A Brief Review of an Interview with Richard Epstein and John Yoo on the Impeachment Fiasco
I just finished watching an interview of the two foremost constitutional scholars in the United States: Richard Epstein of NYU, and John Yoo of UC Berkley. It was recommended by a friend, Ben Davis. If you have been following the impeachment circus I think you might want to watch this interview since de jure such proceedings have everything to do with constitutional precedent and law; even if de facto the whole charade can be reduced to political theater by the DNC. These fellows help provide the necessary historical perspective needed in order to approach this scenario with the careful aforethought that has not been given to us if we watch any of the sides on media. They don’t fully agree with each other in detail, but at bottom they conclude the same.
Neither of them thinks that either article of impeachment should result in the removal of the POTUS. Epstein doesn’t believe the first article even reaches impeachable muster because there is no actual crime presented. On the other hand, Yoo believes the first article does meet the impeachable standard; but only if the most negative inferences are elevated as the norm for interpretation (i.e. of the transcript). But both believe that the House Democrats, by rushing this whole thing through, did not do due diligence in allowing for real evidence to be discovered (if there was any), and thus what they presented to the Senate turns out to be dead on arrival; insofar that an actual case can be genuinely prosecuted. Both believe that the second article of impeachment is an absolute sham and mockery of our whole form of government. The idea that the POTUS cannot invoke executive privilege, which is what the second article of impeachment reduces to, in fact, would lead to the weakening of our national security by discouraging future POTUS’s and their staff in having candid discussions on national security for fear that they might be subpoenaed or impeached for merely speaking of sensitive security matters so on and so forth. As a matter of fact, constitutionally, according to these two scholars, a POTUS cannot be impeached for invoking his constitutionally given right of invoking executive privilege; and yet this is what this article attempts to impeach Trump on.
Overall, the interview, in my opinion, does indeed elevate the discussion to the level where it should be; in regard to the impeachment process underway. While Epstein and Yoo did not vote for Trump last time, Epstein just declared that he would vote for Trump in 2020 because the alternatives, in his view, are so deplorable that Trump looks good. Yoo was less revealing, but he seemed to indicate for the sake of the integrity of the Constitution, that a Trump vote in 2020 would be the most prudent course. His concern is that a socialist or quasi-socialist candidate from the DNC might get in and simply revise and destroy the Constitution in toto. This has been my concern this whole season; it has to do with the integrity of our democratic republic. I didn’t vote for Trump last time either, but will be this time (for Epstein’s reasons). The DNC, under its current specter has shown utter recklessness and disregard for the core of our very country; and all out of a ‘root of bitterness’ that has festered up in their spite for Donald Trump.
Personally, I went through a period of shock when Trump became POTUS. But we have covered so much ground since then, and the stakes are so high, even higher than Trump the man himself, that the idea of countenancing a democrat as POTUS, under current party expectations, are not conceivable to me. The socialists have all of their ears, and as such I cannot understand how any Christian could vote for such a candidate. We are at macro level altitude at this point, not simply micro issues like Trump’s personage represents.
