Show trials, where the accused have no rights and guilt is predetermined, are integral to communist and Nazi regimes. They have no place in the West and especially not in its Anglosphere heart.
As Hong Kong voters have clearly indicated, people everywhere want to live in freedom under the rule of law.
It was all the more surprising then to see a show trial underway in that stronghold of constitutional governance, Washington’s Capitol Building. What was even more astounding was that the victim was none other than the 45th President.
And unlike the most notorious terrorist or mass murder, Donald Trump was refused the very essence of due process, trial before an impartial judge and the right to confront his accuser, to cross-examine witnesses and to call his own.
The chief villain of the Soviet show trials, under which almost every one of Stalin’s old revolutionary comrades was tortured and shot, was the infamous Andrey Yanuaryevich Vyshinsky.
The Vyshinskys in the Capitol were Adam Bennett Schiff and Jerrold (Jerry) Lewis Nadler who both shamelessly prosecuted while presiding.
Given his tutelage of the ‘whistleblower’ concerning his complaint about the President’s telephone call with the Ukrainian president which he had not actually heard, Schiff, should obviously have stood down. Opening the investigation, Schiff’s account of the President’s call was filled with exaggerations and downright lies.
He was caught out when the President unexpectedly released the transcript, just as he was over his claim to have evidence of Trump’s collusion with the Russians which he failed to present to the US$39 million Mueller investigation.
Like some Vyshinsky lurking in the dungeons of the Lubyanka, Schiff held closed secret Democrat-only sessions in the Capitol basement. Yet with all that he produced not a skerrick of impeachable evidence.
Only one slim piece of evidence could possibly be admitted at any trial, one minuscule part of Ambassador Sondland’s testimony confirming there was no quid pro quo or any threat thereof or indeed, any bribery or anything else which could even be vaguely impeachable, even if the grounds are as broad as those in the first published Articles of Impeachment.
That great lawyer and strong Democratic party supporter who voted against Trump in 2016, Alan Dershowitz, says these grounds are so vague and so open-ended they could be used against almost any president. This is the very situation the Founding Fathers rejected – impeaching merely because one party has the numbers. Any impeachment not based on evidence of the commission of treason, bribery, high crimes and misdemeanours, he insists, is void.
This impeachment is only the latest phase of a conspiracy between inhabitants of the swamp and the mainstream media to stop and then to reverse Trump’s lawful election. On this, recall that within barely minutes of his inauguration, the Washington Post announced the campaign to impeach him had already begun.
Although baseless, lacking bipartisan support, unpopular in crucial battleground states, likely to fail in the Senate and to increase support for Trump, this impeachment is still being accelerated.
The only plausible reason is to neutralise the revelations and indeed the criminal indictments of certain grandees which will flow from the inquiry under US Attorney John Durham. His coming Durham Report will undoubtedly be as celebrated as its nineteenth century British namesake which turned her colonies into dominions.
The Durham Report has been preceded by the release of Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s internal report into the FBI’s surveillance of the Trump election campaign which led to the Mueller investigation. This has revealed serious breaches of the process of obtaining surveillance warrants, commonly called wiretaps, under the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act. These are granted in an ex parte hearing of which the person proposed to be surveilled has no notice. These breaches included the presentation of fabricated evidence based on the unverified and uncorroborated Clinton and Democrat-funded Steele Dossier, without revealing that source. Evidence indicating innocence or negating the reliability of their principal source was suppressed each time a judge was asked to renew the warrant.
Yet when Trump complained in 2017 that he had been wiretapped by the Obama administration during the election campaign, he was condescendingly ridiculed in the media.
The powers of the Durham inquiry are significantly greater than the Inspector General’s and have been elevated to that of a criminal inquiry with power to empanel a grand jury, to compel witnesses to testify and to bring criminal charges.
Many habitués of the swamp are no doubt worried despite a predictable emphasis in the media on Horowitz’s conclusions that the opening of the investigation was properly predicated or justified because of ‘the low threshold for predication’ was satisfied by the conversation between Trump campaign aide George Papadopoulos and Alexander Downer.
However, both the Attorney General and Attorney Durham have pointed out the Durham inquiry is broader than the Horowitz departmental investigation, Durham revealing he has told Horowitz he disagrees with his conclusions on the opening of the investigation.
All this is extremely important to Australia.
First the American president has long been the leader of the West. It is important that his office be given the respect it has hitherto been accorded domestically and internationally.
Second, it is crucial for Australia that Donald Trump succeed in making America great again so there is no doubt that we will long live in a world where the principal power shares similar values and objectives, laws and language.
Third, his powerful example could encourage Australian politicians to change direction and govern in the interests of the Australian people and not to follow the alien and damaging dogmas to which they regretfully render obeisance.