WASHINGTON, Dec. 3, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Washington, DC law professor Victor Williams today praised the White House decision not to participate in this week's spasm the House's unconstitutional, unfair "impeachment inquiry" being waged against President Trump.
Professor Williams fully agreed with White House Counsel Pat Cipollone's 5-page damnation of the House process as violating "all past historical precedent, basic due process rights and fundamental fairness."
Williams offers a more specific thesis against the House's fraudulent impeachment; he argues attainder:
"House Resolution 660 -- passed without credible evidence of constitutional crimes or any prospect of Senate conviction -- is purposed only to punish, blacken, taint, and stain Donald Trump. Yet, none dare call it unconstitutional attainder."
The 116th House of Representatives' punishing harassments against Donald Trump – done in concert with deep state treachery and DC establishment perfidy – has now metastasized into a fraudulent impeachment.
While "fake" and "sham" and "bogus" are accurate-enough adjectives for the ongoing House harassment ordeal against Trump, the descriptor "fraudulent" has both legal truth and constitutional consequences.
President Trump has not committed "bribery" nor any other "high crime" or "misdemeanor." Read the House GOP Report: The inquiry has no legal justification. Trump will not be removed from office by the Senate. In substance and process – the House process is fraudulent.
It is for the sake of future presidents that a bold, offensive strategy must be implemented in response to the continuing deep state treachery and the House's fraudulent impeachment.
As an attorney academic, I offer this pleading – Argue Attainder.
Applying the Attainder Ban to House Resolution 660 and the Fraudulent Impeachment Process
The U.S. Constitution bans legislative punishment of any individual, public official, or discrete group -- including Donald J. Trump, his associates, his family, and his administration.
Article I's Sections 9 and 10 forbids all legislative attainder harassment, punishment, and accompanying defamations: "No ex post facto law or bill of attainder shall be passed."
English jurist William Blackstone described how a legislature's attainder works "attintus" to taint and blacken the targeted individual's reputation (Laws of England 1765-1769).
In his 1891 Commentaries on the Constitution, Justice Joseph Story damned a legislature's attainder process as "governed solely by what is deems political necessity or expedience, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears or unfounded suspicions."
According to Justice Story, legislative attainder is done without "proofs conformable to the rules of evidence."
Anti-Trump professors and DC swamp greybeards are wrong to assert that House impeachment is immune from constitutional inspection.
Even a presumptively legitimate impeachment does not enjoy immunity from constitutional inspection. The fraudulent ordeal being lodged against Trump begs for a de facto ("by practice") attainder analysis.
In 1993, I first described the wide dimension of the attainder ban in the context of the impeachment removal process.
Fast forward to the 2019 dissent of D.C. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao in Trump v. Mazars and learn how the Supreme Court applies the attainder ban to protect individual civil rights and the separation of powers.
In Federalist Paper 65, Alexander Hamilton warned that impeachment should never be corrupted to be only a test of "the comparative strength of parties."
Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Democrat House majority has done worse – they are conducting an unconstitutional process of attainder.
Victor Williams is the 2016 founder and present chair of "Law Professors for Trump." While begging the GOP establishment to zealously contest Virginia in 2020, Williams is also an insurgent candidate against Mark Warner for the US Senate in Virginia. www.vw4v.com. 571-309-8249.
SOURCE Professor Victor Williams