The Swamp logo

Make America Think Again

by Bill Croft 3 years ago in corruption
Report Story

Volume One

Photo Credit: Jose Moreno

On any given day in my professional role, I receive complaints against licensed practitioners. In some cases, the individual calling might be considered a whistle-blower since they are also calling about the facility. Regardless, we give every complaint due process. Before launching a full investigation, which includes issuing a subpoena, the complainant is questioned regarding their knowledge of the events. It may go in several ways.

In one case recently, the person refused to provide their name and where they worked. They just wanted to provide information that they heard about the person. They felt the license should be taken from the individual. The issue with this complaint is it is hearsay. It cannot be considered credible. After thanking for the information, I explain why it cannot be pursued. Since this person did not witness to the events, we have no authority to issue a subpoena unless we have first-hand accounts, so I encouraged this person to have those individuals contact me. In this case, there were no witnesses that they could provide or wanted to provide. For this reason, an investigation is not launched. The information is not made public since it is not credible.

In another case, the person stated they had first-hand knowledge of an event that occurred. Before launching an investigation, we discussed the circumstances to determine if a violation of law occurred. In this case, the information did rise to the level of a potential violation, so an investigation began. Even in these cases, a decision cannot be rendered against the practitioner’s license until all evidence has been collected, witnesses and licensee interviewed, and the full Board reviews all of the information. It is not made public until the full Board determines the final outcome of the case. This is called due process. All government entities have a process they must follow. It is written into their rules based on statutory authority. I have written such rules.

In this latest impeachment inquiry, the House of Representatives is upholding the constitution by considering “the constitutional power of the utmost gravity, approval of Articles of Impeachment (“NBC,” 2019, l. 48)” according to Nancy Pelosi. This decision is made based on secondhand information without looking at a single piece of evidence in this latest case. Speaker Pelosi stated in announcing the inquiry: “The actions taken to date by the President have seriously violated the Constitution.” This comment is very definitive. As such, it should go to full impeachment vote by the House. If you have the evidence, you should not wait. If not, it appears they are violating the US Constitution and creating a constitutional crisis by not acting. At the very least, you are violating your own rules to your political advantage, which is also a violation of these articles.

Speaker Pelosi was right about one thing: “They asked Benjamin Franklin, "what do we have, a republic or a monarchy?" Franklin replied, "a republic if you can keep it (“NBC,” 2019, ll. 38–42)." I also agree that it is “our responsibility is to keep it. Our public endures because of the wisdom of our Constitution enshrined in three co-equal branches of government serving as checks and balances on each other (“NBC,” 2019, ll. 38–42).” However, I think the Speaker forgot that she and the House are not acting as coequal branches when you “convict” before seeing the evidence. We are at risk of losing the republic because of such acts. Of course, I could be wrong, and it could restore the republic because the actual facts will strengthen our resolve to get out the vote. Logical people will see past the political rhetoric, and you will lose your power in the process as we exercise our constitutional powers.

Even if all is true, their leap of faith is violating every norm of any credible investigation. It taints the entire process. If they were successful in the House and Senate, they would get Ultra-Conservative Mike Pence while shredding the constitution in the process. However, I am convinced President Trump staged it this way to have them take a bite of that apple. He did this during the 2016 election, and they do not realize it. Nevertheless, the last two people, who took a bite of the forbidden fruit, lost their great living conditions and were seen naked for the first time. They had to leave the garden in shame. Just some food for thought.

Author: Dr. Bill Croft, Ed.D.


Transcript: Nancy Pelosi’s public and private remarks on Trump impeachment [Media]. (2019, September 24). Retrieved November 7, 2019, from NBC News website:


About the author

Bill Croft

Reader insights

Be the first to share your insights about this piece.

How does it work?

Add your insights


There are no comments for this story

Be the first to respond and start the conversation.

Sign in to comment

    Find us on social media

    Miscellaneous links

    • Explore
    • Contact
    • Privacy Policy
    • Terms of Use
    • Support

    © 2022 Creatd, Inc. All Rights Reserved.