Nations around the world celebrate the United States as a paradigm for what a stable democracy looks like.
Obviously, the events of January 6th tarnished our reputation for democratic stability; there is no sugarcoating this stark reality.
There is no justifying what happened and the perpetrators of these reprehensible acts must face justice.
But, do you know what else threatens the existence of a stable democracy?
Nobody who believes in democracy looks to the Stalin era in the Soviet Union for guidance on how to fairly hold political adversaries accountable.
Joseph Stalin is famous for concocting "high crimes" that he attributed to his political enemies and publicly holding trial against said enemies.
During these affairs, Communist officials made horrific accusations against Stalin’s adversaries, while offering emotional appeals with little or no evidence.
The objective of having such trials was to stigmatize the defendant to justify his preordained execution
While other governments are learning from the mistakes of totalitarian regimes, House and Senate Democrats seem to be mesmerized by producing yet another Stalinist type show trial against former President Donald Trump—the second one in thirteen months. But a hastily produced sequel to the original show trial about a phone call is hardly unprecedented.
After all, it even took Stalin three show trials to rid himself of economist Alexander Chayanov.
Nonetheless, the second attempt to convict President Trump is already doomed to failure and here’s why:
On the morning of January 6th, President Trump said that protesters would march "peacefully" to the Capitol.
Even if his speech were interpreted in the most nefarious light possible, there is no ambiguous language asking or inciting demonstrators to riot.
There is mounting evidence that these despicable attacks were planned long before Donald Trump’s speech that morning.
Convicting a duly elected President of intentionally causing the tragic events of January 6th requires a far more compelling argument than the current emotional appeal that "Trump is a bad person, and it must be his fault."
And just as the impeachment managers attempted to offer an alternative translation of a conversation that Trump had with the President of Ukraine about corruption, the impeachment managers will treat us to an endless barrage of questionable interpretations of what the President "really" meant by saying "peacefully."
Article I Section 3 of the Constitution states that "judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from Office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States."
Article II Section 4 states that "The President… shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Constitutional scholars disagree on whether these provisions allow for the current impeachment.
Yet one thing is clear and that is the Constitution provides that :when the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside."
The fact that the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts refused to preside over this trial is quite telling as to the legality of this impeachment.
Since Trump has never held any other office, since this trial stems from his actions while serving as our President, and since the Constitution clearly requires that the Chief Justice preside, no other logical explanation exists other than that the Chief Justice does not think it is constitutionally permissible to impeach a President who is no longer in office.
Impeachment is mentioned in eight of the 85 Federalist Papers, but nowhere is it suggested that removal from office and disqualification from holding future office are severable.
Some Democratic officials are fond of citing the impeachment of Secretary of War William Belknap in 1876, but there are some important differences to note.
Yes, Belknap was impeached after he left office, but he left office by voluntarily resigning before being impeached.
Belknap was acquitted in the senate because the senators voting against impeachment thought that it was improper to convict someone not in office. Most thought he was guilty of accepting bribes.
But, in reality, there is no constitutional or constructive basis for continuing the impeachment process against President Trump.
However, much like Stalin, who would not rest until exterminating Leo Trotsky, the Democratic leadership is determined to eviscerate Trump and make an example of him.
Those in Congress remain convinced that they just need one more show trial to finish him off.
Indeed, even if Trump is acquitted again this time, they may seek a third show trial (Stalin certainly did it), on Fourteenth Amendment grounds.
American families are facing enormous challenges and we cannot afford to suffer through another useless, and never-ending spectacle.
The show trial against President Trump should be canceled immediately.
Nicholas Chamberas has advised good government advocacy groups, elected officials, and political candidates on public policy matters as well as having served as a senior adviser on several prominent New York City campaigns. He holds a degree in Political Science and a Juris Doctor. Read Nicholas Chamberas Reports — More Here.
© 2022 Newsmax. All rights reserved.