New on the Impeachment

Obfuscation

I have heard so many opinions about this impeachment that I can imagine anyone feeling a little overwhelmed by all the rhetoric. Personally, I am somewhat underwhelmed by the lack of strong rational background to most of what I hear.

Some Considerations

There are five (there are actually more) ideas & questions I have put to this page to express what I think may actually be important about the situation that led to the current procedure to impeach.

These are those five items:

1. Our government has given aid to corrupt governments often in the past - at least to governments that do not have the US perspective on personal freedoms or individual rights. I know we don't want to perform nation-building, but shouldn't we be able to want other nations to "do the right thing" in order to have an economic relationship with our nation?
2. I have the impression that current President Donald Trump wants to "drain the swamp" and that may mean decreasing corruption in our national government. Could this intent to decrease corruption also include corruption that includes our citizens - even in other countries?
3. It may be difficult to identify corruption, so it makes sense to investigate. Nobody wants to make an innocent person look guilty of corruption. So why not investigate or request an investigation?.
4. Can an investigation in another nation be performed with US investigators? Should we ask permission to investigate in another nation? Should we ask that other nation to investigate the matter themselves using their own investigators? Is it wrong to ask?
5. Each nation's corruption is its own problem, but what is our nation's responsibility if the corruption may involve our own citizens working in that other nation?

These are my questions.

FISA Court Ruling Allegations

Also, I heard Congressman John Radcliff speak some time ago on Maria Bartiromo's show Sunday Morning Futures on Fox News that he is certain that "Justice delayed is not Justice denied" regarding the ongoing investigation into the actions leading to the FISA Court decision to allow the continued surveillance of Carter Page.

I have downloaded and skimmed through the Justice Department document about their findings, and I can't speak about their conclusions because I haven't given the document a careful perusal. It is provided to you all in the previous sentence because maybe you can get a sense of it yourselves. After some searching, I have read the opinions of several people, and found those opinions to be offered to support whatever it seemed the author wanted to be the truth. My suggestion is to read the document.

If the information provided to the FISA Court was true, then how long should a surveillance continue? Forever?

If the information provided to the FISA Court was not accurate, then what is the recourse for the surveillance that was continued against a US citizen inappropriately?

If the information provided was thought to be true at the time it was offered, yet later found to be inaccurate, should there be a legal action to be followed to achieve equilibrium?

What is to be done if the information provided to the FISA Court to achieve surveillance of Carter Page was known to be inaccurate yet useful?

I think we should know these answers in order to know what brought on this impeachment and why or even if it matters at all as a matter of national security.

Separation Of Powers

Isn't it true that each of the three branches of the US Government are supposed to be able to check each other from becoming dominant?

Doesn't that imply that the President of the United States is expected from time-to-time to Obstruct Congress? If the Congress is never obstructed, they may well become the dominant branch of government. That is not to say the "job" of the POTUS [President Of The United States] is to obstruct Congress. Nothing should be further from the truth. However, it seems the constitution implies that the three branches are to provide a form of check-and-balance against the rising power of any one branch. However, that statement may require review by the Supreme Court to determine its validity.

Is it truly obstruction to decline to allow your appointees to give testimony to an agency known to desire your downfall? This must also be a subject for lawyers to determine, but I would rather hear the debate delivered by an actual impartial group on its merits alone and not based on who the answer will either exonerate or convict. I doubt we can expect to put together such a panel.

It doesn't benefit any citizen if the Executive branch is the greatest power in our government – that would seem like we elect a ruler every four years. It doesn't benefit any citizen if the Legislative branch is the greatest power in our government – that would seem like our lawmakers become enforcers as well. It doesn't benefit any citizen if the Judicial branch is the greatest power in our government – that would seem to allow those who are selected to judge the constitutionality of the law to also determine the law and probably also to send the troops into your home.

My opinion (and it is only an opinion) is that the compilers of this great document—The Constitution Of The United States—knew what they were doing. There is a reason that the POTUS faces the other nations of the world as representative of the people of our nation and the Legislature makes the laws that govern our nation and the Supreme Court determines if specific legislation is in agreement with the intent of the Constitution Of The United States—NO ONE BRANCH CAN DO IT ALL WITH CLARITY.

It truly hurts the ego when someone "steps on your toes" in business or relationships or conversations. However, in government each of the branches is almost expected to do exactly this in order that government does only what it is supposed to do rather than everything it wants to do.

I personally expected them – the three branches of government – to obstruct each other whenever necessary to curtail encroachment of one over the others. I don't expect the President to disband the legislature or the Legislature to impeach the President (except for treason or high crimes) or for the Supreme Court to be stripped of the power to determine if a legislation is constitutional.

Conclusion

We don't have to get along. We don't have to believe the same thing. You don't need to agree with anything I have written in this article. I don't have to believe you either. Please don't get rid of me because you disagree with me. Please don't tear up my article behind my back because you don't like me. Please don't get me fired because I do something you don't like. Please don't hate me because I am not the person you want to be doing the job I was chosen to accomplish. Please don't embarrass all of us to all our friends and enemies.

Remember that I am not your enemy. I am your compatriot.