BREAKING: Kash and Bongino Uncovering it ALL! 30 Subpoenas Being Issued!!
.
.
Jamie Raskin’s Career Implodes as Ted Cruz Exposes Constitutional Hypocrisy
WASHINGTON, D.C. – Congressman Jamie Raskin (D-MD), the self-styled constitutional law expert who led the impeachment of a private citizen, faced a devastating political and legal reckoning when Senator Ted Cruz (R-TX) systematically exposed Raskin’s pattern of violating the very constitutional principles he claimed to defend.
The confrontation, framed around “constitutional oversight,” quickly became a dissection of Raskin’s political career. Raskin, 72, began with a preemptive, sanctimonious attack, accusing Cruz of enabling authoritarianism and violating his oath to the Constitution.
“You, Senator, are a danger to American democracy,” Raskin charged, his tone dripping with academic superiority.
Cruz, a Harvard Law magna cum laude graduate who clerked for the Supreme Court, allowed Raskin to finish. He then leaned back, his signature move signaling a coming strategic demolition.
“Congressman Raskin, thank you for that lecture. Very professorial, very sanctimonious.” Cruz’s smile was slight. “But since you brought up the Constitution, let’s discuss your record on constitutional matters. Specifically, how you’ve systematically abused it.”
Cruz framed Raskin’s career as one dedicated to “weaponizing the Constitution for political ends.”
The Impeachment Fiasco: Constitutional Invention
Cruz immediately targeted Raskin’s leadership of the second impeachment of President Trump, which took place after Trump had already left office.
“Tell me, as someone who taught constitutional law, where in the Constitution does it authorize impeaching someone who no longer holds office?” Cruz challenged.
Raskin defended the action through an explanation of “scholarly interpretation” and precedent. Cruz countered with the precision of a Supreme Court veteran:
“There is no precedent for what you did. The Constitution is explicit: impeachment’s purpose is removal from office and disqualification from future office. You cannot remove someone who’s already gone. That’s not constitutional interpretation. That’s constitutional invention.”
Cruz then detailed the procedural violations, noting Raskin rammed the impeachment through in seven days with unprecedented haste, denying the defense witnesses and an opportunity for cross-examination. “The speed alone was damning,” Cruz noted, asserting that the act was a “political weapon being fired in haste and aimed with malice.”
He reminded Raskin that the pattern began with the first impeachment (the Ukraine phone call), which was rushed through on weak grounds and denied the President the right to confront his accusers.
The January 6th Committee and Due Process Violations
Cruz moved on to Raskin’s tenure on the January 6th Committee, arguing its structure and actions were designed to violate fundamental due process protections, turning the investigation into a “show trial.”
Composition: Cruz emphasized that Speaker Pelosi violated historical precedent by rejecting the Republican members nominated by the minority leader, instead appointing only “never-Trump Republicans” who already agreed with the Democratic narrative. This, Cruz argued, shattered a crucial check on abuse of power.
Destruction of Evidence: Cruz charged that Raskin’s committee systematically destroyed evidence—video recordings deleted, documents shredded—before anyone could independently review the full record. This, he noted, is grounds for criminal prosecution in any standard legal case.
The human cost of this procedural abuse was highlighted by a man accused by the committee of helping plan violence, who testified that he was “never allowed to explain, never allowed to provide the full context, never allowed to defend myself.” His life and reputation were destroyed without due process.
Cruz concluded: “You destroyed evidence before anyone could review it. That’s not seeking truth. That’s show trial procedure.”
Weaponizing Process: Economic Warfare Against Opponents
The most systemic abuse detailed by Cruz was Raskin’s alleged weaponization of congressional subpoena power against political opponents.
Targeting Legal Counsel: An attorney testified that Raskin’s committee subpoenaed him, demanding attorney-client privileged communications and forcing him to spend over $200,000 in legal fees fighting the demands. “Represent anyone associated with Trump and we’ll destroy you financially,” was the message, Cruz asserted.
Targeting Accountants: An accountant testified that Raskin’s committee subpoenaed her firm’s records, effectively crippling their business and destroying their careers because they provided professional services to Republicans.
Targeting Nonprofits: A conservative nonprofit organization testified that Raskin’s committee subpoenaed their complete donor database, attempting to expose and intimidate their supporters. Cruz cited the NAACP v. Alabama Supreme Court ruling, which bars the government from demanding donor lists to prevent political intimidation, demonstrating Raskin’s violation of settled constitutional law.
“You’ve used congressional power to destroy our business because we provided professional services to Republicans,” charged the accountant. “That’s not oversight. That’s economic warfare against political opponents.”
Cruz summarized the pattern: “You claim to defend the Constitution while systematically violating it… You accuse others of abuse of power while wielding it against political opponents.”
The Verdict: Accountability Restored
The cumulative weight of Cruz’s presentation was crushing. Raskin’s political legacy was exposed as a series of constitutional compromises and abuses of power, all executed under the guise of protecting democracy.
The Chairman announced that the committee would be recommending a full investigation by the House Ethics Committee and that the Department of Justice would review potential criminal charges. Raskin, stripped of his sanctimonious certainty, walked toward the exit, a man who had wrapped himself in the Constitution while systematically shredding it.
Cruz’s final words, delivered to the silent chamber, served as the verdict: “You’ve corrupted congressional investigations the same way you corrupted impeachment. The fact that you taught constitutional law makes it worse, not better. You knew what you were doing was wrong. You did it anyway because it served your political purposes.”
The hearing, driven by the meticulous legal skill of Ted Cruz, fundamentally shifted the political balance, making it clear that in the arena of constitutional accountability, practitioner often trumps professor.
.
play video:
