Politicians and experts claim that House Democrats have exceeded their authority by impeaching President Donald Trump on frivolous claims. But they’re doing much more than that — they’re violating their oath of office.
Former special prosecutor Ken Star observed earlier this month that House Democrats may be guilty of one of the very claims they’re using to impeach the president.
Last week the House Judiciary Committee recommended two articles of impeachment: One based on “obstruction of Congress” and a second on “abuse of power.”
The full House is expected to take up the matter Wednesday and formally impeach Trump before Christmas break. Once that happens he will have been only the third president impeached in U.S. history. The matter will then head to the Senate for trial.
The problem is that neither charge is a crime — serious or otherwise.
Starr believed that House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., was guilty of abuse of power when she effectively seized control of the House Judiciary Committee by “dictating the committee to actually draft articles of impeachment.”
Starr asked, "Where did she get this power?"
He added that the actions of House Democrats could lead to a Senate motion to dismiss — without calling a single witness.
“But I think this may be the straw that breaks the camel's back,” he said. “And that Republicans in the Senate just rise up in righteous indignation and say, 'this is absolutely unacceptable.’”
Sen. Ted Cruz is in full agreement.
“The kangaroo court going on in the House will not continue in the Senate,” the Texas Republican said Sunday. “The American people know this is a waste of time. They know this is the Democrats putting on a circus.”
But while House Democratic actions may be an “abuse of power” and a “kangaroo court,” they’re also arguably a violation of their oath of office.
Article II, Section 4 of the U.S. Constitution provides that “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.”
That word “conviction” implies the prior commission of a crime. Merriam-Webster confirms this by defining “conviction” as “the act or process of finding a person guilty of a crime especially in a court of law.”
That implication is further supported by the four acts that could lead to impeachment: “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Everything listed is a crime.
Alan Dershowitz, professor emeritus at Harvard Law School and the leading authority on U.S. Constitutional law, agrees.
Addressing the obstruction article, Dershowitz said, “Obstruction of justice is a crime; obstruction of Congress is part of our system of checks and balances. If you get a subpoena from Congress, and you're the president or in the executive department, and you think you have an executive privilege, you have an obligation not to respond. That's not 'obstruction of Congress,' that's checks and balances under our Constitution."
Dershowitz, who voted for Hillary Clinton in 2016 and who considers himself a liberal Democrat, addressed the “abuse of power” charge on Newsmax TV.
"The framers debated whether to make maladministration the grounds for impeachment — just being a bad president and not having good policies — and they rejected that because James Madison said that would give Congress too much power over the president," he told "America Talks Live."
“Congress is not above the law," Dershowitz added. "They can't make it up as they go along.”
Yet that’s precisely what they’re doing — winging it.
Federal officeholders are required to swear or affirm to “support and defend the Constitution of the United States against all enemies, foreign and domestic” — even if that “enemy” is their own party. They also swear to “bear true faith and allegiance to the same.”
By refusing to limit themselves to one of the four acts that would trigger impeachment — Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors — they’re acting in violation of the Constitution and therefore, in violation of their oath of office.
Ironically, both Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who chairs the House Intelligence Committee, and Rep. Nadler claim that by seeking judicial review of House subpoenas of senior White House officials, the president violated his oath.
"The president's oath of office appears to mean very little to him," Schiff said.
Nadler claimed to honor his own oath by approving his bogus articles of impeachment.
"And even if the President is unwilling to honor his oath, I am compelled to honor mine,” he claimed.
Both should review their own oaths of office — as well as sir for a Constitutional law primer. They’re the ones in violation and they’re in way over their heads.
Michael Dorstewitz is a retired lawyer and has been a frequent contributor to BizPac Review and Liberty Unyielding. He is also a former U.S. Merchant Marine officer and an enthusiastic Second Amendment supporter, who can often be found honing his skills at the range. To read more of his reports — Click Here Now.
© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.