By Mark Savalla
Response to Julia Brownley letter originally published in the Ventura County Star.
Recently Julia Brownley attempted to explain why she voted to impeach President Trump for the second time. (https://juliabrownley.house.gov/rep-julia-brownley-why-i-voted-to-impeach-the-president-again)
I had to ask myself: why would an elected official have to explain their vote? Was it because there was an outcry against such a vote? Because the impeachment failed by a landslide? Because the impeachment was unconstitutional? Because this impeachment,like the first one, was a lie? Her explanation reads like an exemplar CNN fake news broadcast.
First, she does not hide her anti-President Trump bias. “But, as with everything related to Donald Trump, the ceremonial, but critically important elements to project a peaceful, democratic transfer of power, were twisted, distorted, and corrupted for personal gain over national interest.”
She offers zero evidence, no facts to support her claim that he pursued this for personal gain.Based on the economy and international acclaim and respect for the President Trump, it appears that our national interest was his top priority not personal gain.
Her next string of allegations: “From refusing to concede, despite losing by over seven million votes, to filing and losing over 60 lawsuits, to threatening to bring criminal charges against the Georgia Secretary of State if he didn’t “find more votes,” the president’s attempts to overturn the will of the people was unprecedented. “
Fine to have an opinion but actions that are “unprecedented” are not illegal. In fact, “unprecedented” actions mirror those actions taken by the Democrat party in several prior elections.
She admits that the President “Yet, having failed at all of those attempts, he went even further by pressuring Republicans in Congress, who sadly bent to his will once again, to object to the state certifications. The number of Republicans who objected, and the number of states they objected to, was also unprecedented.”
Again, she substantiates no illegal acts, only a dislike for a President she hates and despises for being so successful.
Now, she continues with the CNN, Socialistic, Communistic meme of attacking everyone who voted for the President with slanderous, lying, insulting adjectives. Again, she provides no evidence or facts of illegal acts committed by the President or Congress. She admits the President “tried” to have Congress stop Biden from becoming president. Nothing illegal.
She continues a diatribe of insults of the President’s supporters: “Unsurprisingly, this wasn’t enough for the President or for some of his enablers in Congress. After repeatedly encouraging, cajoling, and sending dog whistles throughout his presidency to neo-Nazis, white supremacists, and anarchists, he directed them to come to Washington to protest the electoral certification. He tried to stop Congress from declaring Joe Biden president. He tried to stop the important institutional mechanisms for a smooth transfer of power from moving forward.”
Her most used accurate term “tried” is her only support for her impeachment vote and “tried” is not a crime.
Her words: “The groups and individuals, the very ones he told to “stand back and stand by,” headed to the Capitol, with guns, pipe bombs, and zip ties in hand, to “hang Mike Pence,” hunt down Nancy Pelosi, stop the lawful workings of Congress, and wreak havoc on our nation’s Capital. Police were assaulted and beaten, the Vice President, Senators, and members of Congress were hunted, staff were terrorized, and journalists were attacked. A noose and gallows were erected. Windows were shattered and the hallowed halls of Congress were desecrated. Six people died.”
Brownley’s summary of events on January 6, 2021 has been debunked by most of the evidence that has been uncovered since the incident. There was damage and there were guns and pipe bombs. No weapons were discovered inside the Capitol Building. The only person known to have been killed was the young lady shot by security personnel inside the Capitol Building. Not at all the way Julia Brownley portrays it.
Where is all the information regarding the failure of the Capitol Police not being supported after asking on several occasions prior to the incident for back-up personnel or the National Guard?
Brownley continues her biased, skewed, and tortured explanation of her role to impeach. “The president’s defense, that he told these armed insurrectionists to “protest peacefully” and expected them therefore to do so, lacks even the slightest hint of credibility. What he did, inciting a mob to violently attack the Capitol, is beyond any reasonable doubt the very definition of sedition.”
Sedition is conduct or speech inciting people to rebel against the authority of a state or monarch. Telling someone to protest peacefully is not remotely seditious.
Julia Brownley makes no case nor does the evidence support a case of impeachment (Impeachment is designed for removal from office upon conviction- but not of a man already out of office). There were no witnesses called and no hearing held, there was a vote in the House, and it was not supported by a Senate conviction. The entire impeachment was a sham by the Democratic party (Communists in my opinion) to detract from an obvious unlawful, deeply flawed and fraudulent election.
Julia Brownley summarizes her limited intellectual abilities of argument by stating: “We could not simply let it slide, knowing he’d be gone in a week. We could not let Trump’s actions go unaccounted. We could not let our democracy take this blow unanswered.”
Ask yourself why an elected official would have to explain their vote. Was it because there was an outcry against such a vote, because the impeachment failed by a landslide, because the impeachment was unconstitutional? Her explanation mirrors a CNN fake news broadcast.
None of her explanation supports any legal basis for casting a vote for an ill-considered, unlawful impeachment. It was not a vote to defend, preserve, and honor our democracy (actually a republic, by the way).
The views and opinions expressed in this commentary are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of Citizens Journal.
Mark Savalla is a retired LAPD officer