Why impeachment won't fly

Stephen W. Browne

Constitution of the United States

Article I: Section 3

6: The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

7: Judgment in Cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States: but the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.

Article II: Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Well, the House of Representatives voted articles of impeachment for President Trump, making him the third president in history to be impeached. And I have a sneaking suspicion he couldn't be happier.

Because it isn't going to fly. Not in the Senate and not in the court of public opinion. It's going to backfire, big time.

Furthermore I think Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi thinks so too, since she's been threatening not to send the articles over to the Senate as required by law unless they do things her way. It was a bluff all along.

Let's first clear up something first. An impeachment is not removal from office, it's an indictment. The House brings charges, the Senate tries the president and decides whether to remove him.

Which requires a two-thirds majority.

The Senate currently has 45 Democrats, 53 Republicans, and 2 Independents. Do the math, they'd have to flip 14 to 16 Republicans to remove Trump. Even Republicans who loathe him, and there are many, would think twice about giving the Democrats what amounts to a veto over any presidential election.

But in that other court where the media tries suspects? The legal issues are complex, and here opinions don't break down along party lines.

Libertarian-conservative Judge Andrew Napolitano thinks there are clear grounds for impeachment.

Old-line liberal law professor Allan Dershowitz says no, and that this is an attempted coup.

So what are we who aren't lawyers to make of it?

Most folks have a vague understanding that Trump is charged with pressuring Ukraine to dig up damaging information on potential rival Joe Biden. The information has to do with Biden's son Hunter being hired by a Ukrainian energy company at a salary of 50 thousand dollars a month.

A month! For a guy whose knowledge and experience in the energy field is as close to zero as doesn't matter.

And this is not a charge, these are facts that are not in dispute.

The argument for conviction is that pressure was applied by Trump on Ukraine and that this violates the law.

The defense is that there was no pressure, Trump just asked and Ukraine said, 'Sure Donald, anything for a friend who's going to give us arms as Russia prepares to re-conquer us.'


ow it could be there was a violation of the law, I don't know.

And there's the rub. Any violation is about a point of law most people find obscure and confusing. But there is nothing obscure or confusing about the Bidens' corruption. That is clear, obvious, and indisputable.

And in the end, that's what people will remember.