Browse Category

democratic

Notes from Senate Impeachment Trial – #2

Speeches over; questions next

By Dr. Larry Fedewa (January 28,2020)

Some impressions as the trial completes phase one and prepares for phase two:

  1. The first take-away is the comparison between the two presentations. The House speakers were on a mission and they showed it. They were obviously playing to the television audience more than the senators. Their rhetoric was graphic, at times crude (particularly Mr. Naylor). Their tone was passionate, sometimes angry. Their body language was tense. The exception was Mr. Schiff, who proved himself an effective and articulate advocate, who appeared convinced and convincing, especially in his opening summary. In his final speech, however, some of the earlier polish seemed to have worn off as he spoke of the President in personal and insulting terms, dripping with hatred.
  2. The President’s team overall was much cooler in manner, with the exception of Mr. Sekulow, who supplied the passion, sometimes slipping into anger. White House Counsel Patrick Capilione was quietly and rationally effective, in the sharpest contrast to the House team. I found his manner more effective than Sekulow’s. Anger in the Senate chamber seemed a bit out of place.

In terms of the arguments on their merits, I, like many others, found the House case full of assumptions, presumptions and very weak. Of course, I had the same reaction to the original testimony, so my reaction was not surprising that I reacted to the trial presentation which was derived from and actually re-used large portions of the House footage.

The basic issue was the definition of “crime”. The House wants to call such terms as “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress” crimes meeting the standard of the Constitution. That standard is admittedly brief – “treason, bribery and other high crimes and misdemeanors”. However, the application of common sense to this description, as pointed out by the founders’ commentary, demands that “crimes” must be specific and provable. Otherwise, the charge is simply a matter of opinion and therefore indefensible. Such are the terms of the current articles approved by partisan House.

The President’s team had their moments. Particularly damning was the recitation of the case against Joseph and Hunter Biden. Three lawyers split the presentation into Overview (Sekulow), Facts (Pam Bondi) and Conclusions (Eric Herschmann). It is hard to believe that the elder Mr. Biden can continue to attract support for his presidential bid after such a graphic, detailed and public recitation of the case against him.

Also notable was the presentation of Alan Dershowitz, who spoke to the constitutional standard of impeachment. His explanation was replete with citations and quotations and delivered in such a rapid-fire style that it was like trying to get a drink from a fire hose. The prominence of the speaker, however, added a certain level of authority to the argument. In view of his status as a lifelong Democrat, it is doubtful that his performance swayed any Democrats.

Today’s defense of the President ended with a plea to the Senators from Mr. Capilione to preserve for the American people the right to vote for their president, and to vote “for what in your heart you know is right”. As one of the commentators observed, however, politicians rarely vote what is in their hearts, preferring to vote for their best political advantage – a cynical remark which is unfortunately all too often true.

The overall impression of this entire exercise appears to be a gigantic waste of time and resources because the entire body of the Senate knew the outcome before the whole drama began. Namely, they will almost all vote the party line, and nothing said in this whole charade will change more than a few votes.

The only true exceptions to this outcome will be those politicians who believe that they cannot be re-elected if they vote with the party or have already decided not to run again. This whole business has to be changed to accurately reflect the momentous responsibility involved in an impeachment vote for both the immediate present and future American generations. I don’t know how that can be accomplished, but it is imperative that this process not be allowed to destroy America’s electoral process.

 

© 2020 Richfield Press. All rights reserved.

Notes on Senate Impeachment trial – #1

The rules for impeachment must be changed

by Dr. Larry Fedewa (January 22, 2020)

Some notes on the early stages of the Senate impeachment of President Trump:

A. Definitions: “crime”, “evidence”

a. It appears that the most basic differences between the two sides in the impeachment trial revolve around the definitions of two terms: “crime” and “evidence”.

b. The President’s team insists that the Constitution language “bribery, treason and other high crimes and misdemeanors” requires that impeachment can be carried forward only if there is an act which breaks a recognizable law, in other words, a “crime” as normally defined. This can be considered a technical definition of “crime”. Keep Reading

This must not stand! (continued)

The rules for impeachment must be changed to save the Republic

By Dr. Larry Fedewa (January 14, 2020)

In my last column of this topic, I urged the President to sue the House of Representatives for malfeasance on the basis of two unconstitutional actions with regard to the recent articles of impeachment passed by the House:

1) denial of due process as protected by the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments in a procedure which, if upheld by the US Senate, would inflict irreparable harm on the plaintiff by depriving him of his livelihood, reputation and public office, and

2) by re-defining the Constitutional designation of “high crimes and misdemeanors” as the sole rationale for impeachment to include

  1. a) allegations based on hearsay evidence which are too broad to be provable (“abuse of power”) and
  2. b) designation of the time-honored practice of Executive Privilege as “obstruction of justice”.

Keep Reading

This cannot stand!

The highest law

of the land is the

Constitution, 

not the House of Representatives

By Dr. Larry Fedewa (December 20,2019)

The prevailing rationale for the entire impeachment procedure has been that the House of Representatives is the ultimate authority governing the impeachment process. Forgotten in all the blather about the actions of the House is the fact that the highest law of the land is not the will of the House but the Constitution of the United States of America. The Fifth and the Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution explicitly grant to every citizen of this Republic the inalienable right to due process, including the right to face his or her accuser and the right to defense in a court of law.

The “due process amendments” apply to the President of the United States as well as all others. The House denied those rights in this case. The President should file forthwith a lawsuit against the House asking the court to set aside the entire procedure. Likewise, the Senate should refuse to consider the House action until the Supreme Court renders its verdict.

Why is this important? Because the precedent set by this House action portends the doom of our democracy. The House has proven that no elected official is safe from unlawful dismissal from office by the majority vote of the opposition party. In this case, the Democrat majority has unlawfully indicted an American President duly elected by the people without any semblance of due process as established by law and custom.

In addition, the action resulted in re-defining “high crimes and misdemeanors” to include actions which are not crimes by any accepted practice. In this case, “abuse of power” is not a criminal offense because it is simply too vague to be provable. Likewise, the exercise of Executive Privilege is customary and has been accepted practice for the entire history of the Republic.

Consider the consequences of this current action. All that stands between this President and his removal from office is the incidental fact that his party controls the Senate. Suppose he wins reelection but that the opposition party wins control of both Houses of Congress. The current House of Representatives has proven that partisan politics is the primary factor in the decision as to whether or not to vote for his removal from office. Otherwise, there would have been bipartisan support for the House action. This partisan loyalty was also proven in the Clinton case, when both Houses of Congress voted along party lines. It is therefore reasonable to assume that all actions of impeachment and removal will continue to be governed by partisan loyalties.

Back to our example then. Having failed to remove the President from office the first time, it is entirely predictable that the Democrats would try a second time. This time the Senate would convict. Then suppose the President refused to leave office voluntarily and instead, as Commander-in-Chief, he called up the Army to declare martial law and arrest the Democrat members of Congress. Presto: we are now a “Banana Republic” where the military controls the government and dictatorship is a whisker away. Democracy rapidly becomes a thing of the past. No office is safe from partisan impeachment including Supreme Court Justices.

We cannot let this happen. But, if the current House impeachment is allowed to stand, our democratic elections are doomed to fall.

© 2019, Richfield Press. All rights reserved.

What now?

Exhausted by their hearings, the House now takes a 10-day vacation

By. Dr. Larry Fedewa (November 23, 2019)

Amid apparently lagging interest in the whole impeachment drama on Capitol Hill, the Democrats leave Washington for the Thanksgiving recess with a serious question to ponder. They have to decide whether to pursue their impeachment strategy toward what looks like a bitter end, or to construct an alternate strategy. It looks increasingly like the practical politicians versus the true believers.

As this column has pointed out, the stakes are very high: almost certainly the control of the House in 2020 and probably the presidency as well. The House is currently split with 233 Democrat seats versus 197 Republican seats (+4 vacancies). The Republicans need to gain a net 18 seats to resume control. Their prospects seem to depend on re-gaining the 31 so-called “Trump districts”, i.e. seats that Democrats won in 2018 that had voted for Trump in 2016. Historical trends are against the Republicans, since control of the House has flipped during a presidential election only twice (1948 and 1952) since 1900. Keep Reading

The Dems are destroying the presidency

The real challenge to the Constitution

 

  Among the many absurd accusations being carelessly hurled around by the Democrats these days is the most absurd of all: that the President is violating the Constitution. In fact, we are seeing another example of the Left’s habit of accusing the President – and conservatives in general – of committing the very crimes that they themselves have actually committed.

The most egregious example of this behavior is the Democrats’ accusations that the Trump campaign colluded with the Russians to overthrow the 2016 election, when in fact the Clintons and their campaign had a long – and very profitable —  influence-peddling scheme going  on, using the Clinton Foundation as their cover – to the tune of over $100 million! Even the Mueller fiasco could not find evidence of Trump involvement.

In this case, Nancy Pelosi, through Adam Schiff, Jerrold Nadler and their cohorts, have all but destroyed any U.S. president’s ability to carry on foreign policy. What leader of a foreign government is going to want to talk confidentially with the American president when they have a well-founded fear of their conversation being broadcast to the public? The same goes for American diplomats. Keep Reading

Thank God for elections!

The only way to resolve the current stand-off      

By Dr. Larry Fedewa (October 20, 2019)

The most important function of government in the United States of America is ultimately the elections at every level of government – federal, state, county, township, and some other public services, such as public school boards and bond issues. Elections are the way we proclaim our collective “consent of the governed”, as required by the Constitution.

It is important to remember this basic fact at this time in view of two factors which will dominate the next election: 1) the serious and almost successful attempt by the bureaucracy to reverse the presidential election of 2016, and the current attempt of the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives to accomplish the same objective through their peculiar activities to impeach the winner of that election; 2) the extraordinary level of disagreement over the state and future of the country which exists on both sides, which has resulted in massive demonstrations by both sides and frequently by violence from the opponents of the current administration.  Keep Reading

Dr. Larry on the serious issues of our time (podcast)

Hi everybody –
This is an announcement of  a very unusual convention — a convention where the speakers come to you through fifty (50) unique podcasts. I was invited to contribute my ideas in a 43 minute interview by Kerri Kannan, the bright, energetic organizer of this extraordinary event.
My interview can be found at www.YouTube.com, [Subject: dr. Larry Fedewa –GOVERNANCE] We discuss the serious questions of life, happiness, foreign relations,
and contemporary religion.
 Comments always welcome.
The Dr. Larry Show is live on Wednesdays at 7 pm (ET)  Call 646.929.0130 (EASIEST way to listen) and talk to Dr. Larry and guests on the air.
For more writings, poems, interviews and guest editorials, see my website,
                                                                                       LJF
JOIN THE GLOBAL EVOLUTION MOVEMENT!
Learn How Experts Around the World are Contributing to Global Expansion
and Awakening
Kerri Kannan has created an impressive array of talent — 50 podcasts of interviews with people representing an amazing range of specialties,
all focusing from their diverse points of view on living a successful and productive life. If there has ever been anything like this before, I have never heard of it.  
 
My own part concerns “Governance”, covering the serious issues of our time: e.g. greatest threats to our civilization and to our happiness as individuals, the values of freedom, American foreign policy, and the “religion” of climate change.

Although her questions may be better than my answers, she challenges me to put forth my best efforts.

 

This is a 100% free online webinar series featuring Expert Guests covering a wide array of transformative topics.
JOIN THE GLOBAL EVOLUTION MOVEMENT

Hey Dems, control your attack dogs!

The warning of the Minneapolis Trump rally

By Dr, Larry Fedewa (October 13, 2019)

The contrast could not have been starker: 20,000 people inside and 25,000 people outside the Minneapolis Target Center on Thursday night, having a great time at a Trump rally compared to a few hundred angry protesters in the parking lot taunting police, breaking things, and burning confiscated property. The threat of further violence was thick in the air, particularly as the audience began to leave for home after the event. The fact that no one was hurt appears to have been due to the very visible presence of the police, who were out in force.

Political protest is one of the rights of all Americans. But violence in the name of free speech is NOT a right. The American Left seems to have trouble recognizing this fact. Nor do they recognize the rights of conservatives who also have the right to free speech, as witnessed by all the effective blocks of conservative speakers on U.S. campuses.

But what do the thought leaders of the Democrat Party have to do with violence in the streets? Most of the time, they weren’t even there. The answer is in their words. Namely, the apocalyptic tone of so many of their messages. A good example is the leader of their party, Nancy Pelosi, who speaks of this President as bringing about the “end of our democracy”, “violating the Constitution”, and the like. Talk about condemnation without a trial! She and her co-conspirators are condemning the President first and looking for evidence later.

Even more apocalyptic is the rhetoric of the radical wing of the party who are predicting the end of the world unless their insane recommendations for climate control are heeded. “Seven years left to sustain a habitable planet!” “Eliminate fossil fuels or die!” Their “Green America” agenda is packed with outlandish proposals.

All this rhetoric is bound to stir up extreme reactions. It is intended to. Fear can be a great motivator. It can also overcome logic, common sense and science. Witness the huge reaction of youths during their March 15, 2019 international strike for climate change.

It is also inciting to riot. The irresponsible talk by the leaders of the Democrat Party has let the genie of violence out of the bottle. It seems inevitable that protests like the one in Minneapolis  will evolve between now and November 3, 2020 into violence – UNLESS the rhetoric of the candidates and leaders of the Democrat Party cools off. Even then, it may be too late!

As usual, the Dems accuse the Right of committing the very sins the Left are in fact guilty of – whether they be conspiracy, corruption, or in this case violence. In Minneapolis, the supporters of the President were having an exciting but peaceful event. The protesters were the villains in the story – as they have been in so many demonstrations, riots and marches. The days of Martin Luther King, Jr. and non-violent protests are long gone.

The days of Antifa are here.

 

© Richfield Press, 2019. All Rights reserved.

A pie in the sky can hit you in the eye!

Let’s get practical! 

 

by Dr. Larry Fedewa (August 4, 2019)

If we thought that Hillary with all her baggage was about as sorry a candidate as the Democratic party could come up with, the current crop of aspirants is proving us wrong. This crop does not seem to have even a coherent message. They are angry, they fight each other, they see horror everywhere, they are advocating pie in the sky, and they hate Donald Trump. That’s about it.

Unless some superstar emerges from the shadows, or Mr. Trump flounders into a recession, it’s hard to see much of a contest in 2020. Not that the Republicans haven’t had their own streaks of weak candidates  — one winner in two out of six elections between 1992 and 2016. But so far it is difficult to take the people in the Democrat field seriously.

Eliminate fossil fuels in 10 years – when there is no comparable substitute? When the entire world depends on fossil fuels for survival? Even their statement of the problem is out of date. Nobody can look at the violent weather we have been experiencing and doubt that the climate is changing. But when has it ever not changed? As far back as records go there have been changes in the climate. What about the Ice Age? Keep Reading