WASHINGTON, Dec. 4, 2019 /PRNewswire/ -- Law Professor Victor Williams submitted an alternative academic testimony to the House Judiciary Committee which is set to hear from a series of anti-Trump academics.
Professor Williams warns that Wednesday's hearing will be a shameful continuation of the House's effort to taint, stain, and blacken Donald Trump's reputation.
Earlier this week, Williams praised the White House refusal to participate in the House's fraudulent hearings, and Williams heralded the House GOP's report that found no wrongdoing by Trump.
In his unique testimony, Professor Williams argues that the House conducts a purposeful legislative punishment – i.e. an unconstitutional attainder:
"House Resolution 660 -- passed without credible evidence of constitutional crimes or any prospect of Senate conviction -- is purposed only to punish and damage Donald Trump's reputation. Yet, none dare call it attainder."
Williams' submitted statement:
The 116th House of Representatives' harassments against Donald Trump – done in concert DC establishment perfidy and deep state treachery – has now metastasized into a fraudulent impeachment.
While "fake" and "sham" and "bogus" are accurate-enough adjectives for the ongoing House punishing ordeal directed against Trump, the descriptor "fraudulent" has both legal truth and constitutional consequences.
Legal fraud is defined as "an intentional perversion of truth in order to induce another to surrender a legal right."
President Trump has not committed "bribery" nor any other "high crime" or "misdemeanor." The so-called impeachment inquiry has no legal justification. Trump will not be removed from office by the Senate.
It is for the sake of all future presidents that the House's fraudulent impeachment must be exposed as an unconstitutional 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, and punishment: "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 1891, 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." Commentaries on the Constitution.
Anti-Trump professors and DC swamp greybeards are wrong to assert that House impeachment is immune 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 context of the impeachment removal process challenged in the Walter Nixon v. United States adjudication.
Fast forward to the 2019 dissent of D.C. Circuit Judge Neomi Rao in Trump v. Mazars detailing how the attainder ban protects individual civil rights and the separation of powers.
In Federalist Paper 65, Alexander Hamilton warned that impeachment should never be corrupted to be a test of "the comparative strength of parties."
Doing far worse, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her rouges' gallery of biased committee chairs violate the Constitution's attainder ban.
Victor Williams is the 2016 founder and present chair of "Law Professors for Trump." Seeking to pressure (or at least embarrass) the GOP establishment into contesting Virginia in 2020, Williams is an insurgent candidate for the US Senate in Virginia. www.vw4v.com. 571-309-8249.
SOURCE Prof. Victor Williams