Tuesday, September 28, 2021
Miles from the Mainstream
D. R. ZUKERMAN, proprietor

Is Mike Pence Next?

February 19, 2021 --

There is little doubt that this sham impeachment "trial" is aimed, in significant part, at preventing a Trump re-election bid in 2024 -- and also destroying "Trumpism,"  that is, government of, by and for the people, not of, by and for The Swamp.   If this sorry excuse for an impeachment trial should succeed, and convict a former president, it seems more likely than not, that the zealous, aggrandizing Democrats would next move to prevent the 2024 candidacy of the former vice president, clearly the next Republican most identified with now private citizen Trump.

Barring a Supreme Court ruling against impeachments of former federal officials, what is to keep the power-mad, anti-freedom Democrats from bringing an article of impeachment against Mike Pence on a charge of aiding and abetting Trumpism, seen by the totalitarian left as a cult movement to sow chaos and discord throughout the country to install a conservative populist hegemony in the United States for decades to come?  (Of course, as with just about all radical left accusations, such an accusation defines the Democrat mindset, by means of a process called projecting.). 

Should we doubt that Speaker Pelosi would hesitate to bring an impeachment article against private citizen Mike Pence were the Democrats to succeed in obtaining an impeachment conviction against private citizen  Donald J. Trump?  The aim being the destruction of his presidential candidacy, too.

The argument has been made, if the Democrats succeed against Mr. Trump, what is to stop Congress from impeaching other former presidents whose tenure, this cancel culture age, has become offensive to the radical left and their enablers in business, the media and academia?   But why focus on moot impeachments, when there is the lure of destroying the present Republican Party as a political force?
If the anti-freedom left succeeds in disqualifying Mr. Trump, why should these one party fanatics not seek the disqualification of another otherwise likely aspirant for the GOP nomination in 2024.

Look how the wily, crafty California Democrats have succeeded in the Golden State in making races for the U.S. Senate contests between one Democrat -- and another.

We have already seen that six Republican senators, casting their votes with all Senate Democrats, have expressed constitutional support for impeachment of former officials. Are other weak-kneed GOP senators to follow?  If so, what is to prevent the power-mad Democrats from weaponizing impeachments to block the presidential candidacy of other Republicans?   Think not? Please think again.  Who would have foretold a second impeachment against the former president?

The issue cannot be judged by Congress.   The zealots of the  left have long since demonstrated that free will is not available to Democrats. They march in lockstep -- as is customary for any totalitarian movement.   Republicans could never express the will, much less the solidarity, of treating their political enemies in kind.  And they should make no mistake -- for the left, Republicans are the enemy, not merely political opponents.  For the left, the acceptable Republican is a Republican like changeling Cheney who will match anti-Republican propaganda with the most meanspirited Democrat, word for word, jot for jot, tittle for tittle.

So long as Democrats hold unchecked power in Washington, D.C., the Constitution is not safe.  So long as Democrats hold majorities, however slim, in House and Senate, the threat of impeachments against former GOP officials is not to be dismissed.

The institution in the nation's capital whose responsibility it is to interpret the Constitution is the Supreme Court of the United States.  It is not a matter for the "political thicket" to determine,  but an issue of such  constitutional importance that Chief Justice Roberts and his brethren should rule on:  whether former officials are subject to impeachment?  This important issue merits review before the Supreme Court by declaratory judgment.  Doesn't  the national interest require it?