Home>Articles>Sherman Re-Introduces Impeachment Measures Against Pres. Trump
Articles Congress

Sherman Re-Introduces Impeachment Measures Against Pres. Trump

Cal. Cong. Defies Pelosi and House Leaders Who Call Move ‘Premature’

By Evan Gahr, January 6, 2019 8:30 am

Cong. Brad Sherman meets with FAA officials, Nov. 2018. (Facebook)

Bucking newly-installed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Congressman Brad Sherman (D-Northridge) on Thursday re-introduced his 2017 measure to impeach President Donald Trump for obstruction of justice.

Pelosi has repeatedly said impeachment proceedings would be premature before Special Counsel Robert Mueller releases his report. For now, most Democratic leaders seem focused on using their new subpoena power, obtained upon gaining control of the House of Representatives, to feverishly investigate all things Trump.

But Sherman told the Los Angeles Times, “There is no reason it shouldn’t be before the Congress. Every day, Donald Trump shows that leaving the White House would be good for our country.”

“I didn’t do this as some political move, I did it in July of 2017, about as far away from an election as a House member ever gets,” the pol also insisted to CNN.

“Now I’m making sure not to take a step backward. We had to either take a step backward or not take a step backward.”

By that he meant the impeachment resolution expired with the last Congress so it needed to be re-introduced.

Sherman’s articles of impeachment, which the last Congress never voted on, say Trump is guilty of obstruction of justice because he fired FBI director James Comey and told him to back off investigating his former national security advisor Michael Flynn.

“In his conduct while President of the United States, Donald John Trump, in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best of his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the Constitution of the United States, and in violation of his constitutional duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed, has prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of justice.”

“Knowing that Federal law enforcement authorities were investigating possible criminal law violations of his former National Security Advisor, General Michael Flynn and knowing that Federal law enforcement authorities were conducting one or more investigations into Russian state interference in the 2016 campaign for President of the United States, and that such investigation(s) included the conduct of his campaign personnel and associates acting on behalf of the campaign, to include the possible collusion by those individuals with the Russian government, Donald John Trump sought to use his authority to hinder and cause the termination of such investigation(s) including through threatening, and then terminating, James Comey.”

“In all of this,” the four page resolution reads, ”Donald John Trump has acted in a manner contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States.

“Wherefore, Donald John Trump, by such conduct, warrants impeachment and trial, and removal from office.”

On the day a freshman Democratic congresswoman called Trump “a motherfucker” who should be impeached, several top Democrats were rather dismissive of Sherman’s resolution.

California Representative Adam Schiff, the new chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and Congressman Elijah Cummings (D-Maryland), the new Oversight Committee chairman, called Sherman’s move “premature.”

Schiff said Democrats should wait for Mueller.

“After Bob Mueller issues his report, we ought to see what evidence he produces, before we have any discussions of what the consequences should be.”

Representative Jerrold Nadler (D-New York), who as House Judiciary Committee chairman would handle any impeachment proceedings, said tartly of Sherman’s resolution, “To each his own.”

But House Armed Services Committee Chairman Adam Smith (D-Washington), while stopping short of saying he would support the resolution, was more sympathetic.

“It’s not too soon to be talking about” impeachment, he argued. “We will have to decide whether or not it’s the correct course of action. But certainly we should be discussing it and asking those questions and figuring out what the best course of action is.”

Evan Gahr

Evan Gahr was the Washington Gadfly columnist for the Daily Caller and press critic for New York Post editorial page editor Eric Breindel.
Spread the news:
RELATED ARTICLES
Filter by
Post Page
Highlight Articles National Governor Legislature Legal Party Business
Sort by

It’s Constitution Day!

On this day in 1787 the U.S. Constitution was signed
September 17, 2019 8:12 am

8

Gov. Newsom Named in Federal Lawsuit Targeting New Statewide Rent Control Law

City Council of Long Beach also named in lawsuit
October 18, 2019 9:05 am

0

California Globe Interview with CAGOP Chairwoman Jessica Patterson

‘Californians are fed up and they know it is all because of one-party rule in Sacramento’
October 17, 2019 2:41 pm

0

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *