First and foremost, I have come to praise and bury soon to be United States Senate Minority Leader, “Cocaine” Mitch McConnell.
He’s always been a sneaky, untrustworthy political weasel. He always found a way to stab “conservative” voters in the back and slimed his way into profitable situations for his family like having his wife serve as the Secretary of Transportation under President Trump or inserting special legislation for horse racing into the latest Porkulus bill.
Recently, as in yesterday, he earned the hate and vile of every pro-Trump individual in the nation with this statement via a story in the New York Times:
Needless to say talk radio, Trumpland, CloutHubland, GabLand (when it’s up), and whatever is left of Trump Twitterdom went crazy. I’ll be the first to say it, my initial reaction was W.T.F.
Thus, to be fair to President Trump, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell does not want the President’s legal time rushed into an unfair time constrained defense, nor to deny the House of Representatives Impeachment Manager (try not to laugh) Eric “Fang Fang” Swalwell a chance to present an evidence laden case for the trial.
In all reality though, this is the most Cocaine Mitch thing he’s done this year.
Why my fellow conservatives may ask?
United States Constitution 101, or why it pays to actually read that damned piece of paper. From the United States Congressional website displaying the Constitution:
Article I, Section 9, Clause 3:
No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.
So what the hell does this have to do with Cocaine Mitch, soon to be former President Donald Trump, and soon to be U.S. Senate Majority Leader Chucky Schumer?
First, why does this move make the Impeachment action by Ice Cream and Vodka Pelosi irrelevant?
Impeachment is a political process and while it can be used for removal due to an actual crime, the majority of the time, which is now twice in the last four years, it is for political purposes to injure the incumbent or remove the subject of the action. In this case President Trump survived the first attempt because it was absurd, and now, this second attempt will be moot unless Chucky walks into McConnell’s trap.
Second, just what is a Bill of Attainder and why does the United States Constitution strictly forbid it?
Notice that Article 9, Clause 3 does not say “may” or “shall” it says NO in plain language. In the legal world this is an important act.
From the Heritage Foundation‘s Guide to the Constitution on Article 9, Clause 3:
In common law, bills of attainder were legislative acts that, without trial, condemned specifically designated persons or groups to death. Bills of attainder also required the “corruption of blood”; that is, they denied to the condemned’s heirs the right to inherit his estate. Bills of pains and penalties, in contrast, singled out designated persons or groups for punishment less than death, such as banishment or disenfranchisement. Many states had enacted both kinds of statutes after the Revolution.
The Framers forbade bills of attainder as part of their strategy of undoing the English law of treason, and to contend with what they regarded as the most serious historical instances of legislative tyranny by state or national legislatures. Raoul Berger argues that the bill of attainder clauses protect only against legislative actions that affect the life of the individual, not his property, which was the province of bills of pains and penalties. Beginning with Chief Justice John Mar-shall, however, the Supreme Court has insisted that “a Bill of Attainder may affect the life of an individual, or may confiscate his property, or may do both,” Fletcher v. Peck (1810), and that “[t]he term ‘bill of attainder’ in the National Constitution is generical, and embraces bills of both classes,” Drehman v. Stifle (1869).
Marshall and his successors saw the Bill of Attainder Clause as an element of the separation of powers. As the decisions of the Court in Mar-bury v. Madison (1803) and United States v. Klein (1871) made clear, only a court can hold a trial, evaluate the evidence, and determine the merits of the claim or accusation. The Constitution for-bade Congress from “exercis[ing] the power and office of judge.” Cummings v. Missouri (1867). In United States v. Brown (1965), the Court specifically rejected a “narrow historical approach” to the clauses and characterized the Framers’ purpose as to prohibit “legislative punishment, of any form or severity, of specifically designated persons or groups.” In Ex parte Garland (1867), for example, the Supreme Court struck down under the Attainder Clause a congressional statute directed against former Confederates that barred persons from practicing law before United States courts who had, among other things, merely given “encouragement” to rebels.
Bills of attainder can also operate conditionally, that is, the punishment may not only be for past acts, but it also may be triggered whenever the person engages in any future prohibited acts.
Thus the trap by Cocaine Mitch has been set.
Lastly, does Chucky Schumer walk into the trap?
Of course he does.
Senator Schumer has a major problem with the new junta about to take office. The President-Elect has surrounded himself with radical progressive activists be they his Chief of Staff, Vice-President, or any number of cabinet level officers and advisers.
Add in the insane group of Congress critters in the House, a few radicals inhabiting the Senate and a rabid media looking for blood due to the American people daring to elect President Trump and empowering the “deplorables” and the formula for a tumultuous first two to three months is set in motion.
If Senator Schumer does not do anything, the progressive base will rebel and threaten to riot, burn down the Senate, and all the other insanity that they did to most American cities this summer. In addition the hard left within his party will withdraw support and harden their positions regarding quasi-Marxist legislation and policies forcing him into uncomfortable alliances with so-called “moderate” Republicans and being forced to ask McConnell for help.
On the flip side, if he does proceed with a trial, the oxygen is sucked out of the room. President Biden becomes a sideshow, which will improve his nap time, but will leave his agenda largely sidelined as the President’s attorneys and the Republicans will drag this trial out for at least sixty days if not much longer. There will be hundreds if not thousands of witnesses and tens of thousands of evidentiary submissions. Eric Swalwell will be exposed even more so as the fraud that he is and the legislative initiative of the first 100 days for President Biden will be lost.
The media will also paint the “old guard” of Pelosi and Schumer as weak and ineffective, unable to conduct a basic impeachment for the ex-President who “deserved” punishment.
Except to punish soon to be ex-President Trump, the United States Senate will have to usurp the role of the judiciary, hold a trial and then pass a law imposing punishment that will of course have to be signed by President Biden. Once that happens, even though Trump will be briefly humiliated, and the media will have their scalp, the Supreme Court will be asked to directly intervene as no appellate court should be allowed to touch a Constitutional battle between the Executive and Legislative branches of government and the case law has already been established.
In the end, the historical precedents of prior Supreme Court rulings will win out in my opinion. The result will be that Biden will be humiliated and viewed as stale and ineffective, and the entire progressive Democrat Party base infuriated creating more problems for the elderly “statesmen” of the House and Senate. This then leaves former President Trump in an excellent position to act as a power broker in the future creating fear in the Republicans in Name Only (RINOs) who spent years undermining conservatives as McConnell rides off into retirement in six more years.
Nicely done Cocaine Mitch, nicely done.