Skip to main content

“I am a Canadian, free to speak without fear, free to worship in my own way, free to stand for what I think right, free to oppose what I believe wrong, or free to choose those who shall govern my country. This heritage of freedom I pledge to uphold for myself and all mankind.” ~~ John G. Diefenbaker

FELDSTED -- When political parties engage in all out war, the people they claim to serve are left in the cold


American legislators tend to get rather full of themselves, and media reports are inconsistent and erroneous. The US House of Representatives (Congress) can’t remove a president from office.

The term ‘impeachment’ as used in the US constitution refers to the process of Congress, having held hearings and examined evidence, recommending that charges against a government official, including the President, be sent to the Senate acting as a properly constituted court.

The Senate will consider the charges and evidence presented by Congress but may call more witnesses and additional evidence if it so desires. The entire Senate is the jury and eventually Senators will vote on whether President Donald Trump should be removed from office. Removal from office requires a two-thirds majority vote of Senators present.

The impeachment process is troubling in many ways. Because the process is rarely used, there are no rules in place as to how impeachment proceedings are to be conducted.    

That seems unfair to anyone subjected to the impeachment process as a lack of rules precludes the protections of the principles of natural justice -- in effect in any civil or criminal proceeding -- such as full disclosure and disallowing hearsay evidence.

Congress, acting as a crown prosecutor, must be impartial in its deliberations. Each Member of the Congress must weigh allowable evidence on its merits and vote accordingly. There can be no “voting along (political) party lines” or the process is tainted. Either there is evidence to support articles of impeachment or there is not.

There is no grey area.

Impeachment at the federal level is limited to those who may have committed "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors". There is no constitutional or legal definition of “other high crimes and misdemeanors”. Incidents of commission or omission can be considered.


“Impeached” is the equivalent of being “charged” for doing something inappropriate to the office of a public official or failing to take appropriate action. The premise is that every elected or appointed official is bound to act ethically and honestly in all matters. That is a very wide net open to broad interpretation.

Congress has voted to send two articles of impeachment for alleged Trump misdemeanors to the Senate. The Senate, acting as a court, will decide if removal from office is warranted. President Donald Trump will be on trial but so will Congress. Filing articles of impeachment without adequate evidence will not be taken lightly and can rebound on those voting in favour of impeachment.

The impeachment proceedings have consisted of almost three years of hype, hyperbole and high drama. The Senate trial, which will be presided over by the US Supreme Court Chief Justice, will be less dramatic and focused on the business at hand. When the charges have been heard, evidence reviewed and witnesses heard, the Senate will deliberate behind closed doors, vote and announce a verdict.

The Senate trial will seem pale in comparison to the impeachment process. Most people will not notice as they will be caught up in the parallel media trial as high drama sells newspapers and attracts TV viewers. The media will continue the impeachment process during the trial period because the media is as politically biased as the legislative arm of government. Neither side will take prisoners which is an affront to democracy.

The impeachment process has been sucking up all the oxygen in Congress for many months, leaving little time for legislative matters. That is not in the best interests of the American people and highlights the dangers of highly partisan politics.

When political parties engage in all out war, the people they claim to serve are left in the cold.

Comments

Popular posts from this blog

FORSETH -- Focus on the nine things I mentioned. That’s what will allow the Conservative Party to win the next election

IMAGE CREDIT:   Darryl Dyck, the Canadian Press. I thought I had already made up my mind who I would be ranking on my ballot, in the Conservative Party of BC leadership race; now I am not so sure.  That means that, at least for me, and perhaps many others, it’s a good thing voting hasn’t already taken place. There were initially only one or two of the candidates that I thought might be a little too right of centre for my liking, now it seems that list is growing. I consider myself more closely aligned with what used to be called a Progressive Conservative, regardless, I feel more than comfortable within the Conservative Party of BC.  Some, however, in messages to me on my political Facebook page, have been rather, shall we say, a bit mean-spirited in comments they’ve made about my ‘purity’ as a conservative. To tell you the truth, I really don’t care! Some leadership candidates, in comments made online, have also been raising the issue of who is a pure enough conservati...

WARD STAMER -- Those are REAL forestry numbers, not just made-up numbers

The following is a condensed version of remarks Kamloops – North Thompson MLA Ward Stamer’s made, regarding Forestry, in the BC Legislature, on Tuesday afternoon (02/24/2026)   Let’s talk a little bit, when we talk about Budget 2026, about the forest industry, which is near and dear to my heart. Forestry remains one of British Columbia’s foundational industries. It’s a pillar that built this province. Entire communities depend upon it. Interior towns, northern communities, Vancouver Island regions, the Kootenays, the Lower Mainland, with manufacturing facilities in Surrey and Maple Ridge, just to name a few — everywhere in BC is touched by forestry. One word that was not mentioned in Budget 2026 was forestry. That’s a shame, an incredible shame. It wasn’t an oversight – it was intentional. This government has driven forestry into the ground .... INTO THE GROUND! We can talk a little bit about some of the initiatives that this government has brought forth, to try to resurrect ...

Your government has a gambling problem (Troy Media)

Provinces call it “revenue,” but it looks a lot like exploitation of the marginalized The odds of winning Lotto Max are about 1 in 33 million. You’re statistically more likely to be struck by lightning than to win it. But your government is betting that statistics won’t hold you back; they’re counting on it. Across Canada, provincial governments not only regulate gambling, they also maintain a monopoly on lottery and gaming by owning and operating the entire legal market. That means every scratch card is government-issued, gambling odds are government-set, casino ads are government-funded and lottery billboards are government-paid. And these are not incidental government activities. They generate significant revenues that governments have powerful incentives to expand, not constrain. It would be one thing for our governments to encourage us to engage in healthy activities. We can quibble about whether the government should be trying to convince us to be more active or eat more vegetabl...

Labels

Show more