![\"Jamie](\"https:\/\/news2.watchtowatch.top\/wp-content\/uploads\/2025\/11\/w25-4.png\")
<\/p>\n<\/p>\n
Washington, D.C.<\/strong>\u00a0\u2014 It was billed as a routine Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, but by the time the gavel fell, the event had become a defining moment in the ongoing debate over congressional power, due process, and the very meaning of constitutional democracy in America. At the center of it all: Congressman Jamie Raskin, the Maryland Democrat revered as the party\u2019s constitutional authority, and Senator Ted Cruz, the Texas Republican whose Supreme Court credentials and prosecutorial instincts made him a formidable opponent.<\/p>\n The packed hearing room buzzed with anticipation. The topic\u2014constitutional oversight and congressional authority\u2014seemed dry on paper, but everyone in Washington knew that fireworks were inevitable. You don\u2019t invite Jamie Raskin to testify before Ted Cruz without expecting a battle.<\/p>\n .<\/p>\n .<\/p>\n .<\/p>\n Congressman Raskin, 72, a former American University law professor, entered the room with the gravitas of a scholar and the confidence of a veteran legislator. He had spent eight years in Congress, led the second impeachment of Donald Trump, and served on the January 6th committee. His reputation as democracy\u2019s defender was as much a product of his rhetoric as his resume.<\/p>\n Senator Cruz, 54, sat at the center of the dais, reviewing his notes with the focused intensity of a man who had argued before the Supreme Court and never lost a constitutional debate. Harvard Law, Magna Cum Laude, Supreme Court clerkship under Chief Justice Rehnquist, Texas Solicitor General\u2014Cruz\u2019s credentials were unimpeachable.<\/p>\n The chairman gaveled the hearing to order, and Raskin wasted no time launching into his prepared remarks. But instead of testimony on oversight, he delivered a blistering attack.<\/p>\n \u201cMr. Chairman, we face an unprecedented threat to American democracy,\u201d Raskin declared. \u201cSenator Cruz and others enabled Donald Trump\u2019s attempt to overturn the 2020 election. They objected to electoral votes, undermining the peaceful transfer of power that defines our republic.\u201d<\/p>\n His voice carried the certainty of a professor, his gaze fixed on Cruz. \u201cAs a constitutional law professor, I must say Senator Cruz violated his oath to the Constitution. He and President Trump represent a form of authoritarianism that threatens everything our founders built. You, Senator, are a danger to American democracy.\u201d<\/p>\n The room fell silent. Raskin had come out swinging, confident that his academic authority and constitutional rhetoric would shield him from rebuttal.<\/p>\n Cruz let Raskin finish, then leaned back with a faint smile. \u201cCongressman Raskin, thank you for that lecture. Very professorial, very sanctimonious,\u201d he said. \u201cNow, I\u2019m just a simple country lawyer from Texas.\u201d The irony was not lost on anyone\u2014Cruz\u2019s credentials were anything but simple.<\/p>\n \u201cBut since you brought up the Constitution, let\u2019s discuss your record on constitutional matters. Specifically, let\u2019s discuss how you\u2019ve systematically abused it.\u201d<\/p>\n Raskin stiffened, clearly not expecting the rapid pivot. Cruz opened a folder and began a methodical deconstruction of Raskin\u2019s legacy.<\/p>\n \u201cYou\u2019ve spent years claiming to defend the Constitution, leading impeachments, running investigations, issuing subpoenas\u2014all wrapped in constitutional rhetoric. But let\u2019s examine what you actually did. How you actually treated the Constitution you claimed to revere.\u201d<\/p>\n Cruz\u2019s tone shifted, adopting the edge of a prosecutor who had found his opening. \u201cLet\u2019s discuss your impeachments. Let\u2019s talk about January 6th committee abuses. Let\u2019s discuss due process violations and establish who the real threat to constitutional democracy is.\u201d<\/p>\n He started with the second impeachment of Donald Trump. \u201cCongressman Raskin, you led the impeachment of President Trump after he\u2019d already left office, after he was a private citizen. Tell me, as someone who taught constitutional law, where in the Constitution does it authorize impeaching someone who no longer holds office?\u201d<\/p>\n Raskin launched into a lecture about precedent and scholarly interpretation, but Cruz was ready. \u201cThere is no precedent for what you did. The Constitution is explicit about impeachment\u2019s purpose: removal from office and disqualification from future office. You cannot remove someone who\u2019s already gone. That\u2019s not constitutional interpretation. That\u2019s constitutional invention.\u201d<\/p>\n He continued: \u201cYou impeached a private citizen for a speech protected by the First Amendment, and you did it in seven days\u2014one week from introduction to House vote. No real investigation, no due process, no witnesses for the defense, no opportunity for cross-examination. Just rage and political theater rushed through for maximum media impact.\u201d<\/p>\n Cruz compared the timeline to historic impeachments\u2014Johnson\u2019s, Clinton\u2019s, even Trump\u2019s first\u2014all of which took months. Raskin\u2019s second impeachment was, by comparison, unprecedented in its haste.<\/p>\n A liberal constitutional law professor appeared on the video screen. \u201cI opposed President Trump\u2019s policies strongly. I wanted him defeated at the ballot box. But Congressman Raskin\u2019s second impeachment was constitutionally indefensible. You cannot impeach a private citizen. The Constitution\u2019s text and structure are unambiguous on this point.\u201d<\/p>\n The professor\u2019s testimony was devastating precisely because it transcended partisan politics. \u201cThat\u2019s not defending the Constitution. That\u2019s abusing it. And it damages impeachment permanently. Now any Congress can impeach any former president they dislike. You\u2019ve turned a solemn constitutional remedy into a partisan weapon. That\u2019s your legacy, Congressman.\u201d<\/p>\n A middle-aged man stood in the gallery, his voice carrying years of frustration. \u201cI voted for President Trump in 2016. I voted for him to serve four years as president. That\u2019s what the Constitution says\u2014four years. But Congressman Raskin and his allies spent every single day of those four years trying to remove him.\u201d<\/p>\n His voice grew stronger. \u201cRussia investigation. First impeachment. Second impeachment after he\u2019d already left office. Every single day was about overturning my vote, nullifying my choice, telling me I was too stupid to pick a president. You talk about defending democracy\u2014you tried to overturn election results for four straight years.\u201d<\/p>\n Cruz shifted to Raskin\u2019s attempt to remove Trump from the ballot via the 14th Amendment. \u201cYou declared Trump an insurrectionist without trial, without conviction, without due process. Just your political determination that he was disqualified from office.\u201d<\/p>\n The Supreme Court had rejected this unanimously. \u201cAll nine justices, liberal and conservative, agreed that your interpretation was wrong.\u201d<\/p>\n A Democratic woman in the gallery echoed the concern. \u201cI voted against Trump twice. I wanted him to lose. But what Congressman Raskin tried to do terrified me. He tried to remove a candidate from the ballot without trial, without conviction, based purely on his political judgment. If we allow that, what stops Republicans from doing it next?\u201d<\/p>\n Cruz\u2019s critique grew darker as he turned to the January 6th committee. \u201cSpeaker Pelosi rejected the minority party\u2019s choice of members\u2014the first time in congressional history. Instead, she appointed only never-Trump Republicans who agreed with the Democratic narrative.\u201d<\/p>\n He detailed due process violations: \u201cWitnesses compelled to testify in secret depositions, transcripts edited before selective release, accused given no opportunity to cross-examine accusers or present contradictory evidence. The committee operated without any adversarial process.\u201d<\/p>\n A Capitol police officer testified: \u201cI defended the Capitol. I was injured doing it. But the committee never asked me about security failures, why requests for National Guard backup were denied. They only wanted to blame Trump, only wanted to create a narrative for television.\u201d<\/p>\n Cruz described a systematic pattern of abuse. \u201cYou used congressional subpoena power to bankrupt lawyers who represented Republicans, destroy professional service providers who worked with conservatives, expose and intimidate donors to conservative causes, chill speech and association rights.\u201d<\/p>\n Testimonies from lawyers, accountants, and nonprofit leaders described financial ruin, harassment, and intimidation\u2014all for providing professional services or supporting conservative causes.<\/p>\n Cruz cited Supreme Court precedent: \u201cNAACP v. Alabama. The Supreme Court unanimously ruled you can\u2019t force organizations to expose their supporters because it chills First Amendment rights. But you did it anyway.\u201d<\/p>\n As Cruz concluded, the weight of his argument was crushing. \u201cYou claim to defend the Constitution while systematically violating it. You lecture about threats to democracy while using authoritarian tactics. You accuse others of abuse of power while wielding it against political opponents.\u201d<\/p>\n The committee chairman announced a formal review of January 6th committee procedures and subpoena power. Lawsuits were filed by those harmed by Raskin\u2019s actions. Academic fallout followed, with law professors and journals questioning Raskin\u2019s legacy.<\/p>\n Reform legislation was introduced: the Congressional Investigation Due Process Act. No more one-sided committees, no destroying evidence, rights of cross-examination protected. It gained surprising bipartisan support.<\/p>\n Raskin announced he would not run for the Senate seat he had been eyeing. His influence dramatically diminished.<\/p>\n Ted Cruz, when asked about the hearing, was direct. \u201cI didn\u2019t attack Congressman Raskin personally. I attacked his constitutional violations. There\u2019s a difference between defending the Constitution and weaponizing it for political gain. He taught constitutional law. He should have known better.\u201d<\/p>\n Six months later, Congress passed investigation reforms. Courts ruled in favor of several people whose due process rights had been violated. And Jamie Raskin, once positioned as a leading Democratic voice on constitutional matters, found himself schooled by a constitutional law practitioner.<\/p>\n The lesson was clear: wrapping abuse in constitutional rhetoric doesn\u2019t make it constitutional. It just makes it hypocrisy.<\/p>\n A \u2018monster\u2019 filmed throwing a toddler to the floor in an airport lounge in\u00a0Moscow\u00a0has confessed to seeking to kill the helpless boy.<\/p>\n Appalling footage showed\u00a0Belarus\u00a0national Vladimir Vitkov, 31, a\u00a0nuclear power\u00a0plant construction worker, pick up and slam the 18-month-old child down at the Russian capital\u2019s\u00a0Sheremetyevo terminal.<\/p>\n The child had arrived in\u00a0Russia\u00a0minutes earlier after he and his mother fled the bombing in\u00a0Iran, say reports.<\/p>\n Little Yazdan, aged 18 months, is now fighting for his life with serious skull fractures and spinal injuries.<\/p>\n Vitkov was reported by some outlets to have been on the same flight as the child and his mother who were escaping from war-ravaged Iran where they had been visiting relatives.<\/p>\n They had reached\u00a0Afghanistan\u00a0after fleeing Iran.<\/p>\n Earlier, Vitkov had been fired from a nuclear power plant construction job in Egypt after failing a spot check for drugs and alcohol, and was returning home via Moscow, according to a friend.<\/p>\n \u2018He was valued there, appointed a foreman,\u2019 the friend told Daily Storm.<\/p>\n Appalling footage shows the moment a male tourist suddenly picks up and hurls a helpless 18-month-old boy head first on the ground in the arrivals hall of a Moscow airport<\/p>\n The tourist \u2013 identified as Vladimir Vitkov, 31, from Belarus \u2013 is seen on security footage looking closely at the boy who is next to his suitcase\u00a0<\/p>\n The boy is now fighting for his life in a coma with serious skull fractures and spinal injuries\u00a0<\/p>\n Little Yazdan, aged 18 months, is now fighting for his life with serious skull fractures and spinal injuries<\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":" Washington, D.C.\u00a0\u2014 It was billed as a routine Senate Judiciary Committee hearing, but by the time the gavel fell, the event had become a defining moment in the ongoing debate over congressional…<\/p>\n","protected":false},"author":1,"featured_media":4763,"comment_status":"open","ping_status":"open","sticky":false,"template":"","format":"standard","meta":{"footnotes":""},"categories":[1],"tags":[],"class_list":["post-4764","post","type-post","status-publish","format-standard","has-post-thumbnail","hentry","category-hot-news"],"aioseo_notices":[],"aioseo_head":"\n\t\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t\n\t\t