Crom Carmichael on the Curious Case for Impeaching Citizen Donald J. Trump

  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  
  •  

 

Live from Music Row Wednesday morning on The Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy – broadcast on Nashville’s Talk Radio 98.3 and 1510 WLAC weekdays from 5:00 a.m. to 8:00 a.m. –  host Leahy welcomed the original all-star panelist Crom Carmichael to the studio to weigh in on the second impeachment of the ex-president, Donald J. Trump.

Leahy: We are in studio with the all-star panelist Crom Carmichael. Crom, good morning again.

Carmichael: Yes. Yes, good morning.

Leahy: So here we are Crom. You are building the edifice of logic brick by brick. And on topic today, what the House of Representatives just passed on to the United States Senate in their impeachment documents. Tell us about that.

Carmichael: Well when you read Byron York had a very interesting column on it, but it gives the quotes which are very important. He says in the first paragraph of the article, it reads “resolved that Donald John Trump, President of the United States.” That’s how it starts.

Leahy: It starts that way?

Carmichael: It starts that way.

Leahy: That’s like false.

Carmichael: Right.

Leahy: He’s not president.

Carmichael: But what I want to get into is why. Why are they doing this? Because that’s not unintentional. Okay, then it goes on to say a few paragraphs in detail. It details the conduct by Trump that occurred in early January when he was indeed president. Then another step back in time when the article says where for Donald John Trump by such conduct has demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.

Now, that’s what the articles say that were passed to the Senate after he was out of office. So we have to ask ourselves, why would the House do that? And I think there are two reasons. One is, this is an absolute broadside to the Supreme Court because this resolution is so incredibly unconstitutional, the resolution itself on its face is so incredibly unconstitutional there has to be a reason that they did it.

And this is a finger in the eye of the Supreme Court essentially telling them that if this goes to the Supreme Court is whether or not it’s constitutional we want you to know that we’re going to expand the court if you go against us. We in the House will vote to expand the court because you’ll be Trumpians if you side with Trump.

Leahy: Very interesting.

Carmichael: Yeah. The other thing it is also an assault on the Constitution itself. And that is very important because every time Nancy Pelosi says I revere the Constitution. And you know she doesn’t.

Leahy: Exactly the opposite.

Carmichael: And so what she is doing by passing these articles that are such an affront to the Constitution itself is a precedent that essentially is saying I don’t care what the clear language in the document says I can do whatever I want to and so can the people in power. Which right now the Democrats happen to be.

And so I look at this as not some kind of a mistake or not some kind of a farce. I look at this as a frontal attack on the Supreme Court launched by Pelosi in conjunction with Schumer. And it’s also an attack on the Constitution, the document that essentially rules our country. That is the law of the land.

Leahy: It is the binding element of our country.

Carmichael: And no one has ever said what’s so important in talking about the Constitution. No one has ever argued that the Constitution is perfect. And in fact, when the Constitution was drafted itself, it was drafted and ratified and by definition, there were compromises within the document itself in order to get the constitution written and ratified. There were compromises. And we know that because the founding fathers put an amendment process in the document itself.

Leahy: That’s exactly right. To change.

Carmichael: To give future generations an opportunity to improve the documents because the document itself says in order to form a more perfect union, not a perfect union, a more perfect union. And so it is indicating in the body itself that this is not perfect. It’s pretty darn good and it’s as good as we can do right now for us to have a nation. But in the future, if you need to amend it, here’s how to do it and we’re giving you the rules of the road for that. Which has been used by the way about 28 times?

Leahy: 27 or 28 times. By the way to our listening audience, this is why Crom Carmichael is the original all-star panelist, with that argument right there.

Listen to the full third hour here:

– – –

Tune in weekdays from 5:00 – 8:00 a.m. to the Tennessee Star Report with Michael Patrick Leahy on Talk Radio 98.3 FM WLAC 1510. Listen online at iHeart Radio

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Related posts

Comments