Star Chamber Revisited

“This is a hearing.  I thought I was the one who was supposed to be heard.”

These words were spoken by Attorney General Barr several hours into his “testimony” at today’s House Judiciary Oversight Committee hearing where he was an invited and voluntary witness.  Nearly every Democrat, after making a statement or accusing AG Barr of a litany of bad acts, “reclaimed their time” and refused to allow him to answer or even comment.  Rather, they used their full time for their own speeches.

Such hearings are usually at least described as an opportunity for the committee members to gain information from their witness.  Hearings these days are often contentious, but the witness is usually allowed to answer questions and accusations.  Congress people have a limited time (usually 5 minutes) to question the witness and the witness is allowed to answer.  If a question is posed at the end of the allotted time, the Chair allows the witness to answer.

Not today.  Chairman Nadler even initially denied the witness’s request for a 5 minute break.  I felt like I was watching not the United States Government in action, but a hearing in the Star Chamber.  And it made me feel sickened and nauseous to see this behavior in the Congress of the United States of America.

One of my first published law review articles dealt with the First Amendment and specifically the free and open exchange of speech and press.  As part of the history leading up to the issues addressed, I researched the British Star Chamber, including looking at antique books containing English texts from the 13^th century.

Beginning with the Magna Carta in 1215, there was an increasingly intensified struggle in England for recognition by the crown of the fundamental freedoms of speech and press.  In 1275 a statute was enacted in England that provided for the imprisonment of anyone disseminating false “tales” resulting in discord between the king and the people.  The statute was rewritten several times through the 16^th century with re-enactments broadening the offense.  The Court of Star Chamber was created to administer the statute.

Star Chamber was a royal court and as such was not hampered by things such as rules of evidence or procedural safeguards. While originally designed to enforce law, it became synonymous with social and political oppression through the arbitrary use and abuse of the power it wielded. Amongst other things, the Star Chamber could inflict any punishment short of death.  It summoned juries before it when they rendered verdicts disagreeable to the government, and fined and imprisoned them. It spread terrorism among those who were called to do constitutional acts.  The Star Chamber’s tyranny was ultimately abolished in 1641. 

Honestly, as I watched the Democrats’ verbal tirades against Attorney General Barr, as I watched them refuse to let him speak, as I watched them use their time designed for questioning a witness to instead berate the entire Trump administration, often using a multitude of false statements, I couldn’t help but see a Star Chamber performing before my very eyes in 2020 America.

I really think every American should watch this performance.  Not because it is pleasant, but because you will see how the Democrats actually behave, despite their words to the contrary.  You will see them make or assert incorrect facts, use them to accuse the Attorney General of something, then refuse to let the AG speak.  You will see Chairman Nadler not allow the AG to finish an answer, a courtesy that most committee chairs afford to witnesses.  You will see the chairman refuse to take points of order about this.  You will see on the few occasions when the AG is allowed to answer and says something like “I will follow the law” that the Democrats assert that is not an “appropriate” answer and hence accuse him of failing to answer. 

Yes, this is America, but in this Democrat majority hearing it is apparently wrong for the Attorney General of the United States to say that he will follow the law.  Similarly, he is attacked for following the principles of federalism that govern our country and which place him in charge of enforcing federal law but leave Governors to address laws and issues of their individual states. 

Attorney General Barr was not really summoned to provide information.  The Democrats did not want to hear from him.  They summoned him because they do not like his policies – policies that are perfectly legitimate.  They summoned him because they do not like the President for whom he serves as AG.  They summoned him so they could have someone to throw their hateful campaign rhetoric at. 

Like the Star Chamber summoning juries whose verdicts they found disagreeable, AG Barr was summoned because his actions are to the Democrats disagreeable.  Actions like protecting federal property, enforcing federal law, calling violent riots out for what they are – not the peaceful protests that the Democrats would have us see. 

The Star Chamber fined and imprisoned those who disagreed with them.  I am sure that the Democrats would do that to Barr and many other Republicans if they could (and, indeed we have far too many instances of them using false information to go after and even imprison political rivals).  Today they did what they could in an effort to silence any dissent from their views and their agenda – they spent nearly 5 hours verbally attacking a good public servant.

Honestly, I have watched many Congressional hearings over the years beginning with Watergate.  They are often contentious.  But NEVER have I seen anything as appalling as this.  But this is what the Democrats have become.  They are not interested in hearing any view, any fact, any law, any statement whatsoever that contradicts their narrative and their agenda.  This is not an American approach to governing; it is that of an authoritarian dictatorship. 

The behavior of the Democrats should sicken every American.  I hope that many will watch this spectacle in its entirety.  I hope that before the November election that everyone gives serious thought to what giving the Democrats any more power would mean for this country. 

Here is the link to video of today’s hearing.   LINK

 

The Court of the Star Chamber by Cecil Doughty

The Impeachment Show

So, tomorrow the Impeachment Show begins – live TV entertainment.  You may watch if you like that sort of thing – a crusade based on hatred of an individual, not unlike the bullying by the “in-crowd” against a successful outsider. This is a not so good sequel to the Russian Collusion show.  If you don’t realize that this is all just part of the ongoing coup/now revolution jihad then you have not been paying attention.

Yes, it is really that ridiculous, and if it weren’t so frightening for the survival of America and all for which it stands, then it would simply be a rather poor comedy.   But it is not.  Last month I wrote about how we were no longer in a coup, but now a revolution (LINK).  My final words (before quoting “Revolution) in that post were

America is under attack.  What was an angry outburst against election results has moved from a childish outburst to a coup and now a revolution - a full out challenge to the established political order, government, culture, and their related associations and structures.   This matters.  This is a challenge to every American.  And every American who is involved in this revolution needs to be very clear on what they are doing while those of us not involved need to do everything we can to educate those warriors and defend our country from their attack.

The revolution is going full force ahead.  The frightening results that we face as both individuals and as a nation are made woefully clear in an excellent piece by historian and scholar Victor David Hanson; LINK  .  His final lines in this essay read, “One side will say, “”Just give us more power and we will create heaven on earth.”” The other says ““Why would anyone wish to take their road to an Orwellian nightmare?”” The 2020 election is that simple.”

Why, you may ask, am I quoting something about the 2020 election when this post’s title and beginning are focused on impeachment?  The answer is very simple:  the Impeachment Show is nothing more than a Democrat campaign strategy to keep Donald Trump from being re-elected.  Anyone who examines the alleged evidence realizes there is just nothing there – nothing other than innuendo and gossip and perhaps some actual disagreement about policy.  But nothing impeachable.  Let me repeat that: NOTHING.  Just as there was nothing there in the Russian collusion show; nothing there in the Kavanaugh #metoo show, nothing there is the daily diatribes against the President.  NOTHING, NOTHING, NOTHING.

The Impeachment Show is a campaign strategy and part of the overarching campaign to remove the president from office (the original coup attempt) and now the broader campaign to completely remake this country (the ongoing revolution).  As a campaign strategy it allows the Democrats to justify not doing what the people sent them to Washington to do (things like pass laws that benefit the people and the country, debate important issues, etc.).  They are too busy with impeachment to do anything else, and so they justify a failure to serve the people who elected them.  And, by their doing nothing, the President’s agenda becomes stalled, so they can argue that he did not accomplish what he should.  Further, it allows Democrats to throw all sorts of dirt at the President and the Republican party – the sort that you see and usually object to in the ugliest campaign ads – claiming that they must release this hearsay and innuendo as part of an open impeachment.

Of course, you must realize that this is anything but an open and fair process.  The key witnesses are avowed anti-Trumpers who consult with Democrats before coming forward.  Adam Schiff (who salivates every time he even thinks about removing Trump from office) has been running and continues to run a Star Chamber sort of process.

For those not familiar with Star Chamber, it was a court process that existed in England from the 15^th to mid-17^th centuries.  While it was originally created to fairly enforce laws against socially and politically prominent and powerful people whom ordinary courts were reluctant to convict, it became synonymous with social and political oppression through the abuse of the power it wielded.  Its proceedings were secretive and its judgments arbitrary.  It became an instrument of oppression rather than justice.

One can see why Schiff’s impeachment show is often linked to Star Chamber.  He is using what in the past has been generally a fair process and corrupting it to his purposes of removing the President from office, or failing that objective, of destroying his chances for re-election.  This is in effect both social and political oppression as it attempts to remove a duly seated president and overturn the will of the people with absolutely no valid legal basis for doing so. 

Until tomorrow the hearing has been in secret with even Republicans (and through them the people they represent) denied access.  Questions by Republicans have been disallowed.  Schiff met with the “whistleblower” before he became a whistleblower, and both are avid anti-Trumpers.  Schiff determines what witnesses can be called and which can be cross-examined.  He suggests written questions to the whistleblower instead of live testimony.  Yet it is a basic principle of American justice that one is allowed to face his accuser.  No one knows what went on in Schiff’s secret hearings – what Schiff may have said or how he may have coached witnesses.  His selectively leaked information must be viewed as tainting any future testimony and his ability to selectively allow or prevent witnesses and testimony makes the who process more of a show trial than an actual quest for justice.

The list goes on; you need only consult the daily outpouring of information.  The problem is, however, that the mainstream media fails to report much of what is happening if it even sounds, let alone is, averse to the Democrats’ position.  This is not surprising since they also fail to report the many positive accomplishments of the President for our country, or, when they do, they couch them within something portrayed as negative.

Those who hate the President will simply accept without question the narrative of the Democrats.  Yet, anyone who gives it the slightest thought will see how weak and contrived this impeachment claim is.  First, we don’t just give away taxpayer money to other countries without expecting something in return.  Any taxpayer who thinks we do should be screaming in objection. There is always some sort of exchange (“quid pro quo”) and hence that alone is certainly not an impeachable offense.

Second, the country has a valid interest in learning about foreign interference in our elections, and the President’s request that Ukraine investigate that was valid.  Similarly, if a sitting Vice President used his influence to benefit himself or a family member financially or to demand the firing of someone within a foreign country who was investigating his son, the country has a right to know about that and the President was within his right and it was his duty to ask the Ukraine to investigate. 

Third, if a sitting Vice President might now become a candidate for President, that does not negate the justification of investigating questionable acts made during his Vice-presidency. 

Fourth, there is absolutely no evidence of direct request for “quid-pro-quo” of aid for investigation, and certainly not simply for political reasons.  Indeed, not only the transcript reveals no quid pro quo, but also some very credible witnesses have clearly asserted there was no quid pro quo.

The bottom line is clear.  There is absolutely no evidence (unless you consider someone’s addition of their own narrative to actual concrete fact to be “evidence”) that the President asked for an investigation of his possible opponent in return for our foreign aid.   It just didn’t happen. 

What is happening is a group of people, led by Schiff, want to unseat a sitting president that they think the people should not have elected.  This has been their goal since 2016.  And the Impeachment Show is just their latest episode in their on-going drama.  Watch it for entertainment if you wish; but, understand that the underlying concept is based on hatred and malice the intent of which is to overthrow that which we know as America.  The Impeachment Show may look like a comedy, but if it is allowed to reach its sought-after conclusion, we will see that it was really both a horror show and a tragedy.