Posted on 10/03/2019 9:37:56 PM PDT by bitt
The impeachment narrative pushed by House Democrats needs to be called exactly what it is, which is a political coup. Contrary to what Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Chairman Adam Schiff, and progressive left wingers would have you believe, the United States still does have an objective rule of law, and the Constitution is not merely a guideline subject to interpretation and application at the whim of a power grab.
Regardless of whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, an independent, or anything else, it should concern all of us that the rule of law is being tossed out in favor of an open coup designed to undermine a free and fair election in the United States. Sheer partisan hatred of an American president by the opposition party is not and has never been a sufficient legal or constitutional basis for impeachment. The Constitution lays out the scope of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
Political leverage or the inability to win elections are not listed. Over the past few weeks, some commentators have suggested that the phrasing "high crimes and misdemeanors" is an intentionally vague term that has no specific articulable definition. Not only is that false, but a lack of brightline jurisprudence does not render a term in the Constitution so malleable that the Democrats can fashion a political weapon of it.
Indeed, the phrase "or other high crimes and misdemeanors" has a legal definition instead of a common parlance meaning. It comes from English common law that refers to offenses against the crown, from which our founders borrowed much of our law, but they formed our government structure quite differently. The words "or other" are very important. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" does not stand alone, but is rather within the same category as treason and
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
How did you know that the “whistleblower” worked on getting dirt on Trump in 2016??? I need to catch up, I guess.
AMEN! And I am a woman!!
Word is that Reid’s BROTHER beat the crap out of him!
Just maybe she is diverting heat from her own offspring. It’s not been Posted, as I have to go for lab work and don’t have time, feel free to post.
BREAKING: Nancy Pelosi’s Son, Paul Jr. Was Exec At Gas Company That Did Business In Ukraine
https://nationalfile.com/breaking-nancy-pelosis-son-was-exec-at-gas-company-that-did-business-in-ukraine/
This does not mean political differences that opposition party members might believe are bad for the country become impeachable offenses. We are not talking about good faith policy considerations or philosophical differences on the margins. Elections determine those who make public policy. Impeachment is designed for an offense so bad that it essentially is like defecting to another sovereign or taking action in the interest of another sovereign to the clear detriment of the United States.
The Constitution was never intended to serve as a political weapon by any means. On the contrary, the impeachment clause is designed only to provide the textual grant of power to remove government officials when necessary as a matter of law to protect the interests of the American people. The purpose is not to transfer power forcibly for political gain. One of the great hallmarks of our republic is the peaceful transition of power from one office holder to the next without any conflict.
The Democrats simply have no legal or constitutional basis to invoke impeachment. This is a purely partisan attack against President Trump because they are still sour over their loss in 2016 and are terrified of losing again in 2020. But their remedy is not to exercise impeachment. Their remedy is to get a better candidate nominated. Forming an impeachment "inquiry" is setting a new low bar for an unconstitutional and politically motivated government attack against an American president.
I agree with the author completely, grateful for the contextual and historical meaning, and will forever consider impeachment to be in the category of defection or bribed to commit harm against the United States rather than in the category of having a policy viewpoint different from my own or for legally prosecuting my political allies.
That said, I would need to consider an apology to Trent Lott for how would I apply my new found understanding to the House impeachment vote of Bill Clinton.
Bill Clinton is a liar, a snake whose actions indeed caused damage to our country, a pervert, a disgraced waste of human space; I could go on, but the vote for his impeachment does not rise to the contextual meaning offered by this writer, at least not that I can see.
How to reconcile? Serious question.
Bill Clinton may have accepted bribes from the Chinese especially in what appears to be a staged mishap involving a technology transfer of missile guidance parts to the Communist Chinese via the Loral Corporation, and there are other many suspicious incidents that point to his duplicity and lack of faithful allegiance to the United States. But these were never brought up in the impeachment vote nor fleshed out by Ken Starr in the independent counsel's investigation. Instead, Bill Clinton was brought up on using his office to bury or alter parts of the findings of his sexual immorality thus a legitimate charge of obstruction of justice, a disgusting display of moral standards and a demolition of principled leadership, not to mention his in-your-face wagging of the finger while telling a clear lie to the American people straight into the cameras. He was and is a disgusting human being who may still be prosecuted for his perversions related to Jeffrey Epstein's unbelievably bizarre actions and behaviors.
But was it proven that Bill Clinton committed acts that fall under the contextual meaning of impeachable offenses offered by this author?
I know it's a tough question for us but the best I can come up with is that Trent Lott would not allow the Senate to convict Clinton so the question is moot. A vote for impeachment is not impeachment. Bill Clinton was never removed from office and so was arguably never 'impeached', although he received a vote by the House for impeachment, an indictment if you will. An indictment without conviction is nothing.
Your comments and thoughts are welcome and appreciated, TIA.
Clinton was impeached, period. He was not convicted.
Using criminal law parallel, impeachment is by the prosecutor (House), conviction is by the jury (Senate).
What to do with a president who was found to literally be a felon, while in office? He was not indicted. The issue was put to the House first, and the House decided the character flaw associated with lying to a court warranted conducting a trial to throw him out of office. Tough judgment call, but that's how it fell.
The jury (Senate) decided that even if is a felon, that is not enough to remove him from office. Call it jury nullification if you want, but the Senate is the body that makes the decision, and it did.
There isn;t much to resolve. Each case stands on its own, facts differ.
Impeaching Trump for rooting out corruption is ludicrous, even if he is partially motivated by revenge to get players who cheated and lied to take him out of political power. If he starts abusing power and going after innocent people, like Obama's regime did, then kick him to the curb.
He is a leaker of classified transcripts, therefore a criminal. I am kinda thinking the whole of the CIA and the FBI are criminals, scary.
Clinton was impeached, period. He was not convicted.
Using criminal law parallel, impeachment is by the prosecutor (House), conviction is by the jury (Senate).
You know I know all that and said as much in the previous post but it's good to repeat it in your format for those reading so they understand the distinctions.
During Bill Clinton's presidency, the American people were made aware of the suspicious death of Vince Foster, the blatant violations for handling evidence with the farsical appearance of the Rose Law Firm's billing records suddenly appearing in the White House residence, the illegal divulging of more than 900 FBI files on political opponents, the rape of Juanita Broaddrick, the sexual misconduct against Kathleen Willey, and on and on including the nasty treatment by a biased press toward the alleged victims.
Without argument, actual political murder should be an immediate impeachable offense followed by criminal prosecution once removed from office by conviction in the Senate. But the murder of Vince Foster was never proven as Robert Fisk seemed determined to write a flimsy report concerning it prompting the appointment of Ken Starr to more thoroughly address the crimes of Bill Clinton but who nevertheless came into collision with the Clinton's clever usage of alibis and plausible deniability. The so-called 'smartest woman in the world' was nothing more than a clever criminal.
But Clinton escaped because he was clever. Like a mafia member, there were 'buffers' that protected him.
And that raises the question of whether a mafia like President could ever be removed from office because it would be simply too difficult to establish solid proof of impeachable offenses.
The Clinton's are hated so much by the American people because they flout the law and laugh at those trying to catch them. They mock the system and it angers the electorate, worse it 'teaches' part of the electorate that it's Ok to commit crime as long as you have a clever way of treating the 'deplorable' segment that calls for justice.
But given all the crimes and misgivings of Bill Clinton which are still ongoing I believe, I would have to say the vote for impeachment against him was not in standing with the clear context described by this author. The way to remove a lecherous clever criminal like Bill Clinton is at the ballot box if the ballot box is protected from fraud which is not a given. But the ballot box must have a choice that is better and in 1996 that choice was the dismal clumsy 80 year-old war hero named Bob Dole who was likable but hardly a fresh strong energy filled clean alternative to Bill Clinton. It was then that the image of 'Uniparty' arose among the deplorable electorate.
I have no argument to counter liberal family members and neighbors and I shouldn't even try. This author is asking too much like my asking for moral principles to return to American society. We don't have enforceable consensus morality any longer. The only way to reestablish it as a prevalent norm is to beat the pants off the clever mafia opponents that violate every moral underpinning with abandon and worse, they make speeches feigning moral indignation at our side.
The solution is not for me to question the 'nice sounding' principles elucidated by this author, the solution is to urge the Trump Administration to haul these criminal scum into courts or tribunals with rock solid cases and let the chips fall where they may. We can expect more Antifa violence, more political crimes by democrats, but this is a war, impeachment is their rallying cry, but let's see how they fare when their leaders are looking at hard time.
Trump is playing this masterfully.
The long and short is this author Jenna writes a nice piece of history clarification and makes a good argument, but it doesn't add up to squat against a political criminal mafia. So in that context it's just 'nice words'.
War is Hell as we have often heard. The bombing of Dresden in WWII was without any sense in terms of military gain. It was done as psychological terror to break the will of Germans still clinging to Nazi propaganda memes. If the Germans had won (and they were weeks away from an atomic bomb which would have won it for them), they would have tried Americans for war crimes and been arguably sounding justified. They would have buried all their crimes against humanity and run war crimes tribunals against the Allies. The bombing of Dresden, a city with irreplaceable historical treasures, was uncalled for but it broke the back of German will only because American troops rushed in to drive the population into submission.
In war, truth is nowhere to be found.
So I look at Jenna's 'words' as nice sounding but will instead pin my hopes on Barr and Durham and their troops, not that they will bomb Dresden to break the will of criminal Dems, but will haul the ringleaders into courts or tribunals with watertight cases, optics be damned or at least not mitigating actionable charges.
Isn't it so rich they are all bent out of shape that Trump would ask Ukraine for dirt, he never said it, but they go there because that is exactly what they did to Trump. But with Trump its different, they could find no dirt, so they made up dirt and wrote the dossier, where to this day not one charge has been validated.
The Democrat operatives were freaking globe trotters asking foreign nations to f**k with Trump. Interesting that AG Barr is a globe trotter too now, no wonder they are out of their minds.
Someone coined the term...RumorBlower
The impeachment agenda of Democrats is a political coup>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>>
No. Its not a political coup.
It is sedition and treason against The People.
Hardly political. Calling it “political” gives it a legitimacy which is false and untrue. What we are seeing is criminal activity worthy of a RICO investigation, racketeering of the worst kind.
Ah an article I saw.
and how dare you expect me to know where i read something or saw something even 10 minutes ago :)
hope you are well!
I think you need to see this, Lucy
PING
This will take time, and it's worth the read.
Check out # 24, # 25, # 26, # 28, # 31.
Thanks, Fred Nerks.
Josie Wales: “Dyin’ ain’t much of a livin’, son.”
I’m hoping for a silent implosion...orange jumpsuits and ankle chains.
No explanations, no presentations by real scientists or engineers, and only 104 subscribers.
This is an example of political propaganda wrapped in a virtue signal meme, likely made to score funding but without substance.
These people are giving science a bad name. Real scientists and engineers that are advancing the envelop of energy efficiency are damaged by these charlatans.
Bump
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.