Democrats' 'Expert' Witness Accuses Trump of Trying To Become King
University of North Carolina School of Law professor Michael Gerhardt testified Wednesday before the House Judiciary Committee that President Donald Trump “attacked” every constitutional safeguard the Founders put in place to prevent a monarchy from being established in America.
Gerhardt went on to argue that Trump’s alleged misconduct tracks closely with that engaged in by former President Richard Nixon, who resigned from office in 1974, as he faced certain impeachment and removal from office.
OK, so at least the professor is not trafficking in gray or murky conclusions about the matter, but an observation made by former President Ronald Reagan about liberals comes to mind.
“The trouble with our liberal friends is not that they’re ignorant; it’s just that they know so much that isn’t so,” the Gipper said in his famous “Time for Choosing” speech in 1964.
Gerhardt testified with such conviction regarding Trump: “When we apply our constitutional law to the facts found in the Mueller Report and other public sources, I cannot help but conclude that this president has attacked each of the Constitution’s safeguards against establishing a monarchy in this country.”
UNC School of Law’s Michael Gerhardt: “I cannot help but conclude that this president has attacked each of the Constitution’s safeguards against establishing a monarchy in this country.” https://t.co/9B39DgMINL #ImpeachmentHearings pic.twitter.com/5uzAEpQYdP
— ABC News Politics (@ABCPolitics) December 4, 2019
The strange thing about the law professor’s testimony is he contradicts his own argument.
Gerhardt noted that “in the British system the public had no choice over the monarch who ruled them.”
“In our Constitution, the framers allowed elections to serve as one means for ensuring presidential accountability for misconduct,” he said.
And that’s what the American people did in 2016 when they elected Trump. It’s the Democrats who are trying to contravene the will of the people, less than a year away from the next election.
Gerhardt also highlighted that the Founders established the separation of powers among the executive, legislative and judicial branches of the federal government.
While the legal expert focused on the Constitution preventing the president from becoming “tyrannical,” the same is true of Congress.
Our republic guards against a tyranny of the majority, which removing a president from office by the opposing party for political reasons would certainly entail.
The president is head of the executive branch and co-equal with the legislature. Just because the Democrats opened an impeachment inquiry against him does not mean Trump has to bow to their every demand or that he is guilty of obstruction of justice, as the professor tried to argue.
His contention, not surprisingly, dovetails with the arguments Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler and House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff have been trying to make.
Gerhardt concluded his opening statement with the Democrats’ oft-repeated line: The president is not above the law.
That statement is absolutely true, but it has no applicability here.
Gerhardt tried to hang his hat on the Constitution’s provision stating a president can be impeached for bribery, referencing Trump’s July 25 call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
However, the president mentioned no quid pro quo of U.S. military aid for an investigation of former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden during that call.
Trump released the aid to Ukraine in September, before the end of the fiscal year, and therefore was in compliance with Congress’ 2019 authorization.
And guess what? No investigation was opened into the Bidens.
Having attended law school and passed a couple of bar exams, I was subjected many times to the classroom hypothetical.
The professor would ask, “What if the facts were … ?” In other words, how would that change your analysis?
That’s what Gerhardt was engaging in Wednesday.
While it’s a helpful classroom drill, it should not be employed when arguing to impeach a president.
The right question is, what are the facts?
Unlike Nixon, Trump broke no law, either in relation to Ukraine or collusion with Russia.
He had nothing to cover up. The president is the one who released the phone transcript as soon as the so-called whistleblower complaint was reported.
An old adage in the law is if you don’t have the law on your side, argue the facts or vice versa. If you have neither, stand on your table and shout.
We’re in the shouting phase of the impeachment proceedings.
If you’re looking for any unconstitutional conduct, you need search no further than the Democrats trying to wrongfully remove a duly elected president.
They are the ones engaging in tyrannical conduct, not Trump.
Truth and Accuracy
We are committed to truth and accuracy in all of our journalism. Read our editorial standards.
