The Unz Review: An Alternative Media Selection
A Collection of Interesting, Important, and Controversial Perspectives Largely Excluded from the American Mainstream Media
 BlogviewPat Buchanan Archive
A Malicious Indictment Mitch Should Toss Out
🔊 Listen RSS
Email This Page to Someone

 Remember My Information


Bookmark Toggle AllToCAdd to LibraryRemove from Library • BShow CommentNext New CommentNext New ReplyRead More
ReplyAgree/Disagree/Etc. More... This Commenter This Thread Hide Thread Display All Comments
These buttons register your public Agreement, Disagreement, Thanks, LOL, or Troll with the selected comment. They are ONLY available to recent, frequent commenters who have saved their Name+Email using the 'Remember My Information' checkbox, and may also ONLY be used three times during any eight hour period.
Ignore Commenter Follow Commenter
Search Text Case Sensitive  Exact Words  Include Comments
List of Bookmarks

About the impeachment of President Donald Trump she engineered with her Democratic majority, Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday: “It’s not personal. It’s not political. It’s not partisan. It’s patriotic.”

Seriously, Madam Speaker? Not political? Not partisan?

Why then were all eight House members chosen as managers to prosecute the case against Trump, who ceremoniously escorted the articles across the Capitol, all Democrats? Why did the articles of impeachment receive not a single Republican vote on the House floor?

The truth: The impeachment of Donald Trump is the fruit of a malicious prosecution whose roots go back to the 2016 election, in the aftermath of which stunned liberals and Democrats began to plot the removal of the new president.

This coup has been in the works for three years.

First came the crazed charges of Trump’s criminal collusion with Vladimir Putin to hack the emails of the DNC and the Clinton campaign and funnel them to WikiLeaks.

For two years, we heard the cries of “Treason!” from Pelosi’s caucus. And despite the Mueller investigation’s exoneration of Trump of all charges of conspiracy with Russia, we still hear the echoes:

Trump is Putin’s poodle. Trump is an asset of the Kremlin.

All we want, and what the American people deserve, is a “fair trial,” Democrats and their media collaborators now insist. But can a fair trial proceed from a manifestly deficient and malicious prosecution?

Consider. In this impeachment, we are told, the House serves as the grand jury, and Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Committee and Jerry Nadler’s Judiciary Committee serve as the investigators and prosecutors.

But the articles of impeachment on which the Judiciary Committee and the House voted do not contain a single crime required by the Constitution for impeachment and removal. There is no charge of treason, no charge of bribery or “other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

So weak is the case for impeachment that the elite in this city is demanding that the Senate do the work the House failed to do.

The Senate must subpoena the documents and witnesses the House failed to produce, to make the case for impeachment more persuasive than it is now.

Not our job, rightly answers Mitch McConnell.

The Senate is supposed to be an “impartial jury.”

But while there is a debate over whether Republicans will vote to call witnesses, there is no debate on how the Senate Democrats intend to vote — 100% for removal of a president they fear they may not be able to defeat.

Consider Trump’s alleged offense: pressing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate Burisma Holdings and Hunter Biden.

Assume Zelenskiy, without prodding, sent to the U.S., as a friendly act to ingratiate himself with Trump, the Burisma file on Hunter Biden.

Would that have been a crime?

Why is it then a crime if Trump asked for the file?

The military aid Trump held up for 10 weeks — lethal aid Barack Obama denied to Kyiv — was sent. And Zelenskiy never held the press conference requested, never investigated Burisma, never sent the Biden file.

There is a reason why no crime was charged in the impeachment of Donald Trump. There was no crime committed.


Not political, said Pelosi. Why then did she hold up sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a month, after she said it was so urgent that Trump be impeached that Schiff and Nadler could not wait for their subpoenas to be ruled upon by the Supreme Court?

Pelosi is demanding that the Senate get the documents, subpoena and hear the witnesses, and do the investigative work Schiff and Nadler failed to do.

Does that not constitute an admission that a convincing case was not made? Are not the articles voted by the House inherently deficient if the Senate has to have more evidence than the House prosecutors could produce to convict the president of “abuse of power”?

Can we really have a fair trial in the Senate, when half of the jury, the Democratic caucus, is as reliably expected to vote to remove the president as Republicans are to acquit him? What kind of fair trial is it when we can predict the final vote before the court hears the evidence?

It is ridiculous to deny that this impeachment is partisan, political and personal. It reeks of politics, partisanship and Trump-hatred.

As for patriotic, that depends on where you stand — or sit.

But the forum to be entrusted with the decision of “should Trump go?” is not a deeply polarized Senate, but with those the Founding Fathers entrusted with such decisions — the American people.

In most U.S. courts, a prosecution case this inadequate, with prosecutors asking the court itself to get more documents and call more witnesses, and so visibly contaminated with malice toward the accused, would be dismissed outright.

Mitch McConnell should let the House managers make their case, and then call for a vote to dismiss, and treat this indictment with the contempt it so richly deserves.

Patrick J. Buchanan is the author of “Nixon’s White House Wars: The Battles That Made and Broke a President and Divided America Forever.”

Copyright 2020

• Category: Ideology • Tags: Democratic Party, Donald Trump, Ukraine 
Hide 36 CommentsLeave a Comment
Commenters to FollowEndorsed Only
Trim Comments?
  1. This coup has been in the works for three years.

    Yup. It was, is and will be an ocean of bull shit.

    • Agree: Rurik
  2. SMK says: • Website

    Pelosi was apothesized by The New Yorker as a “stable political genius.” Yes, this scatterbrained, bug-eyed, nascently senile loon is a “stable political genius.” I submit that she’s exactly the opposite: a frighfully, clownishly, frenetically unstable mediocrity and apparatchik, hurriedly prancing in high-heels to her daily press conferences, where she lies and lies and lies. She’ll be 80-years-old on March 26. Is she going to serve into her 90s? Despite 5 eye jobs and 2 facelifts, at least, her obsessive and deranged hatred of Trump appears to having her aging every month. What does it reveal about a country in which Pelosi is the most powerful female politician in American history. But she’ll soon be superseded by AOC and the squad. The U.S. is doomed.

    • Agree: Jim Christian
    • Replies: @Realist
    , @ThreeCranes
  3. jasmin says:

    This whole thing is ridiculous nonsense. Mitch McConnell’s summary was right on the mark. The Senate should acquit without further hearings or debate.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  4. Mitch McConnell should toss this biased impeachment documents out of the window.

    “This coup has been in the works for three years,” writes Pat Buchanan. The impeachment hoax was carried in person by so-called managers to the US Senate. The majority of the Senators should dismiss these articles out of hand, which were cobbled together by false or selective testimonies by witnesses that were hand-picked by Grand Inquisitor Adam Schiff, deputy inquisitor Jerry Nadler, and their handlers. After Donald Trump beat the Queen of Darkness, Hillary Clinton, impeachment was set on the track, they just needed a “case.” After the so-called Russian collusion investigated by Robert Mueller went nowhere, the Democrats around Schiff came up with an alleged whistleblower who happened to be a CIA-mole in the White House implanted by Obama’s crooks. He wrote a denunciative letter, which contained only rumors. Schiff and his handlers met with him and organized the “Ukraine gate.” Together with the mainstream media, they started the impeachment scam. CNN, MSNBC, The New York Times, the Washington Post were fed with leaks to keep the Russian hoax, and later the impeachment-circus moving. If the US Senate doesn’t want to make itself a laughing stock like the House under Pelosi and Schiff did, the Republican majority should send this scam to kingdom come.

  5. joe2.5 says:

    Acquitting without hearing would be caving in. The logical thing for the Senate is to investigate Biden thoroughly and expose the huge hoax of the frivolous and malicious impeachment drive.

    • Agree: Hibernian
    • Replies: @A123
  6. Truth3 says:

    They squeeze the Orange Shabbos Goy like a citrus… and out comes all sorts of Israel and Jew benefits.

    They don’t want him out of office, they just want to keep squeezing.

    • Replies: @Thomasina
  7. KenH says:

    At this point who really cares? Chump has just turned into a high energy Jeb Bush with populist dog whistles and salty tweets. It’s all just vaudeville for the flyover rubes and Chump knows how to push all the right buttons and stroke his base.

    A second term could deliver all out war with Iran, amnesty and some gun control measures. Trump will probably just play golf and let ultra liberals (((Ivanka and Jared))) make all of the important decisions.

    The Democrats loved their gay loving, draft dodging Bill Clinton and now the Republicans love their gay loving, draft dodging Donald Trump.

    • Replies: @anonymous
    , @bluedog
  8. Gunga Din says:

    I just heard Jerry Nadler say that, in addition to Trump, the Senate is on trial and part of the cover up (of Trump’s “crimes”). McConnell should call out this insult and refuse to allow Nadler into the Senate chamber.

  9. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:

    Note, too, that “Mr. Paleoconservative” is still on record endorsing the bipartisan narrative that Russia “hacked” the DNC emails.

    This columnist is 100% Beltway.

  10. I was going to comment. Then I read the comments that would precede my comment were I to post one.

    NO NEED TO POST. Previous commenters have covered all the topics I’d intended to discuss far better than I could.

    I’m grateful that so many others see this “impeachment” as the vile coup attempt that I and so many others do.

  11. A123 says:

    The logical thing for the Senate is to investigate Biden thoroughly and expose the huge hoax of the frivolous and malicious impeachment drive.

    Hillary and Obama should be subpoenaed to testify about Biden family misdeeds. And, once Hillary is under oath, what else might be asked?

    PEACE 😇

    • Replies: @KA
  12. Realist says:

    Well said and so sadly true.

  13. @SMK

    “The U.S. is doomed.”

    In the narrow sense, this is true. The U.S. as we know it today is doomed. But this should not be cause for despair; rather, we should take heed, abandon the sinking ship and looking out for our own interests, go our own way.

    They are more numerous but we are wealthier and have more brainpower. They are bound by their slave morality, resentment and low levels of affirmative life energy. We are more handsome, beautiful and virile.

    We must separate and build a society whose ideals, like the best of the Greeks, are based upon beauty, strength and intelligence. We must dedicate ourselves to those eugenic policies which will affirm and broaden the gap between ourselves and those who wish to muddy our gene pool.

    Plato was asked whether such things as mud also have Form. Is their a Form for mud? Well, how can there be? If mud is the random mixture of disparate elements, then it cannot be represented by or be representative of a pure Form, which, after all, imposes a distinct character upon each and every one of its constituents.

    The U.S. may be doomed but we are not. We need an Ideal which transcends mere reaction. We need an Ideal towards which we strive, in light of which we remake and dedicate ourselves.

  14. Anonymous[103] • Disclaimer says:

    The indictment shouldn’t be tossed too quickly because it will make Trump dominate the news cycle until November. The opportunity of dragging Biden and other Democrats through the mud is icing on the cake.

    A 40-plus states landslide is beginning to look like a possibility.

  15. From the Politico article: “The president gave an order to take illegal action … so this is obviously a very important part of the evidence that will be before the Senate during the trial,” said Sen. Chris Van Hollen (D-Md.) who released the GAO report.

    But was the action illegal?

    Concerning Trump’s arm twisting Ukrainian officials to investigate Hunter Biden.

    If Biden were in fact guilty of illegal activities, then surely we would all agree that Trump’s actions would have to be seen as being legitimate.

    But supposing Hunter Biden’s activities to have been legal, then would Trump’s action be seen as having been illegitimate?

    If we agree with this line of reasoning then whether Trump’s actions were illegal could only be determined by investigating Biden’s activities. But those impeaching Trump are denying him the right to do this.

    His accusers say Trump’s activities are illegal, so Biden’s must have been legal. But Biden’s behavior preceded Trump’s so this is clearly nonsense. The legality of Biden’s activities cannot be dependent upon what follows them in time.

  16. @jasmin

    I don’t understand all the constitutional ins and outs, but what happens if Chief Justice Roberts, who is presiding, orders that an actual trial, at least opening statements, be held? Could he order a vote instead of a dismissal?

  17. I was very surprised when Mr. Buchanan said that “Mitch McConnell should let the House managers make their case, then call for a vote to dismiss.” Would that be wise politically, and would the GOP Senators go along?

    Why would Trump not demand that his defense be given equal time to rebut? The democrats go first and have 24 hours, I believe, to hammer Trump from here to Sunday, with no objections allowed, and the republicans are just supposed to sit there and take it? I’m no insider like Pat is, but that seems like a strategy for losers.

    The GOP only holds a slim 51-49 majority in the Senate. If Pat is correct that all the D’s will vote to convict, it only takes 2 R’s to flip to the dark side to lose the majority vote. I know that 2/3rds of the Senate must vote to convict for Trump to be removed, and that ain’t gonna happen. But, if a simple majority vote goes against Trump (what will Romney do?), he will have lost a key battle of public opinion, and that will look like a loss, making Trump look less and less like a legitimate president.

    BTW, after Trump’s impetuous assassination of General Soleimani, I do think he is unfit for the office, but this farce of a trial is not about that.

    • Replies: @Anonymous
  18. Thomasina says:

    “They don’t want him out of office, they just want to keep squeezing.”

    That’s what I think too. It is simply unbelievable what Trump has had to endure since becoming President. The Democrats have pummeled him ruthlessly, hurling accusation after accusation at him, and yet the Republicans (aside from a few) have pretty much left him twisting in the wind; they have not really fought back.

    Which makes me think that you’re absolutely correct: both sides of the aisle are squeezing him in order to maintain the status quo or get more goodies for their owners. The political elite certainly do NOT want things to change.

    If Trump is not part of the Swamp (and some people believe he is), then I wonder what he actually could have accomplished if he had the backing of his party.

    The Uniparty is squeezing him.

    • Replies: @Rex Little
  19. “Mitch McConnell should let the House managers make their case, and then call for a vote to dismiss, and treat this indictment with the contempt it so richly deserves.”

    Yes, I agree. What would you bet that he’ll do any such thing? Mitch is a reliable democrat operative, though he pretends to be among the opposition.

  20. KA says:

    More like Forrestal. Difference is Forrestal was American Forster.

  21. KA says:

    Why Buchanan is supporting Trump anymore? Other than wearing MAGA hat ,what has he done? Even Mexican gang can wear that . USS liberty attackers can wear that .
    Why has words replaced deeds ? Why are you seeing hopes in him? His re election will generate similar GOP hopefuls – warmonger ,anti Muslim, Saudi UAE butt licking ,pro 1% , dependent on war and AIPAC leaders . His political destruction is important . His re-election is bad for white .

  22. Tiresome stuff, Mr Buchanan.

    Trump has committed so many stupidities and crimes – including now, assassination of a foreign leader in return for big campaign contributions – that almost any excuse to get rid of him would raise the stature of the United States.

    Anyway, while the indictment is far from the worst he’s done, it is valid. His behavior was wrong.

    I doubt he’ll be convicted, but, who knows, we just get lucky?

    • Replies: @Nodwink
  23. bluedog says:

    Have to agree its nothing but window dressing for the rubes and they love it,its better than a football game as Joe sixpack has something new to bitch about, rather than poverty and the homeless which is ever increasing and as we sink into an ever deepening recession.Meanwhile the heads of the two parties are partying at just how stupid the electoral are as they circle their party heads like a mother hen guarding her chick.!!

  24. @Thomasina

    If Trump is not part of the Swamp (and some people believe he is), then I wonder what he actually could have accomplished if he had the backing of his party.

    What was accomplished the last time a Republican President had the backing of his party (and a majority in both houses of Congress during his first term)?

    Be careful what you wish for.

  25. Anonymous[396] • Disclaimer says:

    I’ve gotta believe that Romney, who has opposed Trump at every turn, would just love to see Trump embarrassed by a vote of the Senate that fails to summarily dismiss the charges and necessitates a detailed defense. Why? Because he hopes to offer himself as a quick and expedient GOP nominee for the general election in November, just as Hillary Clinton envisions herself getting the Dem nomination in a last ditch act of “heroism.” Once you’ve received such a nomination you lust for another forever, like Golem did that ring.

    What if the Senate vote is tied 50/50 on the issue of summary dismissal? Does Pence get to cast the tie-breaker and influence his own potential future in the WH? Now that would stir things up in GOPer Land (not that I see Trump being voted out by his party–it would just be monumentally divisive and certainly carry repercussions into the election).

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  26. Trump loves this impeachment coup. It has made so many people lukewarm or who even hate Trump defend him. It’s hurt the D’s more than anything else.

    What’s more, the D’s just plan to keep “impeaching” Trump till they get what they want. Just like in the 3rd world countries they come from.

    But draw out the impeachment in the Senate—make it wait months—and it exhausts the Ds and embarrasses them even more than a quick turn around would. And watch Trump numbers rise as it goes on!

    So draw it out. Make them so whipped and tired by the final not guilty verdict they refuse to try again–because it exhausts them.

    • Replies: @anonymous
  27. anonymous[245] • Disclaimer says:
    @R.G. Camara

    Yessir! And then we can finally see The Wall, withdrawal of Uncle Sam from the Middle East and Afghanistan, …


  28. A123 says:

    For anyone who thinks the Dems are winning on impeachment:

    PEACE 😇

  29. Hibernian says:

    Does Pence get to cast the tie-breaker and influence his own potential future in the WH?

    The Constitution forbids that; the Chief Justice presides.

    • Replies: @follyofwar
  30. @Hibernian

    What are you saying – that the Chief Justice gets a vote? You hardly answered the question.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  31. Nodwink says:
    @John Chuckman

    It’s a fairly open-and-shut case, though it’s not anywhere near the worst thing Trump has done. The GOP is hanging tough with Trump because they think he will deliver another term. I suspect if Trump was completely tanking in the polls, there would be enough renegade Republicans to turf him.

  32. Senator Mazie Hirono (D-HI) went off on House Democrats on Tuesday for offering such slap-dash nonsensical articles of impeachment to the US Senate.

    Rather says it all does it not? When the crazies in the Democrat party think Schiff For Brains is an idiot.

  33. Hibernian says:

    The Chief Justice presides. The Senate makes the rules; somehow they’re continuing to work on the rules after the Chief Justice has been sworn in as the presider. I don’t understand that. The Chief Justice will make rulings subject to appeal to the Senators. Will the senators vote on every “Objection, Your Honor, irrelevant and immaterial?” That could be very interesting.

    If I had my way the Chef Justice would run it just like a regular criminal trial, except dismissal motions would be subject to a Senate vote, with the CJ summarizing the issues and the arguments for each side. Also the transcripts of open House hearings could be accepted as depositions subject to arguments about some of it (likely a lot of it) being invalid. (I think this is in the works right now.) Even with a bunch of witnesses, it would go relatively quickly because the wrangling between D and R Senators would be greatly reduced. The two articles could be subject to separate dismissal motions; the “Obstruction of Congress” article is a total joke and would probably dismissed as a matter of law (Checks and balances; it’s the President’s job to obstruct Congress, and vice versa.) I’d like to see witnesses called for both sides on the other article; I think it would debunk the notion that the President’s actions were “perfect,” and that he didn’t do anything wrong. It would also in all probability show that the charges are greatly exaggerated, and that any questionable actions by the President didn’t rise. or rather sink, to the level of an impeachable offense.

    • Replies: @Hibernian
  34. Hibernian says:

    I’ll add this: No, the Chief Justice doesn’t vote on conviction vs. acquittal.

  35. anarchyst says:

    Notice that it is JEWS who are running the impeachment process.

    Trump has given the jews more than they could ever dream of and they are still going after him.


  36. WHY?

    Becos there is money somewhere in this tangle to be had
    by those with uncanny skills, thats why. (Jews in this case)

    So what if they are Jews or Atheists or Catholics?
    Ones religious preference has no bearing on how they pursue MONEY!

Current Commenter

Leave a Reply - Comments on articles more than two weeks old will be judged much more strictly on quality and tone

 Remember My InformationWhy?
 Email Replies to my Comment
Submitted comments have been licensed to The Unz Review and may be republished elsewhere at the sole discretion of the latter
Subscribe to This Comment Thread via RSS Subscribe to All Pat Buchanan Comments via RSS
The JFK Assassination and the 9/11 Attacks?
The “war hero” candidate buried information about POWs left behind in Vietnam.