Is It Stupidity, Arrogance, Or Partisanship?

The questions beg to be asked. Are our political and academic classes that fatuous and dense? Or are they so jaded in their partisanship that they are willing to commit an actual insurrection against the American people because of their political power greed?Such is the question that we are presented with in scrutinizing an opinion editorial in The Hill (and, by the way, if you are under the delusion that publication is fair and balanced or conservative, you’re smoking something Hunter Biden would share) by two established far-Left operatives, Evan Davis and David Schulte.Davis, a former editor-in-chief of the Columbia Law Review and counsel to New York Governor Mario Cuomo (D), and Schulte, an investment banker and former editor-in-chief of the Yale Law Journal—and good friend and financial supporter of Barack Obama, are ignorantly parroting the nonsense promoted by US Rep. Jeremey Raskin (D-MD), that somehow, Donald Trump is ineligible to hold the presidency because of Section 3 of the Fourteenth Amendment, which states:“No person shall be a Senator or Representative in Congress, or elector of President and Vice-President, or hold any office, civil or military, under the United States, or under any State, who, having previously taken an oath, as a member of Congress, or as an officer of the United States, or as a member of any State legislature, or as an executive or judicial officer of any State, to support the Constitution of the United States, shall have engaged in insurrection or rebellion against the same, or given aid or comfort to the enemies thereof...”Davis and Schulte, like Raskin, insist that there has been some sort of adjudication that insurrection occurred on January 6, 2021, and that is was planned and executed by Donald Trump.Davis and Schulte write:“Disqualification is based on insurrection against the Constitution and not the government,” the authors write. “The evidence of Donald Trump’s engaging in such insurrection is overwhelming. The matter has been decided in three separate forums, two of which were fully contested with the active participation of Trump’s counsel.”Davis and Schulte, like Raskin, cite the main charge of Trump’s second impeachment trial, “incitement of insurrection,” which all 222 Democrats voted in favor of, as proof. Trump was acquitted by the Senate on February 13, 2021.Davis and Schulte went on to cite “the Colorado five-day judicial due process hearing, during which the court found “by clear and convincing evidence” that President Trump engaged in insurrection as those terms are used in Section Three.And lastly, the authors cited the farce that was the Nancy Pelosi House Select Committee that investigated January 6, arguing that evidence from witnesses leads to “the inescapable conclusion…that Trump engaged in insurrection against the Constitution.”For men educated at Ivy League universities, these two are as constitutionally illiterate and devoid of critical thinking skills and common sense as they come, maybe but for Raskin.Let’s take each piece of “evidence” in reverse order. Underground USA is reader-supported…Please consider becoming a paid subscriberThe House Select Committee's investigation of the events of January 6th was contested in its legitimacy from the start because the minority party was denied the right to seat members from its caucus, thereby making the exercise one of political persecution and partisan politics.Further, the committee selectively presented evidence to support a predetermined narrative. The committee cherry-picked evidence and refused to release or discuss all relevant information, particularly anything that might contradict their findings or narrative. This includes exculpatory evidence, which was hidden or not adequately explored.In addition, a former ABC News producer helped stage the hearings, and it’s easy to see that the committee was more focused on creating a compelling narrative for public consumption than on conducting a legitimate investigation.Then there is Davis and Schulte’s citation of the Colorado court hearing, not a trial but a hearing, and a hearing that invalidated itself from the very beginning.Set aside, for a moment, that after the “verdict” was affirmed by the Colorado Supreme Court, it was sent on appeal to the US Supreme Court, which did “not address the finding that Trump had engaged in insurrection.” For the SCOTUS not to address that point, basic to the appeal, is an action of ipso facto “denial of certiorari,” dismissal for lack of jurisdiction.And, to put a legal and constitutional cherry on top of that, let’s not forget that Colorado, like all states, is bound to the Supremacy Clause—Article VI, Clause 2 of the US Constitution—which states:“This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States which shall be made in Pursuance thereof; and all Treaties made, or which shall be made, under the Authority of the United States, shall be the supreme Law of the Land; and the Judges in every State shall be bound thereby, any Thing in the Constitution or Laws of any State to the Contrary notwithstanding.”But let’s look at the big kahuna here: Davis and Schulte’s assertion that a House impeachment, devoid of a Senate conviction, is something more than it is: a failed indictment.Impeachment by the House of Representatives is equivalent to an indictment by a grand jury in criminal law. Both are formal charges or accusations of wrongdoing. The House votes on articles of impeachment, which act as charges against the President.However, just as an indictment does not lead to a conviction if the trial results in an acquittal or a hung jury, an impeachment alone, without a Senate conviction, has no consequences, the impeachment effectively fails to achieve its ultimate purpose, much like an indictment that does not lead to a conviction.Like an indictment that doesn't lead to conviction, a House impeachment without a conviction in the Senate doesn't legally harm the accused beyond the stigma or public perception. It does not result in the President's removal or any legal consequences related to the office. Therefore, the Senate's failure to convict Donald Trump on the charge of “incitement to insurrection”—in the appropriate and germane jurisdiction for the accusation—serves as an acquittal of the charge.As a final nail in the coffin of this issue, because Mr. Trump was acquitted in an impeachment hearing trial in the US Senate, he is protected from all other actions under the Double Jeopardy Clause of the Fifth Amendment, which reads, in part:“...nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb…”I discuss this singular point in more depth in an article titled, Excuse Me? Trump Has Already Been Acquitted on Insurrection Charges.And so it would seem that the cancerous infection of Trump Derangement Syndrome is so pervasive on the political and ideological elitist Left that they are not only willing to trample the US Constitution and the established rule of law to get their way, but they are also willing to enact an actual insurrection against the American people in their attempt to deny an election mandate.So, who are the election deniers? Who is attacking our democracy—our Constitutional Republic? It certainly isn’t Mr. Trump, and it’s definitely not the American people who provided that electoral mandate. Evidently, it’s the elitist Left of the Obama-Clinton-Biden ilk, you know, the ones who have delivered us to one of the most embarrassing times in American history, bar none.I have a learned and worldly friend who is perpetually amazed at how the so-called educated and elitist classes can be so astonishingly foolish. She often ponders a relevant question: How can individuals with such impressive credentials and book-smarts be so incredibly dumb?I suggest that question be asked about Davis and Schulte. Get full access to Underground USA at www.undergroundusa.com/subscribe