Advocacy / AMAC In The Media / Politics / Radio Interviews

Impeachment Issues – Robert Charles interviewed by Matthew Hill of WPWT, Bristol, TN

Matthew Hill

7:44 our time here on this Tuesday edition of The Hill Show, Matthew Hill with you, Bradley Harvey with you, and our special guest is with us as well. Joining us by telephone right now, it is Mr. Robert Charles. He is the spokesman for AMAC – The Association of Mature American Citizens. Robert, welcome to the program this morning.  

Robert Charles

Well, thank you for having me on.   

Hill

Absolutely. So, what we’re doing here is, I told the audience, that you were going to come on and tell us what in the world is going on with this whole impeachment deal. I want to care, but I don’t know if I should care because, are we in the search for transparency, accountability, and the truth, or is this just a political stunt to help the Democrats raise money recruit candidates and ultimately have issues to run on against President Trump next year?   

Charles

I think that’s really the question of the moment and, first let me say thank you for even entertaining this conversation. AMAC represents basically those over the age of 50 who – it’s really the conservative alternative to AARP – and I came to that group chiefly because a lot of the values, I’ll call them the Reagan values, are the kinds of things that I really believe America both was built on a need in the future. So, I served in Reagan’s White House and I served in Bush 41 and then, obviously, was Assistant Secretary of State with Colin Powell, and I think we need to get back to some of those values. But the short version is this, you know, what we’re witnessing right now is a dangerous process. It is taking an extreme constitutional remedy for what is supposed to be some kind of an extreme act by a chief executive or others. We’ve impeached some federal judges over the history of the country, but we’ve taken this, and Democrats seem, to me, to be playing a game and the thing that’s so dangerous about this is that America cannot afford this distraction.

Impeachment even, if you had a valid reason, and I don’t believe there is a valid reason. But even if you had one it takes you off our national security bead, it takes us off the kind of legislative requirements that are standing outstanding. The Democrat Congress has not passed…  The Democrats in the house have not worked with the with the Senate to pass any of the appropriations bills. We’re looking at a series of treaties that sit on their desks without action. So, the legislative side of this is also damaging. The bottom line, though, is that this is much more, I think, an attempt to rush to judgment and prevent the news from getting out that there’s a big train coming into the station. The Department of Justice is about to release their FISA report – the IG, the US Attorney in Connecticut, I think, is about to come out with information that demonstrates where they the Russia collusion debacle really came from. And I think they’re trying – there have been 130 interviews at the State Department in recent months about the Hillary Clinton involvement and Obama administration’s involvement – and so, I think they’re trying, in a sense, to take everybody’s eyes off the ball and push  this impeachment narrative. The problem is that’s a very dangerous political game to play.  

Hill

Well, you just said it right there, political gain. And I wanted to ask you this question before – I’ve got a couple questions. First one is, in your mind, based on your experience in the federal government from the Reagan White House all the way through President George W. Bush, what is a legitimate reason for impeachment, in your opinion? 

Charles

A high crime, the misdemeanors, really in the context of not only recent events, but the founders own writings, I mean, all the way back to James Madison’s writings in the Federalist, etc., is an extreme act. It is an act typically – and that’s why we’ve seen so few efforts to even discuss this topic. This is not a political… I mean, on the one hand, it’s a political process, but on the other this is not meant to be a political tool. It is meant to be a tool for saving the republic from a high crime. So, I mean, you know there were legitimate arguments even in the in the impeachment that have been initiated the – one for Andrew Johnson, the one for Richard Nixon that actually only ever got out of committee, and the one for Bill Clinton, there were legitimate arguments on both sides that we shouldn’t even be in that process. The irony in this is that they’re turning – they’ve turned, really, the Constitution on its head, because what they’ve said is that a phone call with a foreign leader is to encourage support in a criminal investigation is somehow an impeachable offense, that it really is absurd.

I mean, first of all, there is a treaty that was passed – that was ratified in the year 2000 between the United States and Ukraine – that the press does not talk much about it, but that treaty, by the text, fully permits a president or an attorney general – in fact it encourages them – to discuss in a predicate crime including public corruption and then you go to the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act and you look at exactly what Joe Biden did and it fits the textbook definition of what the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act was supposed to be there to prevent. So, yes, the Attorney General would have probably been the better choice, or maybe the Secretary of State to elicit that information, but there’s no impeachable offense here. And I think the American people are sick and tired of this kind of dialogue. They want their Congress to work for them not against them and I think that, unfortunately, Washington drinks too much of its own Kool-Aid and it thinks that this is somehow a win, or the Democrats think this is going to be a political win. And I think it’s really – I think the average American has reason to be upset.  

Hill

Well, we’ve looked at numbers yesterday, here on the show, that said that around 46%, allegedly – I say this, around 46% of people, of Americans, were in favor of impeachment. Even if that number is true, this isn’t a popularity contest. This is something to be taken very, very soberly, very seriously, right?   

Charles

That’s absolutely right. I mean, this is an extreme act. We’ve had an innumerable number of both federal judges and senior officials that have been maybe politically unpopular. We have not turned to the tool chest and pulled out this extreme tool of impeachment to try to, essentially, disenfranchise the American people. I mean, the problem with this is, above and beyond whether there’s any merit to it and there really isn’t any merit to the due to the impeachment inquiry, as far as I am concerned – I look at it legally, I look at it from the point of view of history – but, you know, the downside of this is even more serious when you think about the fact that we’re a year away from an election and this was an attempt, in effect, to disenfranchise the American people, to take away an election. And I think that, also, the founders would be deeply disturbed by. Because we will live through environments in which half the country does or doesn’t like or where we are, but that does not mean that you create a precedent where you now take down – every president would then be subject to a takedown, or should expect a take down if the House of Representatives is controlled by the opposing party. That would be a horrific precedent or attract you to lead the United States down.  

Hill

Okay, so, originally, when I asked for this interview, I was going to walk through, okay, is it about the phone call? What about the President of Ukraine? And then Joe Biden’s son, but really, that’s not what any of this is about, right? I mean, ultimately, what this is about is nothing really more complicated than the Democrats don’t want Trump to get reelected. They need something to run on and, so, they, for whatever reason, have decided, no we’re not going to run on healthcare, we’re not going to run on jobs, we’re not going to run on, whatever, on any real substantive issues. We’re just going to run on Donald Trump’s the devil, and we got to kick him out of office. I mean, is that accurate? If it is, is that a strategy?  

Charles

Although it sounds simple – it sounds almost too simple – I think you’ve really nailed it because, if you think about the substance of this election cycle and you look at the economy – the economy is doing exceptionally well. Every single demographic – you can slice and dice it however you want, but you basically upended all the expectations that people had. You have the best economy in 50 years. You look at the settling-down of international relations with the United States, resetting expectations for China, resetting expectations for Europe, resetting them for Russia, resetting them in the Middle East, and again, you see a turn in a direction that it’s hard to argue with. And, I think you really nailed it, because I think as the Democrats in the House in particular look around, what are their presidential candidates running on? Medicare for all, which would throw 180 million Americans off their private medical healthcare, making it literally – I’ve studied both of the bills in the house in the Senate – making it illegal for someone to provide private health insurance as an employer. It would cost an excess of thirty trillion dollars, and, you know, we’re looking at a twenty-three trillion-dollar federal deficit today. That is an unheard of – that’s truly immoral in the sense that it imposes that obligation on future generations.

Then you talk about this green New Deal. That’s 32 trillion dollars. The Democrats appear to be, essentially, just desperate for something that they can call a big issue. And, you know, I think I come back again to the values of something like AMAC. This is an organization that is out there effectively supporting the First Amendment, the Second Amendment, the Fourth, the Sixth, the Ninth – and they’re also supporting the idea of an America that is solvent and is taking the long view about its intergenerational obligations. Yes, there’s lots of benefits you get from being in that organization – the 40% off here and there – but the reality is that it is a voice in Washington, which is why I’m associated with it. It is a voice in Washington that helps those basic values to be heard. AMAC.us and… If you don’t hear those basic values, then people wander off the reservation and that’s really what happened with the US House at the moment.  

Hill

We’re visiting with Robert Charles from AMAC. I wanted to talk about AMAC for a second, you just did that a little bit, but if someone is a member right now of the other organization and they want to become a member of AMAC, one, do they need to switch? Two, can they be members of both? How does that work?  

Charles

I think very excellent question. You don’t need to un- you don’t need to pull yourself out of any other organization to be a member of AMAC, and it’s extremely cost effective. You just Google AMAC and you will come up with the both the website and the way to become a member, but I’ll just tell you, in a nutshell, this organization not only gives you all the benefits that that are, sort of, financial, associated with a seniors organization, but they do much more than that. They produce a magazine called AMAC advantage that, in my view, is a better read than Time Magazine. It is a detailed assessment of some of the issues of the day ranging from the border, and what the real implications are there, to things like energy to things like health care.

It is a great source of information. And in a world in which information is often not credible the AMAC source of information, which is its website, its newsletters, the details that you get in the magazine, to me, are well worth every penny and it’s not – it’s really not expensive. So, it’s a, you know, it’s a terrific organization and I think in a world, again, of when we have to naturally be careful and cautious and it’s hard to trust the information you get, it’s hard to trust the people you talk to – what I love about that organization which has more than 2 million members already and just is growing by leaps and bounds, is that it is really the embodiment of the values that I think Ronald Reagan stood for. Strong defense, smaller government, lower taxes, constitutional fidelity to our founders Constitution, a good moral compass, and I think a better sense of what America really should be because of what America has been.  

Hill

Look, Robert, I appreciate you coming on the show this morning. I appreciate the update and helping to get us really, really focused and maybe for some folks listening refocused on what this impeachment deal is all about, and I appreciate the really good information on AMAC and I want to encourage folks  to check out your website it’s AMAC – A-M-A-C – AMAC.us

If You Enjoy Articles Like This - Subscribe to the AMAC Daily Newsletter!

Sign Up Today

2
Leave a Reply

2 Comment threads
0 Thread replies
0 Followers
 
Most reacted comment
Hottest comment thread
2 Comment authors
  Subscribe  
newest oldest most voted
Notify of
Ta Ling

Great and informative interview for this newly minted member.

giger_p@yahoo.com

At least someone has their feet on the ground..