For those who got stuck watching the past two weeks of testimony in the circus inquiry into impeaching President Trump there is a bit of news that has been uncovered. Let's face it only about 3 percent of the American people spent time watching the proceedings. Compare that to the near 30 percent of the American people who tuned in to view the Clinton impeachment proceedings and you already understand something very important.
After watching the Democrats attempt to displace a lawfully elected president via fake charges of collusion with Russia, the voter doesn’t seem very impressed with an effort to displace him over a phony charge of “quid pro quo. Denying due process, witnesses, or even their choice of the committee members who would be allowed to speak just added to the (****yawn****) sham and why people felt no compulsion to view the goings on.
Now that it appears Democrats have called their final witnesses and they are preparing to recommend the formal articles of impeachment, it’s my belief that the president’s team will finally be allowed to punch back for the first time. But before they do we need to point out a significant and vital truth (Read more.)
From The Daily Caller:
While House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her colleagues in the House have effectively marshaled a media circus around a 960-second phone call, a Senate trial won’t be as kind as CNN has been. The evidence bears out the following, and it ain’t good reading for House Democrats in swing districts. There was clearly no pressure placed on Zelensky nor Ukraine. The president of Ukraine and his staff all continue to reaffirm this publicly. There have been clear and frank admissions from unelected, career bureaucrats that President Trump got their goat up because he opposed their long-standing foreign policy objectives which the American public elected him to “drain” from the “swamp.” All the relevant witnesses to the impeachment inquiry either affirmed that they heard nothing illegal or impeachable, and that their conclusions about “concern” over the call were reached through presumption, hearsay, and opinion. (Read more.)
From Trending Politics:
Trick No. 1 is the bait and switch. Dems have already laid the bait. They swear they're reluctant to drag the nation into impeachment, but their duty to defend the rule of law requires it. "Our job is to follow the facts" and "apply the law," says committee member Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y. "No one is above the law," House Speaker Nancy Pelosi insists. Now get ready for the switch: At the hearing, Democrats and their handpicked legal experts will argue that a president can be impeached without breaking a law. Suddenly, impeachment isn't about upholding the rule of law. The grounds are broader -- wide enough to drive a truck through.
Why the switch? Because Dems don't have the goods to show Trump's committed a crime, even after three years of the Mueller investigation, followed by Schiff's televised spectacle.
Expect more deceptive claims from Nadler, including these:
No. 2: The framers wanted impeachment to apply broadly.
Sorry, but the record is airtight on this one. At the 1787 Constitutional Convention, the framers considered grounds for impeachment. On Sept. 8, George Mason suggested that bribery and treason were too narrow, and proposed adding "maladministration." But James Madison objected, explaining that "so vague a term will be equivalent to" saying the president serves at the pleasure of the Congress. The framers did not want to duplicate the British system, which made the executive dependent on Parliament. Mason's idea was dropped, and the framers instead agreed to the more specific term, "high crimes and misdemeanors," where "high" meant offenses committed while in high office, such as embezzling public funds.
The framers couldn't specify federal law violations, because there were no federal laws yet. But today, it's hard for any citizen to steer clear of the tangled web of federal laws. Still, the impeachers can't find a law Trump's broken.
No. 3: Impeachment is political.
That's what the Democrats want you to accept, but the framers envisioned the Senate trial as a legal proceeding, with Senators under oath to be impartial.
Even so, Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist 65 that impeachment could someday hinge more on "the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of guilt or innocence." What's happening now is Hamilton's worst nightmare.
No. 4: Congress has a duty to impeach.
The opposite is true. The framers gave Congress discretion to do what is best for the nation. Removing corrupt federal judges comes close to an obligation; otherwise, they'd serve for life. But voters will have an opportunity to remove Trump in less than a year. Congress has more pressing duties such as passing the U.S.-Mexico-Canada trade treaty, on which 176,000 jobs, $68 billion in GDP and the livelihoods of the nation's dairy farmers hinge.
No. 5: Trust left-wing law professors to decide what's impeachable.
That's dangerous. The liberal legal intelligentsia spin impeachment to serve their politics. Harvard Law professor Noah Feldman, one of four academics Nadler is calling to testify, has been gunning for Trump since Day One, just like many House Dems. In an April 2017 interview, Feldman already urged impeachment. The grounds? Trump's criticisms of the press.
Feldman claims, "The real purpose of impeachment at the deepest level is for Congress to express its beliefs about what the right way to be president is." (Read more.)
Here is how the Left attack a mother for defending her child. From The Daily Wire:
Leftists viciously attacked first lady Melania Trump on Wednesday after she defended her 13-year-old son, Barron Trump, from a swipe that he took from a Democrat impeachment witness during the Judiciary Committee’s impeachment hearing. Stanford Law School Professor Pamela Karlan, a witness for the Democrats, said while talking about the differences between kings and presidents, “So while the president can name his son Barron, he can’t make him a baron.”
The remark drew widespread criticism from many who thought that it was inappropriate to drag President Donald Trump’s youngest child, who is a minor, into the highly polarizing political circus. Melania Trump wrote on Twitter: “A minor child deserves privacy and should be kept out of politics. Pamela Karlan, you should be ashamed of your very angry and obviously biased public pandering, and using a child to do it.” (Read more.)
More HERE. Share
No comments:
Post a Comment