It will never wash off...Rule of Law versus Law

First this week there will be two blogs. One on the fiasco in the Senate right now and one humorous. This is the somber one, and by request.  I'll give you as much as I can without sharing my opinion, but as a Constitutional Conservative, I truly believe there's no wiggle room this time.... But let's go into this and let you decide. 

Today, Senator Alexander from Tennessee released a statement saying he believed Trump had broken the "rule of law", believes the House Committee proved its case, but that it's not impeachable or reason to remove from office.  Is that a true statement?  For that, we will need to break it down. 

First, as a Senator, he can form a decision to whether the House proved its case. He says they did.  One might then assume he would vote in favor of Impeachment. But in his "qualifying" what he thinks is "rule of law" he attempts to create wiggle room to agree the House is correct without taking action warranted if they are correct.  Confused?

Which brings us to "not" a reason to impeach.  The Constitution is usually pretty vague.  Lots of interpretations can be made, thus why our legal system costs a fortune.  However, the Constitution on this matter is really, unusually clear. Article II, Section IV is one sentence.  But not ambiguous like the First or Second Amendments.  It states:

"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, that says on Impeachment for... Bribery.  Seems fairly cut and dry. But believe it or not, here's where I have to dissect it more for everyone. 

"... and Conviction...". So, we have to go back to 1972.  In 1972, Nixon's legal team asserted that he could not be indicted (charged in a Federal or any state, county or city courts) while a sitting President.  How can you be convicted if you can't be indicted? Basically, this shreaded these two words.  You can't be convicted of selling meth if no court can indict you. They asserted "Executive Privilege" meant POTUS can't be indicted.  This, of course, makes it impossible to convict. There's never been a challenge in court to this assertion. 

There was a legal challenge in the court system by Nixon's team on Executive Privilege, but it only addressed that all documentation must be handed over to the House. In the United States versus Nixon, it was deemed "Executive Privilege" did not protect any President from handing over all documents and witnesses for Congressional review, including recordings. This is because the Constitution requires Congress to provide oversight on the Executive branch. As a result, the Watergate tapes were turned over and Nixon resigned.

Back to the current case,  the House's obstruction charge under "High Crimes" is clear then.  The Supreme Court ruled in 1972 all documents and tapes must be turned over.... Yet, Trump and his legal beagles haven't turned over anything.  Even the "transcript" wasn't an actual transcript, but rather a summary with excerpts.  Really pathetic when we consider the excerpts actually include the Bribery. (Yes, I did actually read it.)

So now, as Senator Alexander stated, the House proved its case.  There was Obstruction, aka. a High Crime, that totally ignored the Supreme Court of the United States ruling made in 1972.  Basically, in laymen's terms, Trump has ignored Congress and the Supreme Court, effectively shreading the "checks and balances" of the Constitution if the Senate fails to remove him. 

That doesn't even include the primary charge of Bribery.  There's not supposed to be anyone in office that bribes anyone.  Period. The Constitution uses the word.  And Trump literally admitted to this on both the White House lawn and interviews on camera, let alone the several times on his Twitter.  

None of which addresses what he wasn't charged with, Treason.  He attempted to Bribe a foreign country. The "foreign country" part is where we get to treason... Now, that is debatable on the Treason since he really wanted personal gain. Probably why the House committee decided to leave it out. Stick with what they could prove.  Bribery and the High Crime, since 1972, Obstruction.  

Finally, is "personal gain" a crime?  In terms of elections, yes. We have all kinds of laws, both Federal and State laws, about what you can and cannot do if you are a candidate.  Using taxpayer money for personal gain is also illegal, per 18 US Code 641 which makes it illegal for any personal gain at all using taxpayers' money.  Also something the House committee chose not to charge in the impeachment to remove Trump from office.  Sure some, maybe even a majority of them are guilty of misusing our money... But how many of them have blatantly bragged about it?  Let alone gotten away with it after bragging??  We wanted the "swamp" cleaned up?  This will be a green light they can do anything they want. Quite the opposite.  Cleaned up versus openly in your face are definitely not the same thing.

Yet somehow, we are in a dilemma. Alexander has admitted the House team "proved" their case, but he doesn't believe it is impeachable?  Yet, there's no wiggle room. Really none.  "Rule of Law" was established in 1972 on the Obstruction.  Trump ignored a Supreme Court ruling.  That's actually Rule of Law.  

The difference between Rule of Law and Law?  Appeals' courts rulings. Federal and State appeals courts right up to the highest Court of the USA ~ Supreme Court of the United States of America.  Once an appeal has been reviewed and "ruled" on, it becomes "Rule of Law".  SCOTUS ruled on what would be Obstruction and Nixon complied and resigned.  So Trump hasn't complied with the Rule of Law at all.  Yet, this is Senator Alexander's argument.... It's the circle jerk from hell. 

But there's a much big picture at stake.  Two things will be decided by the Senators' vote that aren't actually officially being voted on.  

One, the simpler problem, is the two party system is a failure? if Trump is acquitted, it is.  Senator Alexander's statement means Trump is guilty.  Failure to remove him from Office means the great Constitution's "checks and balances" has failed.  It's a piece of paper.  The United States is not about the higher ideals we all learn in school. They are just smoke and mirrors.

As if the first shouldn't cause enough pause, the second issue is all you need is to "own" the USA is the Senate and Presidency.  The Senate will have eliminated its ability to hold the President accountable. It will have made the House little more than a figurehead, because the charges were "proven".  The House was right and did the right thing.  This goes beyond parties. It must.  If it doesn't, there's no democracy. There's no republic.  Just who can spend the most money and win those two. 

Now, for those Trumpkins that have gotten all the way through this and think doesn't matter.... Remember sooner or later the Democrats will be in the same position Trump and his cronies are, only this will mean they "own" the Presidency and the Senate.  It will happen.  There will be no "checks and balances".  There will be a lot of backroom dealings with no one holding anyone accountable, because of all right here and right now.  

If the GOP votes against removing a man who openly admitted and even bragged initially about his "quid pro quo", there's no coming back.  The Constitution is worth less than toilet paper. Bribery.  There's no question it wasn't Bribery. There's no question the Constitution forbids it.  There's no question Trump committed Bribery.  He admitted it over and over.  What do you think the Constitution is?  Is it the Law of the Land? Or just a beautifully hand written piece of toilet paper made to fool the masses into thinking we have a clean ass??  The biggest illusion of all because none of this will ever be washed off.