PHOTO: Bill of attainder

HOUSE Speaker Nancy Pelosi has now formally stamped an institutional imprimatur on the continued House harassment intended to punish and harm President Donald Trump.

Following another deep-state assault against Trump, six House committees are operating under Speaker Pelosi’s recycled 2016 “resistance” umbrella for impeachment inquiries.

Speaker Pelosi needs to be reminded that the U.S. Constitution’s Article II, Section 4 has an exacting “high crimes” evidence standard for a valid House impeachment.

President Trump did absolutely nothing wrong in his telephone call with the Ukrainian leader.

Just as the Mueller investigation yielded no collusion and no obstruction, here there is no abuse of power or cover-up.

There is no quid, no pro, and no quo.

The media reports that this latest deep-state move against Trump comes from a CIA officer who was granted high-level security access in the White House.

However, the federal whistleblower statute’s protection is not applicable to illegal leaks of presidential communication by an intelligence official. Any reasoned legal analysis shows the CIA officer is not a whistleblower.

Regardless, the so-called “whistleblower complaint” evidences no wrongdoing by Trump. But its exacting legal form does indicate a coordinated intelligence operation against the 45th president.

Any collusion to mask the leak as a “whistleblower complaint” would itself be a gross betray of trust. And the so-called White House “cover up” was an appropriate attempt to plug and prevent illegal leaks.

The full House needs to be reminded that the U.S. Constitution explicitly forbids legislative harassment—that is, punishment that causes direct harm or even reputational harm—such as those of a fake, partisan impeachment.

Article I, Section 9 of the U.S. Constitution states that “[n]o bill of attainder…shall be passed.”

The House may not punish or harm any individual, including Donald John Trump.

Whether using a de facto (by fact) or de jure (by law) paradigm, the House’s punitive harassment, and the evolving fake impeachment against Trump, should be analyzed as an attainder.

Like attainders of old, the only purpose of the House’s fake impeachment of Trump, without any credible evidence of a high crime and without any possible chance of Senate conviction, is to punish, taint, and stain the president.

English jurist William Blackstone described “attainder” as any legislative harm, taint, stains, or blackening.

According to Blackstone, the prohibited “attintus” may come in any form or fashion. The attainder may constitute an actual penalty or it may be purposed solely to damage a targeted individual’s reputation and credibility.

The U.S. Constitution’s attainder restriction was a disruptive 18th century human rights advancement.

Harvard Law professor Zechariah Chaffee Jr. described the legislative punishment ban as “one of the three most important human rights” in the U.S. Constitution’s 1787 main (unamended) text.

The Constitution’s textual prohibition against attainder provides a solid, human-rights argument against the House moving forward with its fake impeachment of our duly elected president.

Victor Williams, a widely-published scholar on the impeachment removal process, has taught at Catholic University’s Columbus School of Law, the City University of New York’s John Jay College of Criminal Justice, and the University of Maryland’s Carey School of Law. Williams is chair of Lawyers and Law Professors for Trump, and is running for the U.S. Senate in 2020 against Sen. Mark Warner.

Load comments