Rep. Andy Biggs: Trump-hating Democrats doing whatever it takes to impeach, ignoring precedents

close

Video

Ingraham: Republican voters are watching

Did Mitch McConnell take Laura's advice to step up in fighting impeachment inquiry?

The House Rules Committee continued the headlong rush by Democrats toward the impeachment of President Trump Wednesday, voting 9-4 along party lines to send rules for their deeply flawed impeachment inquiry to the full House of Representatives for a vote Thursday.

The vote Wednesday night was the latest move in the relentless attack by Democrats against President Trump that commenced even before he was elected and has continued with vehemence ever since.

With majority control of the House, the Democrats are ignoring their responsibilities as legislators to focus on their non-stop campaign to do all in their power to obstruct and now try to remove the duly elected president of the United States.

DEMS PUSH IMPEACHMENT RULES OVER REPEATED GOP OBJECTIONS, AS EXASPERATION BOILS OVER

First the partisan Democrats held Soviet-style secret hearings in the basement of the Capitol led by Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif. The hate-filled bunch drew a false equivalency and said their Star Chamber proceeding was comparable to the hearings held by the House Select Committee on Benghazi.

It’s interesting that the anti-Trump mob chose the Benghazi analogy rather than referring to actual precedents dealing with the three presidential impeachment proceedings in American history – against Presidents Andrew Johnson, Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton.

Absurdly, the Democrats prefer to largely ignore the three past presidential impeachment investigations, even though it’s obviously logical to use those inquires to develop a roadmap for an investigation of President Trump.

The kangaroo court process being utilized by Democrats is one they are creating on the fly and is very different from holding a vote of the full House to create a select committee to conduct an impeachment investigation, as happened in the past.

Rather than holding a House vote, Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., made a unilateral declaration that the House was commencing a formal impeachment inquiry led by extreme partisan Schiff and the Intelligence Committee – long after House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., told the nation that such an effort was underway in his committee.

Now Pelosi claims that the impeachment inquiry will be run through six committees. But so far only three of the committees are holding secret hearings, with members of the other three committees being denied entry by ringleader Schiff.

The House Judiciary Committee, which historically has handled impeachment proceedings, is one of the committees being shut out.

What is particularly crazy about this Democratic attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election is the failure to hold a vote by the full House to open an impeachment inquiry against the president. Such a vote was held when the three previous presidential impeachment proceedings kicked off.

Pelosi’s failure to hold a vote of the full House at the start of the impeachment inquiry taints the whole fiasco.

The Democratic resolution approved by the House Rules Committee on Wednesday and scheduled for a full House vote Thursday can’t undo their error and legitimize the improper secret hearings that have already occurred.

Everyone knows the Democrats decided before this whole charade began that they were determined to conclude President Trump should be impeached. They’re improvising whatever process they can patch together to reach that preconceived conclusion and make it look legitimate.

The rules for an impeachment inquiry are encased in the motion that opens the process itself. It assigns the committee that will preside over the investigation, usually the Judiciary Committee, and sets the rules to make sure the proceedings are fair.

Congress largely adopted the Nixon impeachment rules when it considered the Clinton impeachment. These rules permitted the president to have counsel present, to present evidence, and granted the minority party the explicit authority to subpoena witnesses.

At some point in the future, America will have a Democratic president again. Democrats will no doubt object if Republicans treat a Democrat in the White House the way they are treating President Trump in their impeachment effort.

Chairman Schiff has said himself that his hearings are not classified. Yet he has chosen to hold the hearings behind closed doors. He has chosen to deny admittance to other members of the House and exclude the media and American public. In fact, Schiff he is holding the secret hearings so that he can keep the president in the dark about what is happening.

The entire House of Representatives had the opportunity to vote on whether to create the Select Committee on Events Surrounding the 2012 Terrorist Attack in Benghazi. This vote passed with bipartisan support.

The Benghazi committee’s mission was to investigate the conduct of former Secretary of State Hillary Clinton, and others that led to the death of four Americans. Those hearings were filled with classified information relating to State Department protocol and diplomatic security operations and – importantly – were not conducted with the express purpose of impeaching anyone.

In fact, Secretary Clinton had left the State Department before the select committee was even formed. The committee’s mission was to make any necessary changes that would prevent a disaster like the Benghazi murders from ever happening to another American again.

Although the select committee operated under clear guidelines when investigating the Benghazi attack, Schiff has still not responded to my letter asking him to state under what rules he is operating.

At the same time, Schiff is constantly changing how he conducts his hearings as they head toward his predetermined conclusion. His process is unpredictable in that it is inconsistent with any rules of the House. These issues underscore the difference between the undeclared “formal impeachment inquiry” of President Trump and the Benghazi hearings.

When my colleagues and I entered the secure room where Schiff was holding his hearing recently, we did so with respect for the institution in which we serve and to provide transparency to the constituents we represent. Each of us has the requisite security clearance to enter the facility, and Schiff has admitted that the evidence adduced in his hearings is not classified in the first place.

CLICK HERE TO SIGN UP FOR OUR OPINION NEWSLETTER

Yet Schiff threatens anyone who leaks information with ethics violations, and withholds the transcripts of depositions from members – though the rules allow us access to the depositions. Then he holds press conferences where he discloses witness testimony that purports to support his predetermined outcome.

I am surprised that people who dislike President Trump do so with so much venom. They are willing to set aside the norms and precedents designed to grant due process rights to the president and allow the American people to witness the process that is going to determine whether the 2016 presidential election will be overturned.

You may not like President Trump and you may be content with overturning the will of over 60 million American voters. But take a moment to appreciate the new and enduring precedent that is being set here. We may never again see Congress act according to rules designed to protect minority rights and due process.

CLICK HERE TO GET THE FOX NEWS APP

At some point in the future, America will have a Democratic president again. Democrats will no doubt object if Republicans treat a Democrat in the White House the way they are treating President Trump in their impeachment effort.

Anyone who believes railroading a Democrat toward an unjustified impeachment would be wrong should also oppose the improper effort now underway by Democrats to impeach President Trump.

CLICK HERE TO READ MORE BY REP. ANDY BIGGS