When the Dear Leader of the House Judiciary Committee, Rep. Jerry Nadler, said this was too important a matter to trust to the voters in the next election, he and his ilk gave us a frightening preview of the Gulag into which they would put We the People should they gain full control of the government.

They wrap themselves up in the Constitution but conveniently forget the first three words.  They forget that the Constitution establishes three branches of government, not two.  But they have no time for the courts to rule on disputed documents and privileged conversations.  They call the president a dictator, yet they can't wait for the next election.  That election would be tainted and corrupt, don't ya know.  Any election Trump might win would be "tainted" by definition.  Look at all those Ukrainians and Russians who attend Trump rallies.  And isn't red the color of communism?

They quote the Founders profusely yet despise the Electoral College, which  those they once called a collection of misogynistic slave-owning old white guys created to prevent just the kind of tyranny of the majority we see today.  If a national popular vote is such a good thing, why don't they select their presidential nominee that way, instead of choosing delegates state by state, just as we choose presidential electors?  They don't want democracy.  They want mob rule by their mob.

The old adage about grand juries needs to be updated in the age of Nadler, Schiff, and Pelosi, for under their new rules, it is now also possible to impeach a ham sandwich.  All you need is an agenda-driven House majority that won't accept the results of the last election and voilà! — or whatever the equivalent is in Ukrainian — you can impeach a duly elected president of the United States because of personal animus against him and his policies.  The Democrats constantly claim that Republicans want to disenfranchise voters, but they want to disenfranchise the entire country because the voters elected a Republican according to the rules in the Constitution.  Voting rights, anyone?

Nadler's frightening solution to alleged Trump-encouraged foreign interference in our election is to ignore the voters and not wait 'til the next stinkin' election:

We agree that when the elections themselves are threatened by enemies foreign or domestic, we cannot wait until the next election to address the threat.

At least that's what the Democrats agree on.  Hey, they got 23 votes on an impeachment committee, so who cares about the 63 million voters who voted for Donald Trump and gave him a landslide electoral victory?  Nadler's and the Democrats' contempt for the American people and our democracy is seen in their own words and actions:

"We cannot rely on an election to solve our problems, when the president threatens the very integrity of that election,"  House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., said in his opening statement, claiming Trump's discussions with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky about Joe and Hunter Biden's dealings in the country, and the White House's temporary withholding of military aid to Ukraine, constituted an "urgent" threat to national security.

Funny, that's what most Americans thought elections were for — to throw the rascals out when needed. The Democrats, not the Ukrainians or Russians, are the ones interfering and tampering with our elections by saying we don't need them or the opinions of those deplorable voters:

The Democrats believe that the 2020 election is too important to be left to the voters.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler said on "Meet the Press" last weekend that Trump has to be impeached "for posing the considerable risk that he poses to the next election." Asked if he thinks the 2020 election will be on the up and up, he said: "I don't know. The president, based on his past performance, will do everything he can to make it not a fair election."

Elections endangered?  Don't hold them!  One of the two so-called articles of impeachment was the withholding of documents and records of conversations under executive privilege.  That was supposed to constitute obstruction of Congress.  Nadler reminded us that Nixon turned over the Watergate tapes.  But that was after the Supreme Court ruled that he surrender them, noting that executive privilege is not absolute, but neither is Congress's right to ask for stuff.  Congress must go to court and make its case.

The Founders established three branches of government, not two, as token defense witness Prof. Jonathan Turley so eloquently put it.  Disputes between the Legislative and Executive Branches were to be settled by the courts, but Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, and Jerry Nadler have no time for the courts.  If Congress wants documents and testimony and the White House refuses, take it to court.  This is no more obstruction of Congress than a presidential veto of a bill is.  It is not grounds for impeachment.

Abuse of power?  Obstruction of Congress?  It is Nadler, et al. who are guilty of abuse or power, as Prof. Turley testified before Rep. Nadler and his irrelevant House Judiciary Committee:

Constitutional scholar and George Washington University law professor Jonathan Turley told lawmakers on Wednesday during the Trump impeachment inquiry hearing that it would be an abuse of their power to impeach President Trump.

Appearing before the House Judiciary Committee, Turley accused lawmakers of doing "precisely" what they're condemning Trump for doing and urged the committee to respect the separation of powers during the process or risk abusing their positions.

"I can't emphasize this enough and I'll say it just one more time: If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts; it is an abuse of power," Turley said. "It's your abuse of power."

A highlight of Nadler's inquisition was when freshman, and possibly one-term, Democrat Rep. Madeleine Dean gave an Orwellian reading of the Constitution:

And Rep. Madeleine Dean, a freshman Democrat, noted that the Constitution grants the House the "sole" power of impeachment, "not shared with the executive."

"It's a civics lesson," Dean said. "Don't let the other side, who have such talented constitutional attorneys over there, distract you."

"We do not need permission from the president, we do not need permission from the courts. In fact, we have an obligation to do our job under this simple, smart document," she continued, holding up a copy of the Constitution.

Yes, Rep. Dean, you do need permission from the courts regarding claims of executive privilege.  The Constitution you waved says so.  In the short time it will take the Senate to throw out your puny articles of impeachment, you can actually get to read it.

Daniel John Sobieski is a former editorial writer for Investor's Business Daily and freelance writer whose pieces have appeared in Human Events, Reason Magazine, and the Chicago Sun-Times among other publications.