Candace Owens Defends President Trump at Oxford Union Impeachment Debate Against Partisan Political Theater
Enjoying this? Share it with someone who needs to see it.
Up Next
Candace Owens Explains Her Political Awakening and Why She Believes the Media Manipulates Black Americans
1:08:38
Piers Morgan Reveals His Honest Take on Israel-Palestine After Removing His Journalistic Hat
27:30
Dennis Prager Explains Why Liberals and Leftists Are Not the Same and Why It Matters
5:58
Candace Owens Defends President Trump at Oxford Union Impeachment Debate Against Partisan Political Theater
Candace Owens delivers a comprehensive defense of President Donald Trump at the Oxford Union, dismantling allegations of Russian collusion, obstruction of justice, campaign finance violations, and Ukraine quid pro quo. She argues that impeachment efforts represent dangerous partisan overreach rather than legitimate constitutional grounds, warning that removing a president based on personal animosity rather than high crimes threatens the foundations of the American Republic and Western civilization itself.
Candace Owens opened her remarks at the Oxford Union by commending the institution for hosting a debate on President Donald Trump's impeachment during a time of intense political division. She praised their courage in facilitating open discussion rather than shutting down conversation in favor of protecting feelings and creating safe spaces, remarking that the Oxford Union is making debate great again.
A close friend had urged Owens to prepare facts, numbers, and data points for her appearance at the prestigious university. However, she explained that such preparation was impossible because the motion before them—the impeachment of President Trump—entered the sphere of debate absent any substantive fact, borne entirely of innuendo, unmitigated anger, and personal contempt.
The Timeline of Impeachment Efforts
Owens noted that impeachment discussions did not begin at Oxford, but rather on the very first morning after Trump defeated Hillary Clinton in a stunning upset in 2016. She posed a critical question: How is it possible that calls for impeachment began before Trump even officially assumed office?
The first charge, which Owens recalled affectionately, came in the form of rabid charges of Russian collusion—a conspiracy theory that the Trump campaign had colluded with Vladimir Putin to influence the election results. After two years of unfettered media propaganda, Democrats' hero and Special Counsel lead prosecutor Robert Mueller ended the probe, concluding that there was absolutely no proof that any member of the Trump campaign colluded with Russia.
The Obstruction of Justice Claims
Embarrassed and defeated, Democrats quickly jumped to their next claim: obstruction of justice. This was the rather illogical charge that the incumbent president went to great lengths to obstruct the Special Counsel from discovering his innocence. The claim defied common sense, which is why, unsurprisingly, in March 2019 the evidence of obstruction was officially deemed insufficient and the corresponding charges were formally dropped.
The Stormy Daniels Saga
Running parallel to this foolishness was the extraordinary charge of campaign finance violation, a time when an unlikely Democrat hero emerged: pornstar Stormy Daniels. Impeachment, the media obsessively claimed, was a possibility because hush money was received by Miss Daniels from the Trump campaign.
Democrats became so certain that this was the story that would sink the presidency that they transformed Miss Daniels' lawyer, Michael Avenatti, into an overnight celebrity, propped up as the long-awaited kryptonite to the MAGA superhero. There were public calls for Avenatti to run against Trump in 2020.
That story collapsed as well. Miss Daniels was ordered by a judge to pay Trump nearly three hundred thousand dollars in legal fees, and the hush money lawsuit against the president was dismissed entirely by a judge in March. As for Michael Avenatti, the man once glorified by Democrats as a presidential contender, he has now been accused of financial fraud himself, indicted for extortion, fraud, and identity theft by a host of clients including Miss Stormy Daniels herself.
The Ukraine Allegations
This brings us to Ukraine, Owens explained. Only in the fervent madness and desperation of radicalized leftism could a man be accused of colluding with both Russia and Ukraine. Ukrainian President Zelenskyy outright denied that any quid pro quo existed between his government and Trump. Despite the disastrous hearing before the House which revealed that none of the alleged whistleblowers had any firsthand knowledge of the call between the two leaders, Democrats continue to push this narrative to its natural conclusion until it collapses like all the other false narratives under the weight of its own deception.
Constitutional Standards for Impeachment
Owens reminded her audience that a president can only be impeached for committing a high crime or a misdemeanor—a crime like former Democrat President Bill Clinton committed when he lied under oath about sexual relations he had with an 18-year-old intern in the White House. Unfortunately for Democrats, beating Hillary Clinton is not a high crime. In fact, many people, including Owens herself, consider that to be an act of philanthropy.
The True Stakes: Tyranny Versus Liberty
By this point, Owens noted, her audience may have gathered that the argument she was making is one of overzealous partisanship behavior by the Democrats. But that is really just the veneer. She urged her listeners not to be deceived by the topical arguments, not to overlook the true meaning of this conflict: recognizing that what we are debating is not left versus right, Republican versus Democrat, or liberal versus conservative—it is tyranny versus liberty.
If a decision is made to impeach a president on the basis of opinion, then the Republic is doomed. If personal animosity and prejudice become the basis for removing duly elected officials from their offices going forward, then the Republic is doomed.
Alexander Hamilton's Warning
Founding father Alexander Hamilton spelled out this potential abuse of impeachment when he forewarned that such prosecution, in many cases, will connect itself with pre-existing factions and will enlist all of their animosities, partialities, influence, and interests on one side or the other. In such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.
Even in times of extraordinary political divide like today, we must remain principled and factual. The basis of impeaching Trump is neither, Owens argued.
Hamilton also wrote that a nation which can prefer disgrace to danger is prepared for a master and deserves one. Through the continued onslaught of these various fraudulent investigations, we not only disgrace ourselves but weaken our position upon the world stage. We signify to the rest of the world that Western civilization is on the brink of implosion, with America's constitutional government dissipating before our eyes.
Conclusion: The Immutable Facts
Owens concluded by noting that she had travelled 3,662 miles over the Atlantic Ocean to inform everyone at Oxford that you simply cannot impeach somebody that you don't like. If the chamber would like to continue to be held in high regard, emotion must be set aside in favor of immutable facts.
