the ruling class. But the analogies with our degenerate times do not end here. In his Red Book on those show trials, Lev Sedov, who was Trotsky’s son and who, like his father, was violently eliminated (a prayer for his poor soul), identified the motivation for those trials in (a) Stalin’s powerful bureaucratic apparatus, (b) the political annihilation of Stalin’s opposition, (c) the search for new international relations, and (d) Stalin’s insatiable search for revenge.
It goes without saying that any comparison with the tragic dimension of Stalin’s trials would be out of place here. It remains true, however, that today too, in the United States, the worrisome signals are those of a powerful anti-Trump bureaucracy (the deep state), Democrats’ determination to get rid of opposition, new international relations (based, not on what is in the interest of the American people, but on what powerful groups want), and unrelenting hatred against Trump and conservatives (including proscription lists, political firings, restrictions on their freedom of communication). Has the time arrived, in the United States, to refresh our familiarity with Soviet theories and practices, which we hoped had long been buried?!
- The American constitution reserves to the House the power of impeachment, and to the Senate the prerogative to assess the allegations and, possibly, remove the impeached person from office, as a result of a qualified majority vote. Now, here is the problem: the procedure aims at removing a sitting president, not to take revenge against a former president. Two authorities of the caliber of Judge Luttig and Professor Dershowitz have clearly expressed what should be obvious to anyone caring to read the clear letter of the constitution: the Senate cannot take action against a president who has already left the White House.
All of this holds true if the constitution still counts for something. But if the constitution is trampled under foot (as was shown when ignoring the constitutional attribution of the setting of electoral rules to the legislature), everything becomes possible, including (as Senator Graham objected) the impeachment of… long-dead George Washington. (In the history of judicial process, there have been famous precedents for sitting in judgment of a corpse!) In the meantime, only five Republican senators out of 50 sided with Democrats in rejecting a motion that the impeachment trial is unconstitutional. This already signals that 45 Republican senators are likely to vote against conviction, with the consequence that it is highly improbable the required two-third majority for conviction will be reached. As Senator Rand Paul remarked, this impeachment is “dead on arrival”. The Senate phase will open on February 8, but Chief Justice Roberts, who constitutionally presides over an impeachment trial against a sitting president will not preside over this farce. His place will be taken by Democrat Senator Leahy from Vermont, who is Senate president pro tempore, and who will therefore be judge and (member of the) jury, which is not exactly consistent with the revered American tradition of fair trial.
To sum up, Democrats have once again produced a fake impeachment that says nothing about Trump and the events that led to this comedy, but says a lot about their revolutionary concept of the law, according to which law is an expedient among others to conquer power, exercise it, and try to get rid of a dangerous opponent. The references above to the Soviet Union show that even a time-tested democracy as the United States is not immune from the risk to move from freedom to tyranny. This is therefore not the time for timidity but the time for being firm in invoking the constitution and being courageous in defending it peacefully.
 The text of the articles of this second impeachment is at https://www.congress.gov/117/bills/hres24/BILLS-117hres24ih.pdf. For the vote at the House, see https://clerk.house.gov/Votes/202117.
 The transcript of the speech is at https://www.rev.com/blog/transcripts/donald-trump-speech-save-america-rally-transcript-january-6.
 See the interview (starting from minute 5:33) at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NTg1ynIPGls.
 For example, https://www.reuters.com/article/uk-factcheck-kamala-harris-late-show-rio/fact-check-kamala-harris-said-she-supports-protests-not-riots-in-late-show-clip-idUSKBN27E34P. Harris played an important role in promoting a bail fund for (so-called) “protesters”: https://www.foxnews.com/politics/bail-fund-backed-by-kamala-harris-and-biden-staffers-bailed-out-alleged-child-abuser.
 According to the official report, Lev Sedov (1906-1938) died in Paris as a result of “post-surgery complications”. It later emerged that, apparently, the director of the clinic where he died was a Soviet agent, and that the clinic itself had been purchased with Soviet funds.
 The Red Book on the Moscow Trials (1936), chapter headed “Why Did Stalin Need This Trial?”, at https://www.marxists.org/history/etol/writers/sedov/works/red/index.htm.
 There is also an Orwellian proposal to “deprogram” 75 millions of Trump electors: https://www.conservativejournalreview.com/california-dem-want-to-reprogram-trump-supporters/. Therefore, Disneyland and Mickey Mouse for Biden supporters, whereas, for Trump supporters, re-education camp and brain-washing!
 For Judge Luttig’s comment, see https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/opinion/byron-yorks-daily-memo-the-crazy-impeachment. As to Alan Dershowitz, see his interview at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3xWBqNkOsXc. See also https://www.foxnews.com/politics/dershowitz-trump-impeachment-loaded-weapon-dangerous-constitution.
Condividi i miei articoli: