‘To see the committee hearing experts on the topic of impeachment with not one of color is both regrettable and disrespectful…’
(Ben Sellers, Liberty Headlines) Unhinged, race-baiting Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, shared the same reaction as many conservatives upon seeing the four panelists in Wednesday’s House Judiciary Committee hearing on impeachment: He was shocked by the lack of diversity.
While many marveled at the lack of intellectual diversity from the chorus of so-called scholars selected by House Democrats under Rep. Jerrold Nadler, D-NY, Green was outraged that none were black radicals like himself.
“Today, as Congress examines the constitutionality of impeaching President Donald John Trump, I have noticed a grave oversight,” he said in a statement.
“While erudite and experienced, none of the witnesses are persons of color,” he complained. “To see the committee hearing experts on the topic of impeachment with not one of color is both regrettable and disrespectful.”
Green accused Nadler and the Judiciary Committee of conveying dog-whistle racism through the omission of a black legal expert.
“What subliminal message are we sending to the world about the intellect of people of color?” he asked. “Are we indicating that there are no experts of color on one of the seminal issues of this Congress?”
The Democrats’ primary criterion for the selection of the panelists appeared to be their ability to spin the flimsy evidence presented by the House Intelligence Committee into an academic justification for the predetermined outcome.
Only one of the four professors from elite law schools conveyed any reservations about impeachment. George Washington University’s Jonathan Turley likened Trump to the devil in his opening remarks but concluded, nonetheless, that a baseless indictment without clear evidence or consensus would set a dangerous precedent that the Left may, one day, regret.
Turley said the current impeachment effort most closely paralleled the 1868 impeachment of President Andrew Johnson, three years after the end of the Civil War and the assassination of Abraham Lincoln.
“It is not a model or an association that this committee should relish,” Turley said. “In that case, a group of opponents of the president called the Radical Republicans created a trap-door crime in order to impeach the president.”
But Green issued a second statement Wednesday to offer his alternative historical perspective.
In a rambling, 1,121-word missive that celebrated Johnson’s impeachment (the 17th president ultimately was acquitted by the Senate, as Trump is expected to be), Green bitterly bemoaned that more Democrats needed to embrace the Radical Republicans’ Reconstruction-era mindset.
“If the congressional Republicans of 1868 impeached President Johnson for his abusive, incitive, racist comments causing harm, why can’t the Congress of 2019 impeach President Trump for his abusive, incitive, racist, anti-Semitic, Islamophobic, transphobic comments causing harm to society?” Green wondered. “Why should we pass a resolution condemning the President’s racist comments and then get back to racism as usual, where racism is more of a talking point than an action item?”
The resolution that Green was likely referring to was one originally drafted to condemn the anti-Semitic comments of Rep. Ilhan Omar, D-Minn. However, after members of the Congressional Black Caucus, such as Green, threatened a revolt, the resolution was rewritten in broader language that instead took aim at Trump.
Green insisted that not only was Trump’s perceived racist sentiment—a charge the president and his supporters have robustly dismissed as radical leftist rhetoric—sufficient grounds to constitute the high crimes and misdemeanors needed for impeachment, but it eclipsed any questions over the commission of an actual crime.
““Our country’s original sin of irreparably harmful slavery continues to haunt us as slavery’s odious incendiary scion—racism,” Green said.
“It’s the constant kitchen-table issue for Black people,” he continued. “Regrettably, the President weaponizes racism to the shame of country and detriment of people of color.”
Green seemed to show little self-awareness as to his own weaponization of racism, but his stance is nothing new. Already, as of July 2019, Green had attempted at least three times in six months to introduce articles of impeachment in the House.
Last month, he told Yahoo News that it was his God-given “mission” to impeach Trump.
“Only God knows what he [Trump] will do when he believes that he has no one to answer to,” Green ranted. “Right now, he knows that we are there, but if we don’t do our duty, the president will do unthinkable things.”
While Green has doubled-down on the need to impeach, other Democrats have begun to second-guess the wisdom of the partisan measure, fearing that their failure to persuade the public not only will embolden and inure the president further, but also may take a heavy toll on their own political capital leading into next year’s election.
With polls showing support for the president had risen following the Intelligence Committee’s hearings, some on the Left cautiously floated the suggestion of censuring Trump instead.
However, Green criticized his colleagues for their double-standard in putting the interests of a foreign country ahead of the demands of their own constituents.
“To those who say that the House resolution condemning the President is enough, I say if impeachment is the remedy for invidious abuse of power related to Ukraine, it should be the remedy for invidious abuse of power related to racism in the United States,” he declared. “If impeachment was just for President Andrew Johnson’s racist actions, it’s just for President Donald Trump’s racist actions.”
As for whether evidence of criminal conduct was needed, Green pointed to his trusty, well-worn copy of Webster’s dictionary, which was first published 40 years after the adoption of the U.S. Constitution.
“To those who say impeachment requires the commission of some statutory crime, I say please stop it. Do some research,” he chided.
“… You will find that among other definitions, the definition of a crime is ‘something reprehensible, foolish, or disgraceful,’” he said. “You will also find that among other definitions, the definition of a misdemeanor is a ‘misdeed.’”
In both cases, he claimed, the question was moot as to whether Trump’s actions were actually unlawful.
“We must not allow ourselves to be convinced that we cannot do that which has already been constitutionally done,” Green said.