Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment. Impeachment.
Impeachment is porn for the Democrat leadership. They talk about it in bed. They talk about it at meals. They talk about it gleefully in private. They get excited and their pulses increase every time they hear the word. But in public settings, at least, Nancy Pelosi talks about impeachment with great solemnity. She says she has gone about the process prayerfully.
Frankly, I have no clue which god she prays to, if she does so at all. The only true God wouldn’t have given her two instructions which are diametrically opposed. At first, she said that impeachment shouldn’t even be considered unless two very important circumstances existed. First, there must be bi-partisan support, as has been the case in every other impeachment in our nation. Without such support, she knew it would be seen as the Democratic witch-hunt it is. There was zero bi-partisan support, although three Democrats voted against it. Not one Republican voted to impeach our president.
Second, according to Madame Pelosi, the impeachment of a president is dangerously divisive for the nation, and thus should only be approached with a broad consensus among the citizenry. The polls show that the consensus is completely opposite of the position of the Democrats. Two-thirds of Americans (a number that includes millions of Democrats) insist that our president should not be removed from office.
This brings up another issue. Remember that I said impeachment is porn “for the Democrat Leadership.” Obviously the average Democrat doesn’t get satisfaction or gratification from the fact that the president has been impeached. Even if they don’t follow politics and have no training in the Constitution, their common sense told them to answer NO to the pollsters because they understand the harm that the process does to our nation.
Democrats started talking about impeaching the president long before he took office. They had no idea what he could be impeached for; in their eyes, his only crime at that point was being elected. But literally 19 minutes after President Trump was inaugurated, Democrats published a demand that he be impeached. Jerry Nadler campaigned among Democrats to become chairman of the House Judiciary Committee on the promise that if he was put in charge, Trump would be impeached. For over three years Democrats have been working to impeach the president for anything they could twist into looking like an impeachable crime. We have had 37 months of a prosecution searching
for a crime.
Fortunately, the moderate Democrats (actually Conservatives who have been misled) see through their leaders’ lies and hypocrisy. After watching Obama deliberately divide our nation for eight years, even Democrat voters acknowledge that President Trump has done all he can to bring our nation together. He can’t overcome decades of brainwashing and hatred that have been drummed into the minds of children of Democrats. But he can – and has – done his best to enact policies and programs that benefit ALL Americans – whether or not they like him. And his success in reaching out to the black and Latin communities can be seen in his increasing support among those groups.
President Trump’s support for – and demonstrable love towards – our military and first responders stands in stark contrast to the antagonism, disdain, and disrespect Obama showed to those groups. He campaigned on cutting our military by 50% - and worked hard to keep his promise. Under Obama, military readiness and morale dropped precipitously. He got rid of generals and admirals who weren’t vocally loyal to him and to his Liberal, Socialist policies.
Obama was always the first to criticize law enforcement in any controversy, long before the facts were in. He called police officers “stupid” for challenging a black man who was breaking into the window of a house. He had no keys to the house, nor any ID. When it was established that he was the owner, the police apologized, though they had no reason to. They followed standard procedure and did what they would have done with any housebreaker – black or white. But Obama continued to stoke the flames of racial hatred (his specialty) by claiming the professor had been “targeted” because he was black.
Though he promised to be “An uniter, not a divider,” the instances in which Obama promoted class and racial hatred are too numerous to list. But one stands out. In Ferguson, Missouri, when a white policeman was judged by a grand jury not to have committed any crime in the death of a black man, Obama ignored the judgment. He stood with those who believed that any time a white man kills a black man, it must have been motivated by racism. This caused race riots that lasted for months, and racial tensions that continue today. The city has been devastated by looting and burning of businesses – businesses that will never return. If he had done as he promised and respected the rule of law and law enforcement, many lives would have been spared, millions of dollars of destruction would not have occurred, and a community would have been able to heal. Instead, mostly due to Obama’s own hatred of the police, the name Ferguson will be synonymous with racial division for decades to come.
Trump, on the other hand, was always respected and liked by minorities – until their Democrat leaders told them they were no longer allowed to like the man. Trump has given minorities good jobs, including top-level management jobs, in his companies. He received awards from the likes of Al Sharpton and Jessie Jackson for promoting diversity and the equal opportunity employment of minorities.
Amazingly, the moment he became a presidential candidate, his name became synonymous with racism. How does one go from being a friend and ally of minorities to being a racist overnight? It’s actually simple. When powerful people like Obama, Hillary, Pelosi and Schumer label you a racist, that’s end of the story. Regular Democrats tend to believe what they are told by their leaders, and regurgitate those lies. Fortunately that is changing as these “leaders” have failed those they presume to lead by lying to them over and over again. As a result, a large percentage of Democrats now oppose impeachment.
The label “racist” is one of the worst that anyone can use to attack another. Usually people so accused never recover, and their reputations are stained forever – regardless of whether or not there was an iota of truth in the accusation. Not Trump. Minorities who have worked with and for him know that he doesn’t have a racist bone in his body.
In 1998, Democrat Nancy Pelosi blasted using impeachment for “any and all grievances anybody ever had with the president.” But that is exactly what she is doing to President Trump today. Pelosi and her fellow travelers have made dozens of bogus accusations against our president, which they claimed they had evidence for that would be included in their Articles of impeachment. It’s no big surprise that they had no such evidence, since it never emerged in any of the dozens of House hearings, nor in the Mueller report which was based on a now-discredited document (The Steele Dossier) paid for by Hillary Clinton and the Democrat National Committee.
Here are just the top few of the dozens of Democrat lies compiled by Devin Nunes. All have been found to be completely false…
- Trump is a long-time Russian agent, as described in the bogus Steele dossier.
- The Russians gave Trump advance access to emails stolen from the DNC and the Hillary Clinton campaign.
- The Trump campaign based some of its activities on these stolen documents.
- Trump received nefarious materials from the Russians through a Trump aide.
- Trump laundered Russian money through real estate deals.
- Trump was blackmailed by Russia due to financial exposure with Deutsche Bank.
- Trump had a diabolical plan to build a Trump Tower in Moscow.
- Trump changed the Republican National Committee platform to hurt Ukraine and benefit Russia.
- The Russians laundered money through the NRA for the Trump campaign.
- Trump's son in law lied about his Russian contacts to obtain his security clearance.
- Trump got a “quid-pro-quo” based on his conversation with the president of Ukraine.
- Trump “colluded” with some unknown Russians. (“Collusion” is not a crime.)
- Trump was engaged in bribery.
- Trump was engaged in extortion.
Here’s a question for the Democrats who repeated the charges above many times on national TV networks: Why wasn’t Trump charged with any of these? Many of them, especially the last two, are actual crimes. The answer is that they knew they were lying when they made these accusations. They hoped to poison the minds of the American people so that they would (1) back the fake impeachment; or (2) decide not to vote for Trump in 2020.
Instead, they came up with two phony articles that they hoped they could sell. Keep in mind that neither of these is a crime and that the Constitution requires proof of an actual crime for impeachment. (See my article “No Crime, No Impeachment.”
Their articles include: (1) Abuse of Power; and (2) Obstruction of Congress. The abuse of power charge stems from the fact that he asked the president of Ukraine to do the US a favor and investigate the criminal actions of two US citizens, Joe and Hunter Biden. They claim he “pressured” the Ukrainians. The president of Ukraine was the only other person involved in the conversation. He has stated firmly that he felt no pressure. Additionally, Trump released a transcript of the conversation that proved it was proper. The claim that Joe Biden is a “political rival” of Trump’s is ludicrous. Only the Democrat nominee could be considered in that light. Biden is not the nominee, and it is extremely unlikely that he will be. If he is nominated, he has no chance against Trump.
There are two problems with the Obstruction of Congress fabrication. First, for national security reasons, and for the proper functioning of the Executive Departments, every president exercises Executive Privilege at its sole discretion as part of the Separation of Powers. If the Congress feels the president has abused this privilege, its sole remedy is to ask the Judicial Branch to intervene, which it has the authority to do. They did not challenge a single action of the president in court. Instead, they came up with this bogus Obstruction of Congress charge.
By the way, Obama instructed his Attorney General, the corrupt Eric Holder, to refuse to cooperate with Congress in its investigation of the Fast and Furious scandal. (This was a scheme created by the Obama administration in which it allowed hundreds of dangerous weapons to be sold to Mexican cartels with the ostensible purpose of “tracking” them. It was illegal, and one of our brave Border Agents, Brian Terry, was murdered by one of the guns Holder distributed.) Holder was held in Contempt of Congress – but he still refused to cooperate, and suffered no punishment. The accusations against Trump are kid stuff by comparison, yet they want to use impeachment to overturn the will of the American people by removing him from office.
The other problem is that the second article is predicated on the first. There was no abuse of power, therefore the entire witch hunt that involved numerous committees “investigating” the same things, months in which Congress focused on impeachment and did no work, and millions of taxpayer dollars was invalid on its face. If there was no abuse of power, there can be no obstruction. President Trump was completely within his rights to refuse to cooperate with a rigged kangaroo court that denied him representation and due process.
Charles Schumer is the Democrat minority leader of the Senate, and is just as egregious a liar as Nancy Pelosi, the Speaker of the House. Like Pelosi, he has been caught with his pants down, directly contradicting his statements about the Clinton Impeachment, and insisting on different treatment for Trump. In a statement he made during Clinton’s impeachment trial, Schumer said…
“It has shaken me that we stand at the brink of removing a President — not because of a popular groundswell to remove him and not because of the magnitude of the wrongs he’s committed — but because conditions in late 20th century America has made it possible for a small group of people who hate Bill Clinton and hate his policies to very cleverly and very doggedly exploit the institutions of freedom that we hold dear and almost succeed in undoing him.”
He continued, “If you had asked me one year ago if people like this with such obvious political motives could use our courts, play the media and tantalize the legislative branch to achieve their ends of bringing down the President, I would have said ‘not a chance — that doesn’t happen in America.’”
Although Bill Clinton admitted to lying under oath about his adultery, 10 Republicans joined 45 Democrats to acquit him of the charge of perjury. Since it was on the record that he had lied to a grand jury while under oath, it is surprising that a bi-partisan majority cut him this break. On the charge of obstruction of Justice (he ordered his staff members to lie in public about his many affairs and sexual assaults), the vote was 50 to 50. Since a two-thirds majority of the Senate is required to remove a president from office, he skated on that charge also. His fellow lawyers were not so generous about lying under oath. The Bar Association took away his license to practice law.
Andrew Johnson’s impeachment, like Trump’s, was purely politically motivated. Like Trump, he was not charged with any of the crimes set forth in the Constitution as impeachable offenses: treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors. They tried to bring him down because he disagreed with Congress and vetoed a law they put forth that would have restricted his right (and the rights of future presidents) to choose their own cabinet members.
All three cases prove that no impeachment in our history was based on legal matters; impeachment is always primarily political. Pelosi and Schumer have tried desperately to convince the public that impeachment is a legal matter. They have made much out of the fact that the Senators who sit in judgment are called “jurors.” They claim that therefore, they should be “impartial” and that the Senate Majority leader has made it clear that he believes the president is innocent. Yet every “impartial” Democrat (save a few more moderate ones) is almost certainly going to vote “Guilty.” All the while, these two and other Democrats are on television daily stating that the president is a criminal. Civil and criminal juries are required to be impartial, but there is no such requirement for Senators in the Constitution.
Pelosi also continues to refer to the Senate Chamber as the “courtroom;” again in an attempt to conflate the court system with a senate trial. The only similarities are the fact that there is a judge and a jury. But, as mentioned, the Framers knew that in this political exercise the “jurors” would vote on party lines. That was expected and is acceptable. Also, the judge, who is the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court, is not like a traditional judge in this role. The Senate makes its own rules for the trial, and can override the “Judge.” In this setting, he is more of a moderator, and his role is largely ceremonial. (A trial without a judge just wouldn’t look right.)
Now let’s take a moment to discuss the impeachment inquiry in the House. The Senate, with its Republican majority, strongly disapproved of the way the process was handled. The president was not allowed to have his lawyer present at any of the deliberations. Republicans were not allowed to call witnesses to refute the lies of the Democrats’ witnesses. All of the witnesses but one were “hearsay” witnesses with no direct knowledge of the supposed crimes. They just said what someone else supposedly said. The only one who had personal, direct knowledge said Trump was innocent of any wrongdoing.
Even though they knew the House process was grossly unfair and that it denied the president due process, they did not try to interfere with that process. Constitutionally, they could not interfere because each Chamber of Congress is authorized to operate under its own rules and procedures. But Pelosi didn’t get the memo. From the day she got her impeachment vote, she has tried to force the Senate to conduct its trial her way.
The house is supposed to investigate, call witnesses, and produce evidence. The Senate then takes all of this into consideration and tries the case. But the wicked Ms. Pelosi is insisting that the Senate allow new witnesses and documents – all of which they could and should have produced in their own investigation.
She rushed at breakneck speed to get her impeachment vote, claiming it was necessary to give the case to the Senate before the end of the year so that the Senate trial would not taint the upcoming election. But then she held those articles for a month, threatening the Senate with holding them until they bowed to her demands. Mitch McConnell, the Senate Majority Leader, wisely told her that the Senate would not be intimidated, and that she could hold the articles as long as she wished. The longer it was before the trial began, the better it was for the Republicans.
Finally, she was forced by her own party to cease her unconstitutional foot-dragging and deliver the documents. Then McConnell immediately did his duty, and scheduled a trial to begin within a week.
Why did her party insist that Pelosi do her duty? Because half of the leading Democrats running for the Whitehouse are senators (Sanders, Warren, and Klobuchar), and will not be able to campaign during the trial (which could last weeks or months). Pelosi’s pettiness could cost the Democrats dearly in the upcoming elections.
You see, this will be totally different from regular Senate business. Senators skip votes if they have something better to do. They wander around the Chamber chatting with each other while ignoring their colleagues who are making speeches. In the impeachment trial every Senator must be in his or her own seat every minute of the trial. They may not speak; they can only submit written questions. They may not have their cell phones in the Senate Chamber. Most important (to them), they are not on the campaign trail, which gives their opponents a big advantage. And here’s the best part. If they violate any of these requirements, they could be imprisoned.
If at this point you have any doubts that this entire process was a waste of taxpayer money since it was nothing more than a political stunt, consider the following:
The Democrats have been bragging for three years that they would overturn the 2016 election and remove Trump from office by impeachment. The lied over and over again about the “irrefutable evidence” they would use to remove the president from office. They couldn’t just sit on their hands; they had to do something, even though they had nothing. One by one all their ridiculous accusations (“Trump is Putin’s lapdog!”) were refuted, and they were left with two unconstitutional articles that they know will fail. They are hoping against hope that they will be able to use the Liberal media to force the Senate to change its rules.
Pelosi insisted, “The trial must be fair to us!” Really, Nancy? I always thought the goal of our system of justice was to insure fairness for the accused – not the prosecutor. After realizing she had made a Biden-worthy Gaffe, in her latest speech she said the trial must be fair to “our Republic,” and even quoted from the Pledge of Allegiance. This is true desperation in full view. When was the last time you heard a Democrat refer to our nation as what it is – a Republic? They always call America a Democracy – which it most decidedly is not. It seems that her obsession has caused her to temporarily set aside her Socialist agenda and admit (for the first time, to my knowledge) that we live in a Constitutional Republic.
The Democrats have known since day one that impeachment would not lead to conviction and removal from office. Yet they continued with their pitiful, futile circus. There is only one reason for such stupidity; they hope to hurt Trump in the 2020 election. For all her protestations about a fair inquiry having been done, she showed her true motivation for the drama she staged in the House when she said this: “He may not be convicted, but he will always be impeached.” She said this with a huge grin, belying her claims that she regretted having to impeach, and that it was a solemn occasion. This demonstrates why so many loath this despicable woman.
One thing about the way Pelosi did all of this particularly turns my stomach. Presidents use a few dozen pens when signing landmark legislation. They use each to create a small part of their signature, and give the pens as souvenirs to people who helped with the legislation. Apparently Nancy thinks she is the president, because she had thirty pens made with her name emblazoned in gold on each - much like the pens that used car dealers pass out. These are said by some to have cost taxpayers $15,000, and were presented on silver trays. She used them to sign the ridiculous articles of impeachment, grinning hugely and laughing as she did. It took 5 minutes (see the video below) to sign using the dozens of pens and pass them out to her cronies in custom cases. So much for the “somber and sober” occasion of impeaching a sitting US president.
Nancy’s first instinct months ago was correct – impeachment would be disastrous for the Dems. But the pressure from the many open (as well as closet) Socialists in her party and “The Squad” forced her to go along with impeachment on threat of being removed from her speakership.
Based on this, I will make three predictions. These are not prophecies; they are based on common sense and a thorough knowledge of the facts:
- President Trump will be easily exonerated and found not guilty in the trial.
- President Trump will win in a landslide in November, helped, ironically, by the Democrats' attempted coup. Not only will he win a huge electoral victory as he did in 2016, but he will also win the popular vote.
- Nancy Pelosi won’t be speaker much longer. She will either be voted out by her party, fail in her next election, or realize that she no longer has the support she once did in her California District. This is due to the fact that she has concentrated solely on her career and ignored the plight of millions of her San Francisco constituents who must walk through the human feces and drug needles littering the sidewalks of that once great city. These dangerous conditions are a result of the 10,000 homeless people living on the sidewalks and in the parks, which Pelosi has done nothing to address.
I know that this a lot of information. But you needed to know it to understand this. It is just as important that we gain a majority in the House, as well as increasing our majority in the Senate as it is that we re-elect the president. He has held up well and done great things while being constantly harassed by the Democrat sharks. But he doesn’t need another four years of this foolishness.
If we don’t control both Houses of Congress, I predict that President Trump will be impeached many times in his second term. Please keep in mind that “control” of the Senate is not a 51% majority. The way their rules are set up, 60% is the magic number to pass important legislation (or to stop terrible legislation).
If the Democrats can’t get rid of him, they will do everything their tiny twisted brains can dream up to keep him from continuing to successfully serve the United States.
INTERNET RESEARCH: CNN analyst: 'Massive movement towards' Trump in new 2020 poll Moderate Democrat Congressman Who Opposed Impeachment Meet the Democrats Who Broke With Their Party on Impeachment Charles Schumer’s 1999 Letter about Impeachment Comes Back to Bite Him On Historic Impeachment Votes, Three Democrats Cross Party Lines to Vote ‘No’ The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson The Impeachment of Bill Clinton Text of Articles of Impeachment Pelosi’s Marketing Pens (VIDEO)