Daily Briefing: PRESIDENT TRUMP’S LEGAL TEAM RESPONDS TO IMPEACHMENT CHARGES (January 31,2020)

Brexit text with the United Kingdom and European Union flags (Source: Flickr)
Table Of Contents:

Shut Down This Tiring Farce:  Conrad Black, American Greatness, Jan. 27, 2020

Britain’s Independence Day:  Editorial Board, WSJ, Jan. 29, 2020
Dershowitz On Impeachment: The Greatest Political Speech Since Churchill’s 1940 “Great Britain Alone” Parliamentary Addresses
Frederick Krantz
Isranet, Jan. 30, 2020
The American nation, probably in the throes of its greatest domestic crisis since the McCarthy period and the Vietnam War debates, experienced Monday evening Alan Dershowitz’s superb, indeed magisterial, destructio of the Democrats’ impeachment “case”. The speech expressed the utility of intellect and learning and complete historical and textual mastery of the Anglo-American legal and juridical tradition.  And it was given by a man who, claiming to remain a liberal Democrat, is no uncritical partisan of President Trump. In its wide learning and pragmatic political concreteness, it symbolizes, and expresses, in the highest and best sense, what “academic” analysis, at once historical, rational, and concretely experiential, can be. Dershowitz is Professor Emeritus at Harvard University’s Law School; his thought is what used to be termed “objective”, or “disinterested”. His concern for the correct historical and linguistic interpretation of the Constitution, and its use as the basis of the national well-being of his country, was paramount and beyond partisan politics. Focusing on the uniqueness of the American Republic’s doctrine of separation of powers, he pointed out that there is no Constitutional warrant for the House majority’s two impeachment charges, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. The  Constitution, expressing the Founders’ clear intentions,  clearly emphasizes “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors” as the sole basis not only for impeachment by the House of Representatives but for the Senate’s acting as a court of final resort judging whether the charges brought by the House, in fact, rise to the prescribed level. Dershowitz clearly demonstrated that neither of the House’s two charges against Trump—abuse of power, and obstruction of Congress—rise to the stipulated “crimes” requisite to justify the most serious action available to Congress short of a declaration of war, removal of a duly-elected sitting Chief Executive. In finding that both impeachment charges were defective, in that they did not rise to the Constitutional standard, but rather sought to penalize the President on a party-political basis for actions, which fell within the framework of permissible political actions, Dershowitz argued that the proper judgemental forum for the charges brought was not impeachment, but in fact the coming 2020 national election. Abusing Constitutional checks-and-balances would, by making the House of Representatives superior to the Senate as well as to the Executive branch, transform American government into a parliamentary system, in which the Prime Minister serves at the pleasure of an often-shifting Parliamentary majority, something which, again, the Founders strenuously sought to avoid. Dershowitz concluded his analysis by abjuring Democrats and Republicans to adopt what he termed the “other shoe” principle: to rise above partisanship and, imagining themselves members of the opposing party,  to examine the extent to which their position on impeachment reflected not valid Constitutional principles and true patriotic concerns, but opportunistic, and dangerous, party-political ideological positions.  Indeed, were the Democrats to succeed in removing Trump on the improper grounds advanced, the way would be open in the future to repeated plebiscitary chaos and the destruction of the American republican government. … [To read the full article, click the following LINK – Ed.]
Prof. Krantz is an historian and Director of the Canadian Institute of Jewish Research (CIJR)
_____________________________________________________
_Shut Down This Tiring Farce
Conrad Black
American Greatness, Jan. 27, 2020

The next step in the impeachment of the president needs to be considered in both its legal and political aspects. The legal issue is easily determined, is evident from the first few days of proceedings, and remains a foregone conclusion. It was obvious from the endlessly repetitive and absurdly overstated arguments of the House managers, Representatives Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) in particular, that they had no legal case. There was no evidence that the president committed a high crime or misdemeanor as the Constitution requires for a president to be removed from office in such a proceeding.What was alleged was not anything that could be so described, and they fell far short of proof that what they alleged even occurred. They tried to mislead the Senate and the public by splicing quotes, quoting previous witnesses out of context, and immersing their turgid presentation in a vast, confected odium that they try to spread over the president and his reputation like a lethal gas.

Underscoring their incandescent hatred of the president, Schiff acknowledged that Trump must be removed now to prevent his reelection, that an unnamed source had been cited by CBS who alleged Trump had told Republican senators that if they deserted him their heads would be put on pikes. Nadler accused any Republican voting to acquit the president of “treachery” and of participation in the (inevitable) “cover-up” of Trump’s crimes: again, no evidence of any probative value was adduced that he had committed the acts objected to, which were, in any case, not illegal.

Chief Justice John Roberts reminded Nadler of where he was, though dutifully equivocal as he is, he addressed the admonition to both sides. In two hours on Saturday morning, the president’s counsel, Pat Cipollone and Jay Sekulow, reduced the interminable malign verbosity of Schiff and Nadler to rubble.
Legally, there is no case and the barrage of unsupported allegations prosecutors launched came from the same Schiff who said he had solid evidence of Trump-Russian collusion and that he had not met the whistleblower (until the normally docile New York Times corrected him). And both he and Nadler claimed throughout that Trump had been fairly treated by the House Judiciary Committee when everyone in the world who watched its ludicrous proceedings saw in five minutes that the president could not call or examine witnesses, and his counsel was not allowed to be present. These people are so consumed by their hatred of the president they cannot even speak truthfully in the presence of millions of viewers who know what they are saying is false.

This impeachment is a dead, rotting fish, devised and promoted for contemptible motives by unworthy legislators and unsupported by law or fact . . . it is an abusive perversion of the Constitution.

[To read the full article, click the following LINK – Ed.]
______________________________________________________

Democratic Presidential Candidates Dismiss Release of Mideast Peace Initiative
JNS, Jan. 29, 2020

As if on cue, 2020 Democratic presidential candidates dismissed details of the peace plan announced on Tuesday by U.S. President Donald Trump. Right away, they jumped on positions set forth in the 180-page document aimed at resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict—or at least, to jump-start the process into action.

“The United States can bring unequaled leadership to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but we must use that leadership to promote a just and durable agreement. Any acceptable peace deal must be consistent with international law and multiple U.N. resolutions,” tweeted Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.). “It must end the Israeli occupation and enable Palestinian self-determination in an independent state of their own alongside a secure Israel. Trump’s so-called ‘peace deal’ doesn’t come close, and will only perpetuate the conflict. It is unacceptable.”

Bernie Sanders · Jan 28, 2020

The United States can bring unequaled leadership to resolving the Israeli-Palestinian conflict, but we must use that leadership to promote a just and durable agreement. Any acceptable peace deal must be consistent with international law and multiple UN resolutions.

Bernie Sanders @SenSanders

It must end the Israeli occupation and enable Palestinian self-determination in an independent state of their own alongside a secure Israel. Trump’s so-called ‘peace deal’ doesn’t come close, and will only perpetuate the conflict. It is unacceptable.

Jan 28, 2020

“Trump’s ‘peace plan’ is a rubber stamp for annexation and offers no chance for a real Palestinian state. Releasing a plan without negotiating with Palestinians isn’t diplomacy, it’s a sham. I will oppose unilateral annexation in any form—and reverse any policy that supports it,” tweeted Sen. Elizabeth Warren (D-Mass.).

Elizabeth Warren@ewarren

Trump’s “peace plan” is a rubber stamp for annexation and offers no chance for a real Palestinian state. Releasing a plan without negotiating with Palestinians isn’t diplomacy, it’s a sham. I will oppose unilateral annexation in any form—and reverse any policy that supports it. … [To read the full article, click the following LINK – Ed.]
______________________________________________________

Britain’s Independence Day
Editorial Board
WSJ, Jan. 29, 2020

Friday night marks an epochal event in Europe’s history as the United Kingdom leaves the European Union. It has been a long journey to reach this point since the Brexit referendum in June 2016—so long that it’s easy to lose sight of the event’s significance amid the fog of political confusion along the way.

That significance can’t be overstated. The EU was founded on the notion that only an ever-deeper economic union—with an ever-closer political union close on its heels—could secure peace and prosperity for a Continent traumatized by the 20th century. Most continental political leaders, if not their voters, still believe this. Those leaders also believe although few dare say out loud, that both forms of union must compromise nation-state sovereignty.

British voters think otherwise. Their 2016 vote to leave the EU, ratified in December’s general election, was not a vote for war and poverty. It was a vote for a different and, they believe, better form of peace and prosperity than the EU can offer.

***
What is this British vision? Above all, it’s democratic. Voters chose to choose. The most resonant theme of the 2016 referendum campaign was “take back control,” by which Brexiteers meant making decisions about Britain’s future through its elected Parliament.

That referendum exposed how undemocratic British politics had become as decision-making had been surrendered steadily to Brussels. Large geographic sections of the U.K., and large segments of society, felt disenfranchised and wanted to reclaim their government.

British politics since the referendum has become so rowdy—sometimes to the point of dysfunction—because voters had the temerity to assert themselves despite resistance from a political and bureaucratic class invested in the status quo. In that sense, Brexit has unleashed a bigger and long overdue political overhaul. Brexit has cashiered a long list of centrist politicians on the right and left who used EU membership as an excuse for their own mediocre economic performance.

December’s election campaign was the most ideologically interesting since the 1980s as Britons weighed a stark choice between bold ideas right and left. They wiped out a Labour Party whose urban progressives no longer represent blue-collar voters and cleared the way for a new breed of economic reforming, one-nation conservatism.

One feature of this new politics is how immune voters have become to economic scaremongering, which is all to the good. Britain benefited from unrestricted trade with the EU and faces serious disruptions as businesses adapt to the loss of those benefits. … [To read the full article, click the following LINK – Ed.]
______________________________________________________

FOR FURTHER REFERENCE:

 

A Hail Mary in the Holy Land?:  Thane Rosenbaum, JNS, Jan. 27, 2020 — If the impeachment of an American president and the prosecution of an Israeli prime minister are in the air, then it’s probably a good time to unveil a peace plan in the Middle East to suck in some of the oxygen otherwise dedicated to removing President Donald Trump and Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu from their respective offices.

 

Mike vs. Bernie: Two Approaches to Being a Jewish President Jonathan S. Tobin, JNS, Jan. 27, 2020 — Bernie Sanders and Michael Bloomberg both want to be the nation’s first Jewish president. But they couldn’t possibly be more different.

The Democrats’ Civil War Gets Nasty in Iowa Jonathan S. Tobin, National Review, Jan. 30, 2020 — Iowa’s tiny Jewish community doesn’t normally play a serious role in the first-in-the-nation presidential-nominating caucuses that make the Hawkeye State the center of attention every four years.

 

More Than 120 Members Of Congress Express Support For Anti-Israel Muslim Advocacy Group Israel Hayom, Jan. 20, 2020 — More than 120 members of Congress issued letters of support to the Council on American Islamic Relations (CAIR), an anti-Israel organization that was an unindicted co-conspirator in the Holy Land Foundation terror case that proved connections to the terrorist group Hamas and other radical Islamic entities.

______________________________________________________

This week’s French-language briefing is titled:

        CIJR wishes our friends and supporters Shabbat Shalom!