On Trump’s 2019 impeachment and the fake whistleblower
Alan Dershowitz says “Trump Should Move to Expunge 2019 Impeachment”:
After newly declassified documents showed that an inspector general wrongly pushed an unvetted accusation from a Democrat operative who lied to launch the first impeachment of Donald Trump, legal expert Alan Dershowitz said that the president has a strong case for moving to expunge that first impeachment from his record.
While Dershowitz was a Democrat himself, he defended Trump during the impeachment trial. …
The defense team never got to confront the accuser with evidence that was exculpatory for the president, and now we have these new revelations to confirm how bogus the whole impeachment was.
Referring to an impeachment reversal, Dershowitz admitted, “It’s never been done. I don’t see any reason why it couldn’t be done. Impeachment is a quasi-judicial procedure, whether you have to go back to Congress and ask them to expunge it or go to the courts.” …
RealClearInvestigations named the “whistleblower” in question as intel analyst Eric Ciaramella. He was a registered Democrat, he met with Schiff before submitting his complaint, and he would not reveal any credible contacts, yet Inspector General Michael Atkinson didn’t even question, let alone rigorously assess, either the honesty or motivations of this “whistleblower.”
In fact, Atkinson did not even follow standard inspector general procedures, Director of National Intelligence Tulsi Gabbard revealed. Atkinson conducted interviews with four individuals only: “the Whistleblower, the Whistleblower’s friend who was a co-author of the January 2017 Russia Hoax Intelligence Community Assessment (ICA) and close colleague of disgraced former FBI Agent Peter Strzok, and two character references who had zero firsthand knowledge of the July 2019 phone call.” Yet Atkinson exceeded his statutory jurisdiction based just on all that blatantly biased hearsay.
Just a different form of political lawfare against Trump – shall we call it “impeachment-fare”?
Reading this, I felt that the whole thing had a familiar ring – not every single detail, of course, but the main outline. Looking it up, I see that I wrote several posts on Ciaramella at the time it all happened. It wasn’t a secret who the so-called whistleblower was even back then, although it hadn’t been officially revealed. This post is especially relevant; please take a look.
I don’t know if impeachments can be expunged. If the statute of limitations hasn’t passed, I think the CIA agent, the IG, and FBI agents should be prosecuted for lies and malfeasance (if those are the right terms).
If they can be brought to trial NOT in WA DC, otherwise hurry nullification rules.
Nothing will come of it. As usual.
I remember at the time Howard Kurtz got huffy with Mollie Hemingway because she mentioned Ciaramella’s name. I didn’t know why, back then, and I don’t know why now. But there was a sort of Omerta in effect among the “journolists”.
Prepare to gird your loins, after the mid-terms there will be more to come, take it to the bank. The Dems will probably spice it up with a little 25th Amendment just for fun.
Dammit! Justice requires even-handedness, regardless of political party or posture.
Democrats ignore this in their hunt for scalps.
“Justice requires even-handedness, regardless of political party or posture.
Democrats ignore this in their hunt for scalps.”
Playing with fire, oblivious to the danger.
See also The CIA Tried to Remove a Sitting President.
Trump will likely get impeached every couple of months by the Democratic House during the last half of his presidency.
Every bogus impeachment lessens the value of each of them. Impeachment was previously an accusation of a high crime or misdemeanor. At this point it is more equivalent to a parking ticket, or overdue library book.
Democrats now call everything “racist,” and/or “fascist,” and the terms have lost their meaning. All it does is make them look silly.
Let them impeach.
I read Dersh’s post late last night, and he makes some good points, but a commenter there (or maybe another place?) pointed out that expungement would lose Trump the bragging rights to being the only twice-impeached president in history.
@ West Texas > ” At this point it is more equivalent to a parking ticket, or overdue library book…. All it does is make them look silly.”
Trump may go for the all-time never-to-be-surpassed record this time around, just for that reason.
Speaking of the law (and clarity), ya’ gotta admit he’s pretty darn smart…
“Hunter Biden now living abroad as legal troubles mount, court filing reveals”—
https://www.foxnews.com/politics/hunter-biden-now-living-abroad-legal-troubles-mount-court-filing-reveals
I suspect there were/are two types who believed or professed to belieced all the impeachment hype. One type actually believed. The other knew better but faked it in order to support dumping Trump.
Of the first type, I don’t see many people changing their minds on account of facts. They just LOVED it so much that abandoning believing in it would be too hurtful.
Thus, outside of technical legal maneuvering, this will make no difference in public perception and the following/resulting political lineups.
I keep recalling Aunt Polly who had smacked Tom Sawyer for something he hadn’t done; “Didn’t get a lick amiss, I reckon.”
Unfortunately all those ne’er-do-wells that engaged in the “destroy-Trump” vendetta will never see the inside of a prison cell (or, more deserving, a hand-man’s noose) or even get punished in an significant way.
The deep state, for all intents and purposes is above the law and immune from any sort of punishment.
The Democrats are destroying themselves.
@ richard Aubrey > “Thus, outside of technical legal maneuvering, this will make no difference in public perception and the following/resulting political lineups.”
Read the post from Sundance that Banned Lizard linked.
It was also referenced by Glenn Reynolds at Instapundit (h/t Barry Meislin on the Open Thread), so it’s getting lots of traffic.
One of the commenters at Insty posted a link to this cartoon, which I think captures your sentiment nicely.
https://uploads.disquscdn.com/images/aa6a38d9df8b791620a234c9bcc6731f7e35e9161c35a02f5dbe75035089f934.jpg
From Neo’s earlier post, don’t forget the guy who should have been court-martialed for publicly complaining that the President wasn’t following the correct national security policies as determined by the Department of State, military, and intelligence bureaucracy (there is only One in apparent operation).
John on November 2, 2019 at 8:20 pm said:
https://therightscoop.com/do-not-let-the-uniform-fool-you-he-is-a-political-activist-in-uniform-lieutenant-colonel-who-served-with-schiff-witness-alexander-vindman/?
Tulsi Gabbard has referred the CIA whistleblower and the IC Inspector General to the DOJ for criminal prosecution. I will be surprised if anything happens, though.
I believe it was Schiff who leaked Ciaramella’s name.
But Ciaramella wasn’t one the call. Vindman was. Vindman was the only one involved in the impeachment who was on the call.
They used Ciaramella as a middle man “whistleblower” since he had some legal separation since he wasn’t on the call. If they used Vindman he would be at greater legal jeopardy. It’s clear Vindman leaked and broke the law in the process, but proving it would be hard.
Hence Schiff leaked Ciaramella’s name on purpose.
Saying his name would get you bounced off social media.
Does he have a Wikipedia page yet?