Posted on 01/17/2020 4:18:06 AM PST by Kaslin
About the impeachment of President Donald Trump she engineered with her Democratic majority, Nancy Pelosi said Wednesday: "It's not personal. It's not political. It's not partisan. It's patriotic."
Seriously, Madam Speaker? Not political? Not partisan?
Why then were all eight House members chosen as managers to prosecute the case against Trump, who ceremoniously escorted the articles across the Capitol, all Democrats? Why did the articles of impeachment receive not a single Republican vote on the House floor?
The truth: The impeachment of Donald Trump is the fruit of a malicious prosecution whose roots go back to the 2016 election, in the aftermath of which stunned liberals and Democrats began to plot the removal of the new president.
This coup has been in the works for three years.
First came the crazed charges of Trump's criminal collusion with Vladimir Putin to hack the emails of the DNC and the Clinton campaign and funnel them to WikiLeaks.
For two years, we heard the cries of "Treason!" from Pelosi's caucus. And despite the Mueller investigation's exoneration of Trump of all charges of conspiracy with Russia, we still hear the echoes:
Trump is Putin's poodle. Trump is an asset of the Kremlin.
All we want, and what the American people deserve, is a "fair trial," Democrats and their media collaborators now insist. But can a fair trial proceed from a manifestly deficient and malicious prosecution?
Consider. In this impeachment, we are told, the House serves as the grand jury, and Adam Schiff's Intelligence Committee and Jerry Nadler's Judiciary Committee serve as the investigators and prosecutors.
But the articles of impeachment on which the Judiciary Committee and the House voted do not contain a single crime required by the Constitution for impeachment and removal. There is no charge of treason, no charge of bribery or "other high crimes and misdemeanors."
So weak is the case for impeachment that the elite in this city is demanding that the Senate do the work the House failed to do.
The Senate must subpoena the documents and witnesses the House failed to produce, to make the case for impeachment more persuasive than it is now.
Not our job, rightly answers Mitch McConnell.
The Senate is supposed to be an "impartial jury."
But while there is a debate over whether Republicans will vote to call witnesses, there is no debate on how the Senate Democrats intend to vote -- 100% for removal of a president they fear they may not be able to defeat.
Consider Trump's alleged offense: pressing Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate Burisma Holdings and Hunter Biden.
Assume Zelenskiy, without prodding, sent to the U.S., as a friendly act to ingratiate himself with Trump, the Burisma file on Hunter Biden.
Would that have been a crime?
Why is it then a crime if Trump asked for the file?
The military aid Trump held up for 10 weeks -- lethal aid Barack Obama denied to Kyiv -- was sent. And Zelenskiy never held the press conference requested, never investigated Burisma, never sent the Biden file.
There is a reason why no crime was charged in the impeachment of Donald Trump. There was no crime committed.
Not political, said Pelosi. Why then did she hold up sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a month, after she said it was so urgent that Trump be impeached that Schiff and Nadler could not wait for their subpoenas to be ruled upon by the Supreme Court?
Pelosi is demanding that the Senate get the documents, subpoena and hear the witnesses, and do the investigative work Schiff and Nadler failed to do.
Does that not constitute an admission that a convincing case was not made? Are not the articles voted by the House inherently deficient if the Senate has to have more evidence than the House prosecutors could produce to convict the president of "abuse of power"?
Can we really have a fair trial in the Senate, when half of the jury, the Democratic caucus, is as reliably expected to vote to remove the president as Republicans are to acquit him? What kind of fair trial is it when we can predict the final vote before the court hears the evidence?
It is ridiculous to deny that this impeachment is partisan, political and personal. It reeks of politics, partisanship and Trump-hatred.
As for patriotic, that depends on where you stand -- or sit.
But the forum to be entrusted with the decision of "should Trump go?" is not a deeply polarized Senate, but with those the Founding Fathers entrusted with such decisions -- the American people.
In most U.S. courts, a prosecution case this inadequate, with prosecutors asking the court itself to get more documents and call more witnesses, and so visibly contaminated with malice toward the accused, would be dismissed outright.
Mitch McConnell should let the House managers make their case, and then call for a vote to dismiss, and treat this indictment with the contempt it so richly deserves.
Mitch McConnell should let the House managers make their case, and then point out that President Trump released the funds in question in the allotted time frame and then cite the U.S. Ukraine Mutual Legal Assistance Treaty President Trump adhered to that was signed by Bill Clinton when Joe Biden was still a Senator and then call for a vote to dismiss, and treat this indictment with the contempt it so richly deserves.
There. Fixed it.
This impeachment can be summed up in a single word - vandalism.
Vandalism against the Trump presidency.
The Nanzi gang is ultimately no different than someone who sees a nice car in a parking lot, a car the likes of which they could never have, due either to bad luck or bad choices, and then “keys” it or slashes the tires out of jealousy.
I disagree with Pat Buchanan on the way he approaches a few issues, but he is spot on in his presentation of this one.
Since Congressional Dems chose the two slapdash articles from a Chinese menu to overturn the election and impeach Trump, it would have been more fitting for Nancy to hand out chopsticks rather than pens
Out of simple “fairness” Mitch should let Trump hold a Trump Rally in the Senate but he won’t.
Dismiss, dismiss, dismis.
I agree with Pat.
One thing Mitch is good at, when he chooses to do so, is expressing contempt. I hope he pours it on witheringly to help the public understand what a farce this thing is.
That would be fun. Maybe he could do a daytime rally. The House and Senate won’t be doing anything at the time.
I mean IN the Senate. Not nearby.
Like a ex wife. ...pure hate. ..
Not only should the Senate reject the impeachment articles by the Demonicrat House, but the Senate should declare its rejection with prejudice of any articles of impeachment against President Trump coming out of this TDS-unhinged Demonicrat-kakistocracy in the House until the new Congress in 2021.
This is the 1400th thread saying “Mitch should dismiss the charges”
News bulletin from Planet Earth: MITCH DOES NOT HAVE THE VOTES.
It is, in fact, more likely that there are 20 Republicans who will vote to convict than there are 51 who would vote to dismiss.
Now, I agree getting to 20 is very very unlikely, and that it probably won’t happen - but dismissal already has been put in front of the GOP caucus (in December) and IT LOST.
That means there are 27 GOP Senators (at least) who voted NO on a caucus motion to dismiss.
As I have said before, this is all a scripted play, and all the players in the Senate know their roles and know the ending.
Instead of walking these impeachment articles back to the House as a “No Bill”, a prohibited Bill of Attainder,Mitch should carefully ensconce it within an artistically designed encasement of fecal material and lay it as a bomb on the Speakers office desk, among the golden embossed Nancy Pelosi signature pens.
The irony is that House Dumbocrats are charging Trump with unfairly attempting to harm a political opponent in the upcoming presidential election.
What is this charade besides unfairly attempting to harm a political opponent in the upcoming presidential election?
Every Dem Senator should be forced to recuse.
Did you count them? How do you know he doesn’t have them? We shall see.
Here are a few reasons as to Why ?
BREAKING: Pelosi’s Son Now Involved In Ukraine Scandal- Democrat Party In Shambles
Rightwingtribune.com ^ | Dean James & Dean Garrison at DC Clothesline October 4, 2019
Posted on 10/04/2019 12:21:05 PM PDT by Red Badger
Hunter Biden move over. Now Nancy Pelosi’s son may be looking to take center stage with the Ukraine controversy. Paul Pelosi, Jr. spent time in Ukraine in 2017. “BOOM: Nancy Pelosi’s son Paul Pelosi Jr. (who went to Ukraine in 2017) was a board member of Viscoil and executive at its related company NRGLab, which DID ENERGY Business in UKRAINE! And Nancy Pelosi appeared in a promotional video for the company!”
Speaker Pelosi’s Son Paid $180K annual by InfoUSA (No Experience necessary)12/29/2019, 7:03:41 PM · by Liz · 7 replies
theunionjournal.com ^ | December 29, 2019 | Carlos Christian
Shortly after Nancy Pelosi became Speaker, in 2007, Paul Pelosi Jr. was employed by InfoUSA at $180,000 a year as vice chairman for Strategic Planning. Paul Pelosi had a full-time day job as a mortgage mortgage officer for Countrywide Loans in California but didn’t report to work http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/3804232/posts
What do you think McConnell would do if Trump showed up for the trial at the defense table and made his own opening statement? LOL.
I’m not sure you’re reading this correctly. If history is any guide, a formal motion to dismiss would be made AFTER the trial has started and the opening arguments have been presented.
“Did you count them?”
No, but Mitch did, and he held a press conference in December about it.
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.