The vote in the U.S. House of Representatives on December 18, in favor of two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, has virtually no chance of succeeding in his removal. To oust him requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate, which will almost certainly not happen, as Republicans hold the majority there and remain firmly in support of the President. Further, the two articles, one for "abuse of power" and the other for "obstruction of Congress", were not proven, despite weeks of hearings in which the testimony of anti-Trump officials was largely unchallenged, as the Democrats in control of the process established rules which severely limited the ability of Trump's allies to present a defense. However, even with the limitations placed on them, Republican Congressmen poked huge holes through the farcical claims the Democrats raised against him.
As a result, the attempt to use the hearings to build momentum for impeachment among voters has failed miserably, as polls show declining support for his removal, including among likely Democratic voters. Many voters have concluded correctly that the impeachment process has been an example of extreme partisanship, which was proven by the votes, which with the exception of two Democrats who voted against the first article, and three against the second, went entirely along party lines.
Given that it is therefore highly unlikely that he will be removed, why has the nation been put through this highly destabilizing exercise?
In a thoughtfully provocative open letter written by President Trump to Speaker Nancy Pelosi, released the day before the House voted to impeach him, he usefully provides some polemical insights into this question. He excoriates Pelosi and her party for running what he called an "election nullifying scheme." He details why the case presented against him, under the direction of Rep. Adam Schiff, was a fabrication from the beginning, in which no evidence could be presented that he had pressured President Zelenski of Ukraine to give him "dirt" on his opponent, Joe Biden—the basis of the "abuse of power" charge—because that did not happen! As for obstruction of Congress, he states that his refusal to provide Congress with documents and access to interrogate White House officials is justified by "Constitutionally based privileges that have been asserted on a bipartisan basis by administrations of both political parties throughout our nation's history."
He then correctly points out that those involved in the coup against him have been organizing for his removal from the time of his inauguration, long before his call was made to Ukraine's president, beginning with the fabricated and now-thoroughly discredited Russiagate story against him. The failure of special counsel Mueller to find evidence of "collusion" with Russia, or obstruction of justice, did not stop them, as they pivoted to advancing the equally fraudulent Ukrainegate narrative. He accused Pelosi of developing "what many in the media call Trump Derangement Syndrome" over the loss to him by Hillary Clinton in 2016, as motivating the attack. Addressing Pelosi, he writes, "You are unwilling and unable to accept the verdict issued at the ballot box....So you have spent three straight years attempting to overturn the will of the American people and nullify their votes." After reviewing the continuing assaults against his presidency and him personally, he charges, "You are the ones interfering in America's elections. You are the ones subverting America's democracy."
This latter point is highly ironic, as that is what the anti-Trumpers accuse him of doing, when they allege he colluded with Putin to win in 2016, and that he then bullied Ukraine, to attain their support to use against Biden in 2020. In this, they are circling back to the Russiagate story, claiming that Trump is still operating as an agent of Putin, and that his call for investigating Ukraine's role in Russiagate is proof that he is still trying to cover for Russian meddling in the election. This was explicitly referenced by Rep. Schiff in his summary of the urgency for impeachment when he said, "The argument, 'why don't you just wait?' comes down to this. Why don't you let him cheat in just one more election? Why not let him have foreign help one more time?"
THE REAL TARGET: THE AMERICAN PRESIDENCY
In his letter, Trump identifies the deeper issue underlying the efforts to pull off a regime change coup against him. "You are turning a policy disagreement between two branches of government into an impeachable offense—it is no more legitimate than the Executive Branch charging members of Congress with crimes for the lawful exercise of legislative power." The Ukraine case is a perfect example of this, as a parade of officials from the State Department and the intelligence community—with full support from Congressional Democrats—fumed about how Trump went around them, rejecting their "expertise", in his efforts to confirm that the government of Ukraine was addressing the pervasive corruption there, as he was obligated to do by Congressional instructions, before releasing military aid.
This issue has been raised by constitutional scholar Alan Dershowitz in a series of interviews before and after the vote. Dershowitz, a Democrat who supported Hillary Clinton in the 2016 election, has been an impassioned critic of the present impeachment process, warning that, in the absence of any provable evidence of "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes or Misdemeanors"—the criteria specified in the Constitution as necessary for removal of a President—using impeachment to resolve policy disputes would set a dangerous precedent, one fully at odds with the intent of the Founders. In a December 16 interview on CSPAN's "Washington Journal", he said that the articles of impeachment passed by the House represent a "broad, general, vague, open-ended criteria that can be weaponized...when the opposing party has a majority in the House."
Citing the arguments presented by Alexander Hamilton in letter 65 of the "Federalist Papers", he referred to this "weaponization" as "Hamilton's nightmare", in which impeachment "would turn on the number of votes each party had [in the House], rather than on guilt or innocence of the person being impeached." He added that James Madison shared Hamilton's concern, saying he "worried about the open-ended criteria [for impeachment] making the president serve at the will of the Congress, making the kind of parliamentary democracy we fought against in the revolution against Great Britain. We didn't want a parliamentary democracy in which a president can be thrown out of office by a vote of non-confidence."
Madison was the coauthor, with Hamilton, of the majority of the letters which are known as the "Federalist Papers," which were written to win support for the Constitution which was written following the successful defeat of the British Empire by its former American colonies. Dershowitz's comments were echoed by professor Jonathan Turley, who also identifies as a Democrat, who testified against impeachment in a session before the Judiciary Committee. The other three "scholars" who spoke at the hearing were vehement anti-Trumpers, whose sophistical arguments for impeachment were repeatedly cited by the Democrats, who piously proclaimed their undying loyalty to the Founding Fathers and their Constitution, while trampling on the actual intent of the document they insisted they were defending!
DEFENDING THE CONSTITUTION
The battle over strategic policy, between Trump and the permanent bureaucracy, which he is now calling the Military Industrial Complex (MIC), is the actual cause for the regime change coup underway against him since 2016. It is not limited to his Ukraine policy, as is evident in statements from Pelosi and her henchmen. As their Ukraine gambit has failed to gain traction with voters, they are defaulting back to the Russiagate story, claiming that Trump is still operating as an agent of Putin. This is what Pelosi meant when she said, "This isn't about Ukraine. It's about Russia....All roads lead to Putin."
What Pelosi and the regime changers in the intelligence community and the media are really objecting to is Trump's intent to break with the British imperial geopolitical policy which has been the key factor in shaping U.S. strategic policy since the end of World War II, and has been enforced with a vengeance since the collapse of the Soviet Union in 1991. This British-directed policy requires that U.S. military and economic power unilaterally be employed to enforce the globalized, "free market" financial system, which is tearing down the real physical economy in the advanced sector, while imposing brutal austerity regimes in the developing sector, using the control of private central banks to keep a flow of funds into the unsustainable bubbles, which they insist are signs of prosperity and economic health. Under this geopolitical doctrine, any nation which asserts sovereign rights to object to this "New World Order" is a target for destabilization, regime change coups, and destructive wars.
Trump was elected by American voters who were tired of these endless wars, which benefited the MIC, but at a tremendous cost to the nation, which was passed on to the average person. Instead of following the examples of the Bushes, Obama and Hillary Clinton, who dutifully followed the commands of the imperial forces, Trump promised to pursue cooperation with Russia and China, to fight against terrorism and against unfair trade agreements, and in defense of the sovereignty of nations. In collaboration with Russia and China, he has made progress with North Korea, with ending the civil war in Syria which was backed by Obama and the NATO allies, and now, despite the efforts to use Ukrainegate against him, to resolve the fighting in eastern Ukraine. The progress in these areas is directly threatened by the actions in Congress which, in addition to impeachment, include imposing tough sanctions against Trump's would-be partners, and offering continued military and diplomatic support for regime change wars, as in the recently passed Hong Kong Democracy and Human Rights Act, which undermines progress made in the ongoing trade talks with China.
Such efforts by British-directed forces against the sovereign interests of the U.S. are not new, but extend to a long tradition of imperial policy, back to the battles which led to the founding of the United States. This intention was summarized in a paper presented by American statesman Lyndon LaRouche, "A World System in Collapse", written on January 29, 2008, shortly before the near-implosion of the global financial system in September of that year. LaRouche presciently wrote, "The object of London and its foolish U.S. and continental European sympathizers, in the present attempt to destroy the U.S. through economic-financial warfare, and related means, is the intention to eliminate the role of the U.S.A. as a global factor altogether. Were that effort of the British and their tamed continental fools to succeed, the entire world would be plunged into a general (i.e., global) financial-economic breakdown-crisis, a financial-monetary crisis comparable to, but more severe in its effects than the crash of the Lombard banking house of Bardi."
The fear which drives those out to destroy the potential of the Trump presidency is that, as the strategic crisis deepens, he may chose to adopt the solutions proposed by LaRouche in that paper, which are consistent with the American constitutional tradition, with its granting of special powers to a strong President in conducting foreign policy, and would mean a decisive defeat for the British imperial system. While LaRouche's paper was based on his July 2007 forecast of a coming banking crash—which proved to be accurate—the fact that the City of London/Wall Street neoliberals used the Bush and Obama presidencies to continue the policies which led to that crash, has created the danger of an even bigger crash coming today. It is therefore urgent that the solution proposed by LaRouche in that paper serve as the basis to counter the insanity of the continuing impeachment efforts against Trump.
LaRouche wrote, "The global breakdown-crisis currently in progress demands that we establish a global system of cooperation among an effective majority of nations which are either sovereign nation-states in the strict sense of the term, or are candidates to become sovereign.
"The presently onrushing, general, planetary breakdown-crisis, requires an initiating role among four key sovereign nation-states: the U.S.A., Russia, China, and India, and, in addition to these, also others. The immediate purpose is to establish a system of treaty-agreements which, in effect, freeze, or approximately freeze, the ratios among national currencies to approximately their present levels.
"This agreement must be buttressed and enhanced by certain other measures: A new international fixed-exchange-rate system based on intentions congruent with the broad intentions of U.S. President Franklin Roosevelt for the post-war world.
"The creation of a mass of international state-credit for specific major developmental projects within and among nations under provisions of nested sets of treaty agreements with life-expectancies of a quarter to half a century, or, in some cases, longer. The title for such a nested set of agreements must be "the common aims of mankind.
"Many of these projects are already implicitly in the process of discussion. We should start there, with emphasis on basic economic infrastructure.
"Only an alliance of that sort, based on such common economic goals of progress and security, could enable us to reorganize the presently bankrupt world monetary-financial system in an orderly fashion. This approach is the only workable approach to international security under the conditions existing at this moment."