Can't get facts without both sides at the table. (Photo courtesy Fox News)
One of my favorite moments of the day in years gone by was listening to the magical wisdom of Paul Harvey. And he was never better than when his "The Rest of the Story" commentary showed how sometimes we don't know the full ramifications of a story we are told. Harvey would talk about that untold part of the story which would just grab your attention, sometimes bring both a smile and a tear, due to his eloquence in delivering the words. I would stop what I was doing wherever I was, work or play, at high noon on weekdays to listen to him explain something important about a story that we knew, but never knew the part he would cover. And the moral of the story told was quite clear, for if we don't have the full story we can't really understand the full ramifications of it.
Nowhere is that lack of information more evident than in the so-called impeachment investigation of the President of the United States. We can each evaluate what has taken place as we wish, but we can't truly reach an honest position without both the information that the accuser wants to put forward and the response of the accused. That is lacking here and it is a clear travesty to the ideals this nation was founded on and needs to be stopped immediately. It's dangerous to freedom and free speech. Even politicians need to understand that not all decisions should be made based upon political considerations, for they are after all put in office to do the work of the people they represent. Sadly, that is missing in so much of what goes on these days.
It should be made clear from the outset that if the House of Representatives wants to draw up articles of impeachment and refer them to the Senate for a trial, that is their right to do so by the Constitution. But with that comes the right of the entire body of the House to cast a vote either in favor or opposed to the impeachment investigation, the consideration of what articles will be drawn up and the ultimate determination of whether or not to refer those articles to the Senate. This has been a modern day practice in two such cases, the preparation for possible impeachment of Richard Nixon and the impeachment which was submitted to the Senate regarding Bill Clinton, plus a generally similar process in the late 1860's in the case of President Andrew Johnson, the man who replaced Abraham Lincoln when he was assassinated. In the case of the action being considered by the Speaker and her body right now, this is not the case. The other party, the minority in the House is not allowed to speak, they are not allowed to subpoena and call for witnesses and the target of the investigation, the President of the United States himself, is not allowed to have his counsel in attendance and rebut the charges being considered. The action is not being handled to this point by the Judiciary Committee as is the norm, but instead is being looked at by the Intelligence Committee. How did this happen? It happened by design as the Speaker rammed through new rules for such an action at the very beginning of her assumption of the Speaker's chair after last November's congressional elections. Those rules violate every component of fairness that are supposed to be enshrined in our way of governing and being a nation of laws and not men.
The President has responded by stating that his administration will not comply to any action that does not allow him to defend himself and allow his party to participate actively and that is only fair if the truth is what is being sought. Thus far everything has been slanted, conducted behind closed doors with the President and his party completely lacking any input or knowledge of what is happening. For a Speaker who said from the outset that this would be a fair process is laughable, but then again, her tenure as Speaker when Obamacare was originally drawn up was handled the same way. She can't be transparent without being transparent and she can't offer a legitimate set or articles of impeachment unless she allows, again in the words of Paul Harvey, "the rest of the story" in terms of information provided by the opposition in Congress. If she is really not serious but is only trying to use it as a campaign stunt, that's another waste of money. If she's serious and will proffer charges based upon hearsay and anonymous sources and no honest debate of the facts with the other party, it will be seen as what it really is, a sham. So, please, Madam Speaker, if you think that dog will hunt in the United States of American, just do it and send the charges up. But realize this will just be the start of your problems, not the end.
What problems, you ask? Well, once the charges are submitted, the congressmen and women who manage the prosecution will have to try the case before the jury, the United States Senate. Chief Justice John Roberts will be the judge. The prosecution will have to receive a minimum of sixty-seven votes for impeachment on one or more of the article of impeachment submitted to remove the President of the United States from office. It has never been done before and it is inconceivable that articles submitted in the way they were will stand up to the defense. An unidentified "whistleblower" will be required to appear and will become identified. The defense will pounce on the way in which the articles were prepared and it shouldn't last long. Yes, Nancy Pelosi will say she got here impeachment but won't be able to say that it resulted in the desired action. So, let the action begin and go where it must but keep in mind the Senate Majority Leader has the capacity to end it quickly if he should desire. He has to convene the action, but he doesn't have to allow a process fraught with shortfall go the full duration. And whatever way things go, maybe we can learn a good lesson about truth, justice and fair play from this process. After all, that's one of the things that was important to the late Paul Harvey in "The Rest of the Story." And we can all have our own opinions, come what may. Isn't it great to live in a land that has freedom of speech. Let's keep it that way.
Nowhere is that lack of information more evident than in the so-called impeachment investigation of the President of the United States. We can each evaluate what has taken place as we wish, but we can't truly reach an honest position without both the information that the accuser wants to put forward and the response of the accused. That is lacking here and it is a clear travesty to the ideals this nation was founded on and needs to be stopped immediately. It's dangerous to freedom and free speech. Even politicians need to understand that not all decisions should be made based upon political considerations, for they are after all put in office to do the work of the people they represent. Sadly, that is missing in so much of what goes on these days.
It should be made clear from the outset that if the House of Representatives wants to draw up articles of impeachment and refer them to the Senate for a trial, that is their right to do so by the Constitution. But with that comes the right of the entire body of the House to cast a vote either in favor or opposed to the impeachment investigation, the consideration of what articles will be drawn up and the ultimate determination of whether or not to refer those articles to the Senate. This has been a modern day practice in two such cases, the preparation for possible impeachment of Richard Nixon and the impeachment which was submitted to the Senate regarding Bill Clinton, plus a generally similar process in the late 1860's in the case of President Andrew Johnson, the man who replaced Abraham Lincoln when he was assassinated. In the case of the action being considered by the Speaker and her body right now, this is not the case. The other party, the minority in the House is not allowed to speak, they are not allowed to subpoena and call for witnesses and the target of the investigation, the President of the United States himself, is not allowed to have his counsel in attendance and rebut the charges being considered. The action is not being handled to this point by the Judiciary Committee as is the norm, but instead is being looked at by the Intelligence Committee. How did this happen? It happened by design as the Speaker rammed through new rules for such an action at the very beginning of her assumption of the Speaker's chair after last November's congressional elections. Those rules violate every component of fairness that are supposed to be enshrined in our way of governing and being a nation of laws and not men.
The President has responded by stating that his administration will not comply to any action that does not allow him to defend himself and allow his party to participate actively and that is only fair if the truth is what is being sought. Thus far everything has been slanted, conducted behind closed doors with the President and his party completely lacking any input or knowledge of what is happening. For a Speaker who said from the outset that this would be a fair process is laughable, but then again, her tenure as Speaker when Obamacare was originally drawn up was handled the same way. She can't be transparent without being transparent and she can't offer a legitimate set or articles of impeachment unless she allows, again in the words of Paul Harvey, "the rest of the story" in terms of information provided by the opposition in Congress. If she is really not serious but is only trying to use it as a campaign stunt, that's another waste of money. If she's serious and will proffer charges based upon hearsay and anonymous sources and no honest debate of the facts with the other party, it will be seen as what it really is, a sham. So, please, Madam Speaker, if you think that dog will hunt in the United States of American, just do it and send the charges up. But realize this will just be the start of your problems, not the end.
What problems, you ask? Well, once the charges are submitted, the congressmen and women who manage the prosecution will have to try the case before the jury, the United States Senate. Chief Justice John Roberts will be the judge. The prosecution will have to receive a minimum of sixty-seven votes for impeachment on one or more of the article of impeachment submitted to remove the President of the United States from office. It has never been done before and it is inconceivable that articles submitted in the way they were will stand up to the defense. An unidentified "whistleblower" will be required to appear and will become identified. The defense will pounce on the way in which the articles were prepared and it shouldn't last long. Yes, Nancy Pelosi will say she got here impeachment but won't be able to say that it resulted in the desired action. So, let the action begin and go where it must but keep in mind the Senate Majority Leader has the capacity to end it quickly if he should desire. He has to convene the action, but he doesn't have to allow a process fraught with shortfall go the full duration. And whatever way things go, maybe we can learn a good lesson about truth, justice and fair play from this process. After all, that's one of the things that was important to the late Paul Harvey in "The Rest of the Story." And we can all have our own opinions, come what may. Isn't it great to live in a land that has freedom of speech. Let's keep it that way.
RSS Feed