Wednesday, January 22, 2020

21 State Attorneys General Submit

21 State Attorneys General Submit Legal Brief – 

Urging Senate to Reject Articles of Impeachment…

It is not a process argument, but rather a matter of constitutional preservation.

Twenty-one State Attorneys’ General submit a brief to the Senate (full pdf below) in support of complete rejection for the House articles of impeachment.
…”If not expressly repudiated by the Senate, the theories animating both Articles will set a precedent that is entirely contrary to the Framers’ design and ruinous to the most important governmental structure protections contained in our Constitution: the separation of powers”…

South Carolina Attorney General Alan Wilson along with twenty additional State AG’s, submit a 14-page briefing (download here) to the United States Senate warning of the danger of not rejecting a purely partisan political impeachment effort. The Attorneys’ General note the current impeachment proceedings are “fundamentally flawed as a matter of constitutional law.” Their concerns are echo points starting to be realized by Senators.

During a press conference in front of the U.S. Capitol Wednesday, South Carolina AG Alan Wilson said the group was urging the Senate to “reject these articles” as a matter of constitutional law. WATCH:

Here’s the Brief:

.
“Because the legal theories underlying both Articles I and II are legally flawed and factually insufficient, as well as inherently destructive of separation of powers, the Senate should explicitly reject them to protect both the institution of the Presidency and the Constitution.

A close examination of the legal theories and stipulations of fact accompanying Articles I and II reveal their fatal flaws.2 It is important to note that the focus of this legal analysis will be on the stipulations of fact relied upon by the House at the time of the impeachment vote because this is the precedent upon which all future impeachment proceedings will rely.”
It is a well written brief and exactly on point.

Debunking Trump's Impeachment with One Simple Thought Experiment

 Image result for cartoons about impeachment is a cover up for biden
  Article by Stephen Green in "PJMedia":

Are you one of the millions of Sane-Americans who can't get too worked up about Donald Trump's impeachment?

It's impossible to avoid news of the Dems' Big Sham, which is so "exciting" that CNN spent hours on Monday running a never-ending picture-in-picture livestream of the empty Senate chamber. If that doesn't get your blood pumping, what could?

Democrats can't come right out and say they're impeaching Trump just for being Trump, even though that's exactly what they're doing. So they held this big investigation, and found that yes indeed, President Trump had committed foreign policy. They can't actually impeach him for that, either, so instead they impeached him for defending himself against the charge of having committed foreign policy.

Before we get to my little thought experiment, let's be clear on exactly what foreign policy Trump is guilty of having committed. For that, let's go to the indispensable John Solomon:

It is irrefutable, and not a conspiracy theory, that Joe Biden bragged in this 2018 speech to a foreign policy group that he threatened in March 2016 to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid to Kiev if then-Ukraine’s president Petro Poroshenko didn’t immediately fire Shokin.
“I said, ‘You’re not getting the billion.’ I’m going to be leaving here in, I think it was about six hours. I looked at them and said: ‘I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money,’” Biden told the 2018 audience in recounting what he told Poroshenko
“Well, son of a bitch, he got fired. And they put in place someone who was solid at the time,” Biden told the Council on Foreign Relations event.

Whoops. That's what Joe Biden did, not Donald Trump -- my bad. What Trump did was ask the president of Ukraine to look into what happened, to see if any Americans (cough, Hunter Biden, cough) might have been involved in some high-level and very highly-paid corruption. There was no arm-twisting, no illegal withholding of aid, or anything remotely like a high crime or a misdemeanor. If there had been they'd be in the Articles of Impeachment -- and I'd be writing a much different column today.

Here's where we get to that thought experiment.

Let's pretend that Joe Biden had a different name. No, better: Let's pretend that Joe Biden had a different letter after his name. Let's pretend he's Joe Biden (R), former vice president under George W. Bush.

In that case, what would the Democrats be doing differently? Literally everything.

Instead of impeaching Trump, they'd be praising him (although perhaps reluctantly) for his non-partisan willingness to look into Republican malfeasance. Adam Schiff would hold months worth of hearings, looking back into the Bush administration in ways he'd never dare look back into Obama's. The Democrat-controlled press would be 24/7 "Biden! Biden! Biden!" Jerry Nadler would have to go back to, I dunno, eating mayonnaise with an ice cream scoop.

So while the other, much-more talented writers here at PJMedia have been doing stellar jobs of covering all the ins and outs of the impeachment charade, I just haven't been able to muster the interest. The thing is such an obvious partisan hit job, that I've found it impossible to muster more energy than it takes to roll my eyes.

That's not to say Trump's impeachment isn't a serious issue, because clearly it is. But not for any of the reasons listed in the Articles of Impeachment, not for any of the "revelations" of the investigation, not for any of the House antics that got us here, or for any of the Senate antics we're witnessing right now.

It's serious because the Democrats have subverted the weightiest action described in the Constitution -- the unmaking of a freely elected president -- into a vitriolic shamble of pure partisanship.

Bill Clinton was impeached for obstruction of justice, perjury and suborning perjury. He was rightly impeached for those high crimes and misdemeanors, but not removed from office because the Senate decided (rightly, IMHO) that since it was "just about sex," his crimes didn't rise to a level serious enough for removal. He stained a dress and lied about it, Congress stained his reputation. Fair enough, even if it was one of those compromises doomed to please almost no one.

Richard Nixon was going to be impeached, and almost certainly removed from office in a bipartisan vote, for much more serious offenses. He chose to resign (wisely, IMHO), rather than put the country through a political trauma unlike any in our sometimes troubled history.

Donald Trump has been impeached for having the temerity to look into a Democrat's guilty-by-his-own-admission malfeasance on behalf of his coke-whoring son.

OK, maybe I'm a little worked up, but clearly not for the reasons the Democrats wanted.

So let the Democrats "make their case for removing Trump for office," as all my desktop notifications just started screaming at me every couple of minutes. Because they don't have a case to make, and the (D) after Biden's name is all the proof you need.

New Dem Demand for Impeachment Trial Actually Helps the Case of Adam Schiff Being Called as Witness



The Democrats pulled a move today that if you look at it closely,
could really backfire on them.

As my colleague Streiff reported earlier, the House Managers made new demands today that included White House Counsel Pat Cipollone be foreclosed from doing his job.
According to the group, they contended in a letter that Cipollone was a “fact witness” and so shouldn’t be allowed to defend President Donald Trump during the impeachment trial because he might be called. They dropped that just hours before the trial started.
“Evidence indicates that, at a minimum, you have detailed knowledge of the facts regarding the first Article and played an instrumental role in the conduct charged in the second Article,” the seven Democratic managers write. “The ethical rules generally preclude a lawyer from acting as an advocate at a trial in which he is also likely a necessary witness.”
The first Article of impeachment accuses Trump of abuse of power. The Democrats believe that Trump coerced a foreign power for his own political benefit during his phone call with Ukraine and that multiple witnesses raised their concerns with John Eisenberg, the Deputy Counsel to the President for National Security Affairs. Eisenberg reports directly to Cipollone. The Democrats add that they have evidence to suggest that Cipollone was also involved in the decision to shield the whistleblower complaint against Trump from Congress and the public.
Even if Cipollone does not take the witness stand, his status as an unsworn witness “risk seriously damaging the fairness of the trial,” they reason, concluding that his dual roles as an advocate and a witness is grounds for disqualification.



As Streiff noted, there are some obvious problems with their arguments as far as Cipollone. Why didn’t they call him before if they thought he was so vital? That would argue against their contention and suggest they were just now trying to undercut Trump’s defense team. Again, these are also likely privileged conversations.

But there’s a greater point here that seems to have gone right over the Democrats’ heads.
Guess who else is a fact witness then who could be potentially called and shouldn’t be an advocate at a trial? That’s right, Adam Schiff.

Using this same logic, why can’t the Republicans argue to knock Schiff out? Or to have him now presumably presenting under oath, ask him questions about the whistleblower and his contacts with him?

There’s no evidence Cipollone met with these folks personally, there is evidence that Schiff’s staff had contact with the whistleblower and the whistleblower sent him a letter which likely had the complaint in it. Put him under oath and ask him all the questions about contacts and knowledge of the whistleblower.

Democrats can’t object, didn’t they just argue fact witnesses can be called? Aren’t they arguing we need to have witnesses? Every argument they make for Cipollone is actually stronger for Schiff.

Adam Schiff Would Be The Last Person To Get A GOP Senator To ‘Cross Over’



The Democrats’ fervent hope in the impeachment process is no longer to remove President Donald Trump but rather to attain the moral victory of convincing just one Senate Republican to “cross over” and vote in favor of removal following the impeachment trial. For the adoring left within the media and on Capitol Hill, a crossover vote would give Democrats the bipartisan label they have so craved but have been unable to secure throughout the entirety of this process, largely due to their gross unprofessionalism and the obviousness of the Ukraine phone call being a pretext for ambitions they have held since 2016.

If the Democrats want to garner crossover votes in the impeachment trial, Rep. Adam Schiff, D-Calif., is the last person who should be managing the impeachment circus, largely because he has become the insufferable face of House partisanship and the blatant crookedness of the impeachment process. Yet he was one of seven Democrats chosen by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi last week to do so. But his performance today, combined with his salacious history, is a reminder of why he should be nowhere near the impeachment process.

In his opening statement before the Senate this morning, Schiff waxed poetic about concerns that the Senate would not hold a “fair trial,” declaring, “Right now, a great many, perhaps even most, Americans do not believe there will be a fair trial. They don’t believe that the Senate will be impartial. They believe that the result is pre-cooked, the president will be acquitted.”

Schiff’s statement, in all its attempts to grasp at some form of political gravitas, serves as a stark reminder of all that Schiff himself has done in the past to ensure this impeachment process would be as dishonest as possible. Granted, Americans — and Republicans in the Senate — may want a fair impeachment trial, but Schiff has shown himself to be incapable of offering that.

Schiff has spent the vast majority of Trump’s presidency peddling unfounded and debunked conspiracy theories and “leaking” false information to countless media outlets in hopes of forwarding the Democratic #Resistance narrative.

In the time period preceding the impeachment inquiry, Schiff invented a transcript for President Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, fabricating entire events within the phone call that never actually took place and reading his falsified narrative before the House.

Later, he claimed to have had no communication with the whistleblower prior to the formal filing of the complaint. That, too, like the phone call summary he delivered before the House, proved to be a lie.

And some Senate Republicans have caught on to the hypocrisy of placing Schiff at the center of the impeachment trial if the Democrats genuinely seek fairness. Earlier today, Rep. John Ratcliffe, R-Texas, lambasted Schiff in an interview with America’s Newsroom, accusing the California representative of a “cover-up” due to his dishonesty with regards to his prior contact with the whistleblower. Ratcliffe went on to declare that such a cover-up is precisely “what prevents a fair trial here.” Ratcliffe said, “The person in charge of this investigation [Schiff] was judge, jury, prosecutor.”

Though Federalist contributor Elad Hakim outlines here the legal reasoning Schiff is unfit to assume the role of impeachment manager, there is a strong argument to be made that Pelosi’s selection of Schiff amounts to a huge tactical error on the part of Democrats. If the goal is to ingratiate yourself — and your Trump-hating cause — to your GOP compatriots in the Senate, Adam Schiff is about the least likable person to spearhead that movement.

As with most gambles Pelosi has engaged in thus far with regard to the impeachment process — the withholding of the articles being perhaps the most strife with lunacy — the selection of Schiff shows Pelosi entirely overestimates how seriously the public is taking both her party and this process. In other words, Pelosi imagines Americans see the Democrats as the party of magnanimity. Schiff’s latest speech this morning was dripping with the same smug self-importance that has catalyzed this process from the beginning.

Schiff is right, the impeachment process is and has been fundamentally flawed. But the knock is coming from within.

🔴 LIVESTREAM — Day 2 Senate Impeachment Hearing - Opening Arguments


Day one recap:  A series of 11 rules amendments were offered by Democrat Minority Leader Chuck Schumer.  Each proposal was defeated individually during 13 hours of arguments and debate.  The final rules package, which passed 53-47 at 01:45am this morning, is almost identical to the original draft presented by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell.  The only change was spreading the 24hrs over three days instead of two.

There will be 24 hours of presentation by House Impeachment Managers (over 3 days); 24 hours of presentation by Defense team (over 3 days); 16 hours of Senate questioning; 4 hours of closing arguments, equally divided; and then a Senate debate/vote on further motions to include witnesses. If there are going to be witnesses, they will first be deposed prior to testimony. 

No witness testimony will be permitted without first being deposed.

The Senate Trial Begins again today at 1:00pm EST, starting with opening arguments by the House Impeachment Managers.



Macron, meeting Netanyahu, says Iran must not acquire nuclear weapons

JERUSALEM (Reuters) – President Emmanuel Macron said France was determined Iran would never gain a nuclear weapon but it wanted to avoid any military escalation in the Middle East, after he met with Israeli Prime Minister Benjamin Netanyahu on Wednesday.
Macron’s two-day trip to Israel and the Palestinian territories is timed to coincide with the 75-year anniversary of the liberation of the Auschwitz death camp.
He is one of dozens of world leaders due to attend Thursday’s World Holocaust Forum at the Yad Vashem Holocaust memorial center in Jerusalem.
Macron started his visit with a morning meeting with Netanyahu at his official residence in Jerusalem, where the two discussed Iran’s nuclear program and regional security issues from Libya to Turkey, according to Netanyahu’s office.
“In the current context, France is determined that Iran never acquires a nuclear weapon, but also that we avoid all military escalations in the region,” Macron said afterwards.
Netanyahu’s office said the Israeli leader urged Macron to put pressure on Iran over what he called its aggression in the region.
France, along with Britain and Germany, declared Iran in violation of the 2015 nuclear pact last week and they launched a dispute mechanism that could see the matter referred back to the Security Council and the reimposition of U.N. sanctions.

The nuclear dispute has been at the heart of an escalation between Washington and Tehran which blew up into military confrontation in recent weeks.
PALESTINIAN MEETING
Macron is also due to meet Palestinian President Mahmoud Abbas on Wednesday afternoon in Ramallah in the occupied West Bank at a time when peace prospects between Israelis and Palestinians look dim.
The Palestinians are boycotting a peace initiative by U.S. President Donald Trump, and Netanyahu has repeated pledges to annex Israel’s settlements in the occupied West Bank.
France believes a two-state solution is the only viable option to end the conflict but Macron has ruled out recognizing an independent Palestinian state, saying it would not serve peace efforts.
Macron last week played down any real prospect of renewing French efforts to push the peace process, stalled since 2014, saying it was not for him to dictate to either side.

Macron also on Wednesday made a symbolic stop at one of France’s territories in the Holy Land – the Church of St. Anne, where the French tricolor has flown since the Ottomans gave it to Emperor Napoleon III in 1856 as thanks for his support in the Crimean War. It remains in French hands to this day through international treaties.
Before heading to the church, he walked through the Old City, speaking to shopkeepers and stopping by the Church of the Holy Sepulcre.
“Be it schools, hospitals, orphanages, or religious sites like this, we continue to defend French identity,” a French diplomatic source said.
“We are a step away here from Temple Mount and the Wailing Wall, the very heart of the conflict between Israelis and Palestinians, so symbolically we are.”
A squabble broke out between Israeli police and French security officers when Israeli officers tried to enter St. Anne ahead of Macron’s visit. They were rebuffed by French officials who told them it was French property and a shouting match ensued.
An Israeli police spokesman said he was looking into the incident.
https://www.oann.com/in-chiracs-shadow-macron-steps-into-jerusalems-symbolism/

Brennan Tweets He's Never Heard a Govt Lawyer So Deceive Americans; Gets SMOKED by Former CIA Colleague



Future convicted felon (and former CIA Director) John Brennan responded to a like-minded Twitter user’s withering criticism of White House Counsel Pat Cipollone. He tweeted:


It didn’t take long for one of his former CIA case officers to respond. And it was delicious! Mark Augustine replied:


Given Brennan’s history and troubled relationship with the truth, he really should have sat this one out. In October, NBC reported that U.S. Attorney John Durham’s inquiry into the origins of the Russian collusion probe had been expanded and turned into a criminal investigation. The word was that Durham’s team was interested in interviewing both Brennan and former Director of National Intelligence, James Clapper.

In December, another leak was reported by the New York Times. Durham’s team had requested all of Brennan’s communication records from the CIA. It is entirely possible that, by the time Durham completes his investigation, he may be in some serious trouble.

In other words, maybe he should have sat this one out.

Understandably, the irony of Brennan’s tweet caused quite a stir in the Twittersphere this afternoon. Here are some of the most amusing responses.
Apparently you never listened to Eric Holder or Loretta Lynch. 
LOL this is how you can tell Pat Cipollone did a great job 
I mean… you ARE an expert at misrepresenting the facts and deceiving the American public… you made a career out of it. Delete your account. 
You @JohnBrennan were a feckless bureaucrat in your 33 years – your incompetence disqualifies you from having any valid observations as you lied to Congress, spied on Congress & being at the center of the attempted coup against @realDonaldTrump you deceived the American people. 
Damn! Nice dress down, Mr. Augustine! 
It’s not like he spied on the American people and then lied about it. 
We smell your fear. In. Every. One. Of. Your. Tweets.
Kudos to Mark Augustine for smacking Brennan down so hard.

Jay Sekulow Demolishes..


Jay Sekulow Demolishes 

Schiff, Pelosi on Executive Privilege: 

Remember Eric Holder?

During his opening remarks in the Senate impeachment trial, President Donald Trump's lawyer Jay Sekulow quoted Democrats' own words against them. He condemned the House Democrats' rush to impeach Trump, adding an article of impeachment for "Obstruction of Congress" rather than litigating a matter of executive privilege in court. He quoted House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), and Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), each of whom defended Barack Obama's Attorney General Eric Holder when he was held in contempt of Congress in 2012.

"Mr. Schiff did say the courts don't really have a role in this. Executive privilege? Why would that matter? It matters because it's based in the Constitution of the United States," Sekulow said. "The president's opponents in their rush to impeach have refused to wait for judicial review."

He quoted law professor Jonathan Turley, who warned, "I can't emphasize this enough...if you impeach a president — if you make a high crime and misdemeanor of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It's your abuse of power. You're doing precisely what you're criticizing the president for doing."

"On June 28, 2012, Eric Holder became the first attorney general to be held in both civil and criminal contempt. Why? Because President Obama asserted executive privilege," Sekulow noted.

Citing a 2012 op-ed Schiff wrote in Politico, Trump's lawyer said, "With respect to the Holder contempt proceedings, Mr. [impeachment] Manager Schiff wrote, 'the White House assertion [of privilege] is backed by decades of precedent that has recognized the need for the president and his senior advisors to receive candid advice and information from their top aides."

"Indeed that's correct, not because manager Schiff said it, but because the Constitution requires it," Sekulow added. "Mr. Manager Nadler said that the effort to hold Attorney General Eric Holder in contempt for refusing to comply with various subpoenas was 'politically motivated,' and Speaker Pelosi called the Holder matter 'little more than a witch hunt.'"

"But to say that the courts have no role, the rush to impeachment, to not wait for a decision of the court on an issue as important as executive privilege, as if executive privilege hasn't been utilized by presidents since our founding. This is not some new concept," Trump's lawyer said. "The president's opponents in their rush to impeach and refuse to wait for complete judicial review, that was their choice."

Democrats defended Obama's executive privilege, but they're impeaching Trump when he exercises his.


As The Impeachment Trial Begins, Democrats Are Losing Their Minds



Having realized their impeachment gambit is failing, Democrats have resorted to accusing Sen. Mitch McConnell of a coverup and calling the trial 'rigged.'

On Monday, as senators and House impeachment managers prepared for the opening of President Trump’s impeachment trial Tuesday, Democrats and their courtiers in the mainstream press decided to ratchet up the their rhetoric to the point of delusional hysteria.

The House managers—led by Reps. Adam Schiff and Jerrold Nadler—issued a statement that essentially accused Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell of a coverup, saying his proposed rules for the trial are “rigged,” nothing more than an “effort to prevent the full truth of the President’s misconduct from coming to light.”

That wasn’t all. Schiff and the impeachment managers also called on Trump’s lead impeachment lawyer, Pat A. Cipollone, to disclose what he knows about the president’s alleged behavior underlying the two articles of impeachment, saying Cipollone is a “material fact witness,” and that, “The ethical rules generally preclude a lawyer from acting as an advocate at a trial in which he is likely also a necessary witness.”

Funny they should mention that. As my colleague Mollie Hemingway pointed out on Twitter, Schiff is himself a material fact witness to this entire impeachment imbroglio, beginning with his office’s coordination with the whistleblower.

As for McConnell’s rules being some kind of coverup, compare them to the House impeachment inquiry, which turned up no evidence of a crime despite Schiff stacking the deck in Democrats’ favor by not allowing GOP members to call witnesses or ask substantive questions. By those standards, McConnell’s proposed rules are generous to Democrats, stipulating a four-day calendar in which each side gets two days, 12 hours per day, just for opening statements. After that, senators would have 16 hours for written questions for the prosecution and defense, then four hours of debate—all to adjudicate a purely partisan impeachment probe that after months failed to persuade even one GOP member of the House that Trump had committed an impeachable offence.

To a certain mindset—apparently rampant among Democrats and media elites—none of this matters. Nothing we learned during the House impeachment inquiry, not to mention what we all know about Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky after the White House released the transcript, seems to matter to Democrats hell-bent on delegitimizing the Trump presidency.

If their impeachment removal gamble fails, as it inevitably will, they’ll say it only failed because McConnell rigged the trial, or because the president covered up his crimes by instructing key witnesses not to cooperate, or because all Republicans are corrupt. The narrative takeaway will be that Democrats tried to save the country and the Constitution by removing a dangerous criminal from the White House, but were thwarted, and only voters can stop Trump now by throwing him out of office in November. After all, the future of the republic is at stake.

Impeachment Is Untethering Some People From Reality

The overdone rhetoric turned out to be contagious, especially for Never Trumpers like Bill Kristol, a formerly serious person who on Monday compared the upcoming Senate impeachment trial to a show trial in an authoritarian state.

Perhaps the best example of this fevered mindset whirling away in real time is a Twitter thread from Will Wilkinson of the Niskanen Center, who warned that an acquittal would amount to a “war on the Constitution and the rule of law,” and that “McConnell will not only be striking a blow to our democracy, he will be communicating that [there] are no rules, only power.”

He goes on to suggest that McConnell is exposing the political process as a “sham,” that Trump is “dead set on stealing the election to stay out of jail and line his pockets with impunity,” and the result of all this will be violence in the streets because “we can’t just ‘decide it at the ballot box” if the ballot box is stuffed.”

Does Wilkinson really think that’s what happening here? Or does he just think that if the Democratic Party and its media allies fail to overturn the results of a free and fair election with a years-long string of investigations and half-baked accusations against the president, then that’s really what amounts to election theft and a stuffed ballot box? In other words, Democrats’ impotent efforts to remove Trump are proof positive that the republic itself is in danger, and our political process is a “sham.”

What’s most telling in these Twitter rants is the apparent unawareness that for many Americans, the political process has indeed been revealed as a sham—a long time ago. After decades of elite incompetence and corruption, from illegal immigration to the Iraq war to Katrina, the housing crash and ensuing recession, the sluggish recovery and the dismal reality of Obamacare, Americans have plenty of reasons to think the Constitution has been trashed, voters have been ignored, and the entire political process exposed as a sham run by our elites for their benefit at the expense of everyone else.

What the American people did about it was elect Trump president. For the political and media establishment, that’s Trump’s real crime, and the one thing that must not be allowed to happen again.

Language Games Reveal More About Dems Than Trump

To make any rational sense in their arguments, they must evacuate terms like “election theft” and “democracy” of all meaning. Trump of course didn’t steal an election in 2016, and if he wins again in 2020 that won’t be a stolen election, either. But this mangling of language is a common trope among the impeachment crowd.

As Eric Felton of Real Clear Investigations noted in a thorough fisking of a brief from Democratic impeachment managers, Schiff and his crew “are convinced that thin allegations can be bulked up if repeated often enough.” Felton points to the repeated use of words and phrases like “baseless,” “debunked,” “discredited,” and “conspiracy theory” whenever impeachment managers discuss questions and assertions made by Trump or Rudy Giuliani about Ukraine or Hunter Biden.

For example, the brief entirely ignores a January 2017 report in Politico about efforts of officials in Kiev to boost Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump in 2016, and instead repeat, dozens of times, that concerns or questions about possible 2016 election interference from Ukrainian officials are nothing more than a “conspiracy theory.”

Most Americans are wise to this sort of thing. They realized a long time ago that the political establishments of both parties care about power above all and have long governed on behalf of special interests, not the people. Most Americans also know that despite earnest paeons to the Constitution in recent months, Democrats don’t care about the Constitution and would be happy to get rid of much of it, including the first two amendments in the Bill of Rights.

So in the days ahead, when Schiff and other Democratic leaders mention a “rigged” trial or a “sham” process, they’re unintentionally invoking language that many Americans have been using for some time now—not about Trump, but about the political establishment they elected Trump to overthrow.

Pelosi's House Impeachment design and why Chuck Schumer has to make this ridiculous effort for more evidence in the Senate.



1) Thread - Pelosi's House Impeachment design and why Chuck Schumer has to make this ridiculous effort for more evidence in the Senate. 

2) The failure of a full House vote to authorize the House Judiciary Committee to pursue evidence -via enforceable subpoenas- was a defect by design of Nancy Pelosi’s decision to initiate an impeachment inquiry by her decree, not an authorizing vote. [Note Dates] 


3) The structural issue was noted Aug, Sept, Oct, and the issue remained throughout the heavily manipulated proceedings. None of the House requests for testimony or documents held any enforcement authority because the House did not follow the constitutional process.

4) The House was not issuing subpoenas, it was issuing letters requesting voluntary witness participation and document production. Recently the DOJ Office of Legal Counsel explained this issue in a lengthy legal finding that leads to the same conclusion.

scribd.com/document/44378

5) Absent the vote to authorize, the Legislative Branch never established compulsion authority (aka judicial enforcement authority), as they attempted to work through their quasi-constitutional “impeachment inquiry” process.

6) As a direct and specific consequence all Schiff committee subpoenas did not carry a penalty for non-compliance.

7) “Lawful subpoenas”, literally require an enforcement mechanism; that’s the “poena” part of the word. The enforcement mechanism is a judicial penalty, and that penalty can only be created if the full House voted to authorize an impeachment inquiry.

8) Instead of subpoenas, Adam Schiff (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence); and Chairman Eliot L. Engel (House Committee on Foreign Affairs) were only sending out request letters. The compliance was discretionary based on the outlook of the recipient.

9) Throughout the process, Speaker Pelosi was lying about the committee letters being legally enforceable subpoenas.

Pelosi could only succeed if the media didn't challenge her on the issue. The media remained silent. The media knew the truth, but assisted the fraud. 


10) Speaker Pelosi & Lawfare’s impeachment scheme could only succeed with a compliant media protecting it. The media was entirely compliant in not explaining the fraudulent basis for the construct.

If the media would have ever asked questions the fraud would have collapsed.

11) It has long been established by SCOTUS that Congress has lawful (judicial authority) subpoena powers pursuant to its implied responsibility of legislative oversight. However, that only applies to the powers enumerated in A1§8.

12) Neither foreign policy (Ukraine) nor impeachment have any nexus to A1§8. The customary Legislative Branch subpoena power is limited (separation of powers) to their legislative purpose.

13) There is an elevated level of subpoena, a power made possible by SCOTUS precedent, that carries inherent penalties for non-compliance, and is specifically allowed for impeachment investigations.

14) However, that level of elevated House authority required a full House authorization vote, and only applies to the House Judiciary Committee as empowered.

15) In Sept/Oct 2019 the Legislative Branch was NOT expressing their “impeachment authority” as part of the Legislative purpose. So that raised the issue of an entirely different type of subpoena…

16) The House was seeking to create a demand from congress that penetrates the constitutional separation of powers; and further penetrates the legal authority of Executive Branch executive privilege.

17) It was separately established by SCOTUS during Nixon impeachment investigation that *IF* the full House votes to have the Judiciary Committee commence an impeachment investigation, then the Judiciary Committee has subpoena power that can overcome executive privilege claims.

18) There was NO VOTE to create that level of subpoena power.

As a consequence, the House did not create a process to penetrate the constitutionally inherent separation of powers, and/or, the legally recognized firewall known as ‘executive privilege’. [Again, check dates] 

19) Absent a penalty for non-compliance, which factually makes a subpoena a ‘subpoena’, the Executive Branch had no process to engage an appellate review by federal courts.

This was not accidental. This was the purposeful trick within the Pelosi/Lawfare road-map.

20) Pelosi and Lawfare’s plan was designed for public consumption; she/they were creating the illusion of something that did not exist.

They could not have the Judicial branch deconstructing their impeachment arguments. So they avoided the courts.

21) Because the Lawfare/Pelosi roadmap intended to work around judicial enforcement authority, the impeachment process was destined by design to end up running head-first into a constitutional problem; specifically separation of power and executive privilege.

22) The Lawfare impeachment road-map was designed to conflict with the constitution. It was a necessary -and unavoidable- feature of their sketchy impeachment plan, not a flaw. 


23) Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her Lawfare allies changed House rules.

theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/09/28/pel

24) Pelosi and Lawfare changed House impeachment rules.

theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/07/hou

25) Pelosi/Lawfare changed committee rules:

theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/07/hou

26) Amid all of these rule changes Pelosi/Lawfare removed House republicans from the entire process…

theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/10/08/jor

27) However, what Lawfare and Pelosi could not change was The U.S. Constitution, which they were destined to collide with. 


28) Speaker Pelosi’s ‘Lawfare House rules‘ and/or ‘Lawfare impeachment rules‘ could not supersede the constitutional separation of powers.

Make no mistake, she was well aware of this.

29) Nancy Pelosi could not decree an “official impeachment inquiry”, and as a consequence nullify a constitutional firewall between the Legislative Branch and Executive Branch. 


30) Speaker Pelosi knew this. You see, Pelosi’s impeachment scheme required a compliant media to support her construct and deceive the democrat base.

The media complied with her requests. 


31) ...And that's why the articles of impeachment were structurally deficient upon submission; and why Senator Chuck Schumer is now trying to backfill the defects.

The entire impeachment road-map required the extra-constitutional senate process.

32) And that's what we are seeing play out today with Schumer's antics trying to gain evidence that was not attainable because the House lacked authority.

Again, this was by design. They planned to do this all along. These impeachment defects are material & intentional defects. 


33) This is why it is critical for Republicans in the Senate to hold firm on process issues.

They are not really "process issues", they are "constitutional issues". The House is attempting to usurp a constitutional impeachment process.

The Senate *MUST* hold firm!

/END 

34) Addendum - McConnell appears to be informing his senators about this inherent issue.

It is a critical constitutional issue because if not stopped, the same fraudulent process could be attempted to remove a Supreme Court Justice (or other) etc. 


35) Patrick Philbin, a member of President Donald Trump’s White House legal team, explains the facts within is thread to the Senate during his remarks. Beginning at 03:20 of remarks. [Prompted, just hit play]

youtu.be/QQU_VH0l0ys?t=