IMPEACHMENT DISTRACTION

 

(Photo courtesy of Times of Israel)

by Diane Rufino, February 9, 2020

For the past months, we have watched as President Donald J. Trump was impeached in the House by rabid partisan politicians, then tried in the Senate, and ultimately ACQUITTED. We have been utterly disgusted at the depths to which Democrats were willing to go to tarnish the name of this president, to somehow remove him from office, to undue the legitimate election of 2016, and at the very least, to smear his legacy and help derail his changes at re-election in November. We will never forget how the wicked witch of the House, Nancy Pelosi, said these words at the podium “He is impeached forever.”

Now we know that Trump’s popularity increased steadily and impressively during the entire process of impeachment and that his campaign took in record donations. We also now know that history will record Trump’s impeachment as nothing more than the desperate act of the most angry group of House Democrats in our country’s history. It was distinctly partisan, it was highly prejudicial to the Republicans and to Trump (they were all excluded from the testimony phase of the inquiry), and it was profoundly bitter and angry. History will record Rep. Adam Schiff as a conniving clown who fabricated charges, fabricated testimony, interpreted Trump’s conservation with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky using his own personal and political slant, and essentially fabricated the two articles of impeachment without any actual crime committed (not that it is absolutely necessary) and in the most ambiguous and undefined terms. It was truly a “Schiff Show.”

So let’s take a look at this most solemn and serious of government processes – Impeachment of a US President.

Impeachment is the process whereby we can attempt to remove a president of the United States, other civil officers, or federal judges because of some egregious conduct.

As we’ll see, the term egregious conduct is what is and MUST BE the standard and the basis to legally attack a sitting president of the United States, or the other officers and judges, and then to remove him (or her) from office. So rabid were the House Democrats in their quest to destroy President Trump that their articles included a provision that he not be eligible to hold any other official public office.

Article II, Section 4 of the US Constitution provides:

The President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

First, we must notice which class of government officials the Constitution reserves the process of “Impeachment” for. The provision specifically identifies “the President, Vice President, and all civil officers of the United States.” LectLaw defines “all civil officers of the United States” this way: “All officers of the United States who hold their appointments under the national government, whether their duties are executive or judicial, in the highest or the lowest departments of the government, with the exception of officers of the army and navy.” [See: https://www.lectlaw.com/def/c236.htm].

Clearly, members of Congress are not subject to the Impeachment process. Each house of Congress has its own set of rules to govern conduct, breach of conduct, and punishment.

Justia US Law explains even further what the drafters of the Constitution and our Founders envisioned with Impeachment:

“During the debate in the First Congress on the “removal” controversy, it was contended by some members that impeachment was the exclusive way to remove any officer of the government from his post, but Madison and others contended that this position was destructive of sound governmental practice, and the view did not prevail. Impeachment, said Madison, was to be used to reach a bad officer sheltered by the President and to remove him “even against the will of the President; so that the declaration in the Constitution was intended as a supplementary security for the good behavior of the public officers.” While the language of Section 4 covers any “civil officer” in the executive branch, and covers judges as well, it excludes military officers, and the precedent was early established that it does not apply to members of Congress. [See: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/48-persons-subject-to-impeachment.html].

Also notice that the operative words in Article II, Section 4 are “shall be removed from office.” And that’s what it’s all about, right? It’s about removing such an officer (and here we are specifically referring to the President of the United States) because of some horrendous conduct that is so shocking and repulsive as to erode general confidence, on a bi-partisan basis, in his ability to continue as the Chief Executive of the United States.

The provisions in the Constitution, which as we shall see, are written in simple and plain language, and without any detail, were designed to mirror the process of removal that was followed in Great Britain in the 14th century. Alexander Hamilton explains this in his essay, Federalist No. 65.

The purpose of Impeachment, therefore, is not to shame the president, insult him, demean him, tarnish his name or his legacy, diminish his likability with the American people, or to erode his chances of re-election. And it most certainly isn’t the process to use to undue a legitimate and constitutional election – to reverse the decision of the American people and the Electoral College at the ballot box, the sacred venue of the people to exert their voice in government. The purpose is to address a most serious and egregious violation (criminal or otherwise – “treason, bribery, or other high crime or misdemeanor”) and remove him from office because of it.

Democrats, as always, ignore the Constitution.

The Constitution gives the US House of Representatives the sole power to impeach the president (that is, to bring charges against him) and it makes the Senate the sole body to try him on those impeachment charges. That is, the Senate alone has the power to convict or acquit the President on the charges.

So what is the “process” of Impeachment? Clearly, and expressly, it is a 2-step process that takes place in the most powerful branch to counter the Executive – the Legislative branch.

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution provides: “The House of Representatives shall have the sole power of impeachment.”

Article I, Section 3 provides: “The Senate shall have the sole power to TRY all impeachments.”

This latter provision necessarily implies something extremely important – it implies that Due Process is required in the Senate “trial.” In other words, the President, like any other civil officer of the United States who has impeachment charges brought against him (or her), has the right to address the charges, the right to address those who brought the charges against him, and in general, the right of Due Process.

Due Process is one of the essential cornerstones of our American society. It passes down from the British system which hails a sordid history where kings abused the rights of their subjects and in fact, targeted their political opponents to silence them. “Due Process” guarantees that before depriving a citizen of life, liberty or property, government must follow fair procedures. Citizens are entitled to have the government observe or offer fair procedures to secure said rights of life, liberty, or property (or other rights offered to citizens). Action denying the process that is “due” would be unconstitutional. Here is an example we can all appreciate: Suppose, for example, state law recognizes the right of every student to exercise the tenets of their religion (as long as it doesn’t interfere with or burden the learning environment). Before the state could deny, for example, a student from wearing a cross or using a backpack that displays an image of the crucifixion, it would have to provide fair procedures, i.e. “due process.”

The Constitution states only one command twice. The Fifth Amendment says to the federal government that no one shall be “deprived of life, liberty or property without due process of law.” And the Fourteenth Amendment, ratified in 1868, uses the same eleven words, called the Due Process Clause, to describe a legal obligation of all states. These words have as their central promise an assurance that all levels of American government must operate within the law and provide fair procedures.

Regarding the recent impeachment of Donald Trump, he clearly had a right at stake. He campaigned for the office of the presidency (like no other candidate ever did, by the way) and he won. He was duly and constitutionally elected to the office by the American people and our Electoral College system.

In short, Trump had a right to the Presidency.

And House Democrats, out of hatred, political ambition, and extreme anger and desperate frustration, tried to deny him this right by passing two ridiculous Articles of Impeachment – (1) Abuse of Power, and (2) Obstruction of Congress.

According to the Impeachment process, according to the Constitution, the Senate was obligated to give President Trump his “day in court,” so to speak. And his legal team (including the esteemed attorneys Jay Sekulow, Pat Cippolone, Kenneth Starr, Alan Dershowitz, Pam Bondi, Pat Philbin, and Robert Ray) did an absolutey brilliant job.

I was lucky and honored to have been ale to sit in the Senate chambers to observe the proceedings. What an experience to observe such a historical event.

The Constitution doesn’t provide much detail or insight into what constitutes a “high crime or misdemeanor” sufficient to warrant removal from office, so we look to our nation’s history to see what past attempts at impeachment have taught us.

First, we should note that Impeachment was always intended as a process that was hardly ever to be used. It was to be reserved for the most egregious of behavior. Ken Starr addressed this in the remarks he delivered to the Senate. He explained that Impeachment was intended to be used, if ever, maybe every century. But something happened in the latter part of the 20th century to “weaponize” impeachment. He described it as “The Age of Impeachment.” It began, he explained, with Richard Nixon and the Watergate Scandal cover-up that he engaged so aggressively in.

President Richard Nixon was not impeached, as it turned out, but he was threatened with it. Congress was getting ready to bring articles of impeachment against him, including, of course, “Obstruction of Justice.” Nixon was convinced that too many representatives and senators, from both sides, were so disgusted and repulsed by how aggressively he obstructed justice during the Watergate investigation (obstructed the Starr investigation, as Independent Counsel), that they would have easily voted to impeach and then remove him. And so he decided to reign – to save face.

That would have been an actual and authentic exercise of the Impeachment process. Richard Nixon clearly used terrible judgement and used the full power of his office and the power of the federal government to cover up some illegality perpetrated by others (ultimately for his benefit in the upcoming presidential election).

Impeachment of a President has occurred in our nation’s history only three times – with Andrew Johnson (1868), Bill Clinton (1998), and Donald Trump (2019). None of them were removed from office, even though impeachment charges were brought against them by the House. Johnson came the closest to being impeached, and we’ll look more closely into how that happened.

First, let’s look at the impeachment of President Bill Clinton to see what it teaches us about the kinds of crimes that warrant removal from office. As mentioned earlier, Kenneth Starr, a brilliant and respected attorney, was appointed as the Special Counsel to investigate the charges that stemmed from Clinton’s sexual conduct (that is, misconduct) and especially from the sexual harassment lawsuit brought against him by Paula Jones, a former Arkansas state employee who was sexually assaulted by then Arkansas Governor Clinton. Ken Starr found eleven felony charges that Clinton was guilty of and, as he summed up in his famous Starr Report: “The President has pursued a strategy of (i) deceiving the American people and Congress in January 1998, (ii) delaying and impeding the criminal investigation for seven months, and (iii) deceiving the American people and Congress again in August 1998.” His repeated false statements to the American people about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky “represents substantial and credible information that may constitute grounds for an impeachment.”

The House of Representatives took up Starr’s Report and compiled the felony charges into four Articles of Impeachment. The House only approved of two of them: (1) Lying Under Oath (“perjury”), and (2) Obstruction of Justice. The charges stemmed from the sexual harassment suit filed by Paula Jones, and specifically, arose out of Clinton’s testimony before a grand jury. The testimony addressed his harassment of Ms. Jones and his relationship with Ms. Monica Lewinsky. Clinton was impeached by the House by bi-partisan support: He was impeached on the “Perjury” charge (228-206) and on the “Obstruction of Justice” charge (221-212). His presidency was saved in the Senate. All 45 Democrats in the Senate voted “not guilty” on both charges, and were joined by Republicans as well. He was acquitted by the Senate.

I didn’t agree with the Senate’s vote regarding President Clinton’s conduct. I saw him perverting his obligation to the Office of the Presidency and subjugating it in order to hide his sexual misconduct and to hopefully continue it. I interpreted the results of the Senate’s vote either of two ways: (1) First, I assumed the Senators didn’t believe Clinton’s conduct – as bad and derelict as it was – was serious enough and of the type to warrant removing him from office. Sure, it was bad conduct… very bad. It evidenced a lifetime of poor judgement and sexual predation, but it was of a personal nature and the Senate should understand that and excuse it. I didn’t buy that. It was of a serial nature. He simply had no will power or any other power to decline his sexual urges, even when it touched on his work in the White House Oval Office. (2) Second, I assumed the Senators were simply voting along partisan lines, which clearly the Democrats did. As I mentioned above, none of the Senate Democrats voted to convict.

But Clinton did face some degree of justice. Being a notable attorney, a state Governor, a US president, a Rhodes scholar, he proved his skills were more adept at lying. He was immediately disbarred and his license to practice before the Supreme Court was taken away.

So, whether it was politically partisan or not, it appears that Democrats didn’t believe that conduct as willfully deceptive and sexually predacious as Clinton’s was of a nature sufficient to remove a president from office.

Next, let’s look to see where Impeachment was first used as a “weapon” for strictly political reasons. That would be the impeachment of President Andrew Johnson in 1686.

In 1864, Abraham Lincoln won re-election. He had run as the Republican Party’s first presidential candidate in 1860, but he was looking to expand his base in 1864. Adding Andrew Johnson to the ticket was just the way he would do so.

Johnson proved to be a sharp and independent thinker. This was most evident following the 1860 election of Abraham Lincoln when Southern states began to secede. While the secession convention met in Charleston, South Carolina in December 1869, Johnson addressed the Senate and proclaimed his allegiance to the Union. He was born in North Carolina to a poor family but when he was still young, he and his family moved to Tennessee. Johnson was a Democrat and didn’t necessarily see eye-to-eye with Lincoln.

Tennessee seceded in 1861, but Johnson decided to remain in Washington.. In March of 1862, President Lincoln rewarded Johnson’s loyalty with an appointment as military governor of Tennessee. When Lincoln sought a second presidential term in 1864 and needed the support of “Union Democrats” (as opposed to “Southern Democrats”), he chose Johnson as his running mate. He chose a Democrat as a running mate. Johnson became Vice-President on March 4, 1865, and just forty-two days later, after Lincoln was assassinated by John Wilkes Booth, he was sworn in as President of the United States.

At first things went well. It appeared, from the Radical Republicans, that President Johnson was a god-send. Relations between he and the Republicans was quite well. However, soon Johnson’s views on mending the Union and on Reconstruction became clear and they were not in line at all with the Republican plan. Johnson opposed political rights for freedmen and called for a lenient reconstruction policy, including pardoning former Confederate leaders. The president looked for every opportunity to block action by the Radical Republicans and freely used his veto power.. It became obvious that had no interest in compromise. When Johnson vetoed the Civil Rights Act of 1866 and then vetoed the Freedmen’s Bureau bill in February of 1866, he officially broke any final ties with his Republican opponents in Congress. They responded with the Fourteenth and Fifteenth Amendments to the Constitution, promising civil rights to freed slaves and then guaranteeing them the right to vote. In March of 1867 Radical Republicans also passed, over Johnson’s presidential veto, the Tenure of Office Act which was designed to limit the president’s ability to shape his cabinet by requiring that both appointments and dismissals be approved by the Senate. The bill was a clear unconstitutional exercise of legislative power – as violative of the Separation of Powers doctrine.

Johnson’s biggest point of contention was with a particularly nasty hold-over from Lincoln’s cabinet – Edwin Stanton, Secretary of War. Stanton was a bad guy – a very bad guy. He supported total war against the South, supported General Sherman’s devastating treatment of the southern states, supported his “scorched Earth policy (as Lincoln did), and supported his “March to the Sea” (an overt act of supremacy and over-kill). Stanton supported strong punishment of the former Confederate States and demanded total control of the those vanquished states. According to Stanton, they would not be permitted a seamless transition back into the Union.

When Johnson tried repeatedly to remove Stanton, Congress responded quickly by passing the Tenure of Office Act. Stanton, a Radical Republican, was critical to the Republican plan to re-make the Union after the Civil War.

By mid-1867, Johnson’s enemies in Congress were repeatedly promoting impeachment. Johnson would have to go. The precipitant event that resulted in a third and successful impeachment action was the firing Stanton. Stanton was not aligned with the President and persisted in opposing his Reconstruction policies. Johnson hoped to replace him with Ulysses S. Grant, whom Johnson believed to be more in line with his own political thinking. In August of 1867, while Congress was in recess, Johnson suspended Stanton and appointed Grant as secretary of war ad interim. When the Senate opposed Johnson’s actions and reinstated Stanton in the fall, Grant resigned, fearing punitive action and possible consequences for his own presidential ambitions. Furious with his congressional opponents, Johnson fired Stanton and informed Congress of this action, then named Major General Lorenzo Thomas, a long-time foe of Stanton, as interim secretary. Stanton promptly had Thomas arrested for illegally seizing his office.

Johnson believed the Tenure of Office Act to be unconstitutional [and Congress must have ultimately agreed. It repealed the law in 1887 and the US Supreme Court, while evaluating the constitutionality of a similar law in the case Myers v. United States (1926), stated that the Tenure of Office Act was likely unconstitutional] and so he didn’t take it seriously as a bar to him getting rid of the pesky Stanton.

And that’s all Congress needed to finally bring, in their minds, a solid case of impeachment against Johnson. In 1868, Congress brought eleven articles of impeachment against him, most of them stemming from his suspension of Stanton – his alleged violation of the Tenure of Office Act. Article 1 stated that Johnson ordered Stanton removed with the intent to violate the act. Articles 2, 3 and 8 alleged that the appointment of Thomas, to replace Stanton, without the advice and consent of the Senate was a further violation of the Constitution. And so their political assassination of Johnson proceeded.

In the Senate, the vote fell short by one. The votes of all Senators was carefully noted and it was clear that Johnson would have been convicted. But at the last minute, Senator Edmund Gibson Ross of Kansas, decided not to vote to convict but rather to acquit. And thus, Johnson was acquitted and allowed to remain in office by one vote. The reason given by those who voted to acquit was that they “could not agree to destroy the harmonious working of the Constitution for the sake of getting rid of an unacceptable President.”

In other words, to convict Johnson on the specious charges brought by the rabid Radical Republicans in the House would be to plunge the country in a constitutional crisis.

That was 1868.

History repeated itself these past two months. As it was done with Andrew Johnson, angry and desperate political opponents weaponized the impeachment option for purely partisan political purposes.

In our history, twenty government officials have been impeached – including the three presidents I mentioned. Eight of them have been found guilty and have been removed from office – ALL FEDERAL JUDGES.

 

References:

“Civil Officer,” in Lectlaw. Referenced at: https://www.lectlaw.com/def/c236.htm

“Persons Subject to Impeachment,” in Justia US Law. Referenced at: https://law.justia.com/constitution/us/article-2/48-persons-subject-to-impeachment.html

“Due Process,” in Cornell Law School. Referenced at: https://www.law.cornell.edu/wex/due_process

The Starr Report (Full report submitted to the House of Representatives by Special Counsel Kenneth Starr on September 9, 1998 – https://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/special/clinton/icreport/srprintable.htm

The Impeachment of Andrew Johnson (1868),” United States Senate. Referenced at: https://www.senate.gov/artandhistory/history/common/briefing/Impeachment_Johnson.htm

IMPEACHMENT – Where Do We Go From Here?

IMPEACHMENT - how it works

by Diane Rufino, December 23, 2019

My friend Joe McLaughlin said that he heard that despite House Speaker Nancy Pelosi choosing to hold back the articles of impeachment that House Democrats alone passed against President Trump from the Senate (until certain conditions are met – ie, “quid pro quo”), the Senate has the opportunity to act. He asked if this is true.

Here is how impeachment works, as I understand it. The Constitution speaks to impeachment process but not to an detailed procedure. It is a 2-part process, to be separated by 2 distinct branches of the legislature. It is an act of separation of powers, designed to temper political passions and to resort to reason and responsibility. All the Constitution says is that the House of Representatives can bring impeachment charges against the president (a simple majority is all that is required) but it is the Senate that has the power to remove him for those charges. Article 1, Section 2 states that the House “shall have the sole Power of Impeachment” – meaning it alone has the power to bring charges of “high crimes and misdemeanors” against a president. The far greater responsibility lies with the Senate, as it should, since those representatives were (as the original Constitution provided) selected by the states and not the populace and hold a far longer tenure in office and hence are (or should be) more knowledgeable and responsible. Section 3 states that the Senate “shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” A president is removed from office by a 2/3 supermajority vote of the Senate. As you can see, there is no mention of procedure in the Constitution. The question we are pondering is this: Isn’t the House REQUIRED to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate IMMEDIATELY? To answer this, we have to look to the Senate’s own RULES governing how it handles its role, its procedure, in the impeachment process. Currently, those rules begin by stating: The first rule of impeachment procedure states that the Senate will not act on an impeachment until the House sends to the Senate its appointed “managers”— the representatives who will act as the lawyers during the impeachment trial. After the House has presented its managers to the Senate, then the Senate takes the reins and launches its trial. If the Senate wants to frustrate Pelosi’s “quid pro quo” attempt, all it needs to do is alter its rules outlining the impeachment procedure in the Senate. It simply needs to put a time limit on the transmission of articles of impeachment to the Senate, asserting that any so-called “crimes” levied against the President under the impeachment power must be deemed serious enough to warrant immediate action by the Senate. Otherwise, they are not serious enough to have been brought against him in the first place.

In an opinion piece for FOX News by GianCarlo Canaparo titled “Pelosi Powerless to Delay Trump Impeachment Trial if Senate Does THIS,” Mr. Canaparo pretty much summed up the very same opinion. He wrote:

The first rule of impeachment procedure states that the Senate will not act on an impeachment until the House sends to the Senate its appointed “managers”— the representatives who will act as the lawyers during the impeachment trial. After the House has presented its managers to the Senate, then the Senate takes the reins and launches its trial.

So can Pelosi delay an impeachment trial?  Yes, as long as the Senate doesn’t change its current rules. But there’s absolutely nothing stopping it from changing this rule, and the Senate should change the rule to prevent this sort of gamesmanship.

The Senate should not let Pelosi interfere with its constitutional obligations and its independence in this way.

Impeachment of the president shakes the nation to its core, and when, as here, it’s done in a nakedly partisan way, it divides the country and damages our constitutional framework. It needs to be over as quickly as possible.

So the Senate should change its impeachment rules as follows: once the House has impeached the president, the Senate shall set a date for trial and shall set a deadline for the House to present its managers to the Senate. If the House fails to meet that deadline, the Senate will either dismiss the articles of impeachment for lack of prosecution or, better yet, vote on the articles immediately in light of the evidence presented to it — in this case, no evidence.

Having set this boulder rolling, House Democrats should not be allowed now to hold it up. They started this process. It’s up to the Senate to finish it on its terms alone. Not Pelosi’s.

As I pointed out earlier, the Constitution doesn’t say how fast the articles must go to the Senate. But it can arguably be assumed that some modest delay might be expected. It certainly wouldn’t be inconsistent with the Constitution. But certainly an indefinite delay – and certainly a “quid-pro-quo” type delay – would pose a very serious problem. It might even rise to a “constitutional crisis.”

But FOX News isn’t the only opinion on Pelosi’s decision to withhold the articles of impeachment.

According to leftist/ progressive Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman, who testified in favor of impeachment and on behalf of Democrats in front of the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month, President Trump isn’t actually impeached until the Pelosi sends the articles to the Senate. He argues that impeachment, as contemplated by the Constitution, is a process. It does not merely consist of a vote by the House, but includes a trial in the Senate on those charges (the impeachment charges) to determine whether they are serious enough to warrant removal from office. Both parts – the articles of impeachment brought by the House and the trial in the Senate –are necessary to legally constitute “impeachment” under the Constitution. to make an impeachment under the Constitution: In other words, the House must actually send the articles and send managers to the Senate to prosecute the impeachment. And the Senate must actually hold a trial.

In an article he penned for Bloomberg Opinion, titled Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate, Professor Feldman wrote:

“According to the Constitution, impeachment is a process, not a vote If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all.”

In fact, President Trump is already hinting that this is his position.

And this brings us to another point – the Senate must actually hold a trial on the impeachment charges. Once the articles are sent, the Senate has a constitutional duty to hold a trial on the impeachment charges presented. Just as unreasonably holding back the articles of impeachment or indefinitely holding them back from the Senate frustrates and therefore violates the Constitution scheme of impeachment, failure for the Senate to hold a trial after impeachment would also clearly deviate from such expectations. It would deny the president the chance to defend himself in the Senate that the Constitution provides. We couldn’t, in good conscience as a “free nation,” deny the President of the United States, duly elected by the American people under the Electoral College system, the fundamental right to confront his accusers and to defend himself in a trial before a vote is taken on removal from office. Due Process demands that when there is a right at stake (the office of the presidency being the right in this case), there must be a legal procedure in place to allow the accused to confront and address those who try to deny him that right. The most debase and vile of criminals are guaranteed this right, after all.

The drafters and framers of our Constitution included the provisions for impeachment taking note of how it had been practiced in England. In England, the House of Commons brought impeachment charges and the House of Lords tried those charges. In fact, the whole point of Commons bringing the charges was for them to brought against the accused in the House of Lords, in the form of a trial. Strictly speaking, therefore, “impeachment” refers to the process of presenting the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial. And, as emphasized earlier, at that point the Senate would be obliged by the Constitution to hold a trial.

If the House were vote to “impeach” Trump (which it did) but doesn’t send the articles to the Senate or send impeachment managers there to carry its message, then while it hasn’t directly violated the text of the Constitution, it certainly has technically violated it by intentionally acting against the implicit logic of the Constitution’s process of impeachment. Again, we see the logic in President Trump’s position.

With respect to Pelosi’s quid-pro-quo argument that articles of impeachment will be withheld until SHE deems that the Senate procedures are fair enough to the Democrats, Professor Feldman dismisses that position altogether. He asserts that only the Senate is empowered to judge the fairness of its own trial. After all, that is what is explicitly stated by the phrase “The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments.”

But even if we decide to overlook GianCarlo Canparo from FOX News and Professor Noah Feldman, there is still liberal law school professor Alan Dershowitz. Dershowitz pretty much echoes the same position as Feldman.

Dershowitz further criticizes the Democrats for its second article of impeachment, which in his opinion is abusive and threatens the integrity of the impeachment process. He says that although the entire impeachment process by House Democrats smacks of partisanship, it is the second article of impeachment that particularly does so. And he is concerned for its effect in future attempts to impeach a partisanly-unpopular president.

While lamenting over this second article of impeachment, Dershowitz was encouraged by the recent decision by the US Supreme Court to review the lower court rulings involving congressional and prosecution subpoenas directed toward President Trump, which he claims “pulls the rug out from” or “undercuts” the Democrats’ second article of impeachment. That second article of impeachment charges President Trump with obstruction of Congress for refusing to comply with the congressional subpoenas in the absence of a final court order. In so charging him, the House Judiciary Committee has arrogated to itself the power to decide the validity of subpoenas, and the power to determine whether claims of executive privilege must be recognized, both authorities that properly belong with the judicial branch of our government, not the legislative branch.

In an article he wrote for The Hill, Dershowitz explained: “President Trump has asserted that the executive branch, of which he is the head, need not comply with congressional subpoenas requiring the production of privileged executive material, unless there is a final court order compelling such production. He has argued, appropriately, that the judicial branch is the ultimate arbiter of conflicts between the legislative and executive branches. Therefore, the Supreme Court decision to review these three cases, in which lower courts ruled against President Trump, provides support for his constitutional arguments in the investigation.”

He further wrote:

The cases that are being reviewed are not identical to the challenged subpoenas that form the basis for the second article of impeachment. One involves authority of the New York district attorney to subpoena the financial records of a sitting president, as part of any potential criminal investigation. The others involve authority of legislative committees to subpoena records as part of any ongoing congressional investigations.

But they are close enough. Even if the high court were eventually to rule against the claims by President Trump, the fact that the justices decided to hear them, in effect, supports his constitutional contention that he had the right to challenge congressional subpoenas in court, or to demand that those issuing the subpoenas seek to enforce them through court.

It undercuts the contention by House Democrats that President Trump committed an impeachable offense by insisting on a court order before sending possibly privileged material to Congress. Even before the justices granted review of these cases, the two articles of impeachment had no basis in the Constitution. They were a reflection of the comparative voting power of the two parties, precisely what one of the founders, Alexander Hamilton, warned would be the “greatest danger” of an impeachment.

So, we have reasoned constitutional analysis that tells us that impeachment is a process by which articles of impeachment (“the charges”) must be delivered by the House to the Senate in a timely fashion and whereby a trial must be conducted in the Senate on those impeachment charges. Removal from office is a decision made solely by the Senate, based on procedural rules decided upon solely by the Senate. We further have reasoned constitutional opinion, by both liberal and conservative constitutional attorneys, that condemns the games that Nancy Pelosi is playing with impeachment and condemns further the very articles of impeachment that Democrats alone voted in favor of.

President Trump appears to be on very solid ground in his positions first to claim executive privilege with regard to the House Judiciary Committee’s subpoenas and second with regard to his criticism of the quid-pro-quo games Nancy Pelosi is playing by withholding the articles of impeachment from the Senate.

The House Democrats pursued their evil purpose and achieved their evil goal – to bring articles of impeachment of President Donald Trump. How proud they must be that they allowed an anger over losing the presidential election in 2016 to Donald Trump to consume their very being, blind their oaths of allegiance to the Constitution, and to corrupt their ability to act as responsible representatives over the most successful free nation in the world to the point that they have made a mockery of our very institution of government and have put the interests of a political party over the best interests of the country. Such a sad day in the history of our country. But the good news is that their part in the process is over. It is now up to the Senate to complete the process. Luckily we don’t have the same level of Trump Derangement Syndrome (or the same level of abject stupidity) in the Senate. Nancy Pelosi may try to continue playing games and rigging the process and twisting the rules and perverting the Constitution, but the truth of the matter is that her part is done and the process outlined by the Constitution requires her to send the articles of impeachment to the Senate for a trial in order that President Trump can have his day and defend himself. If she continues to play games, the Senate can force the matter by simply altering the procedural rules. And we hope that will happen to shut her up and to allow her to finally seek the psychiatric help she so sorely needs.

 

References:

GianCarlo Canaparo, ““Pelosi Powerless to Delay Trump Impeachment Trial if Senate Does THIS,” FOX News, December 20, 2019. Referenced at: https://www.foxnews.com/opinion/giancarlo-canaparo-pelosi-cant-stop-trumps-trial-in-the-senate

Noah Feldman, “Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate,” Bloomberg Opinion, December 19, 2019. Referenced at: https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

Alan Dershowitz, “Supreme Court Ruling Pulls Rug Rut from Under Article of Impeachment,” The Hill, December 16, 2019. Referenced at: https://thehill.com/opinion/judiciary/474710-supreme-court-ruling-pulls-rug-out-from-under-article-of-impeachment

Matt Vespa, “Liberal Lawyer: SCOTUS Just ‘Ripped the Rug’ from Under the Democrats’ Trump Impeachment Push,” Townhall, December 20, 2019. Referenced at: https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2019/12/20/liberal-lawyer-scotus-just-ripped-the-rug-from-under-the-democrats-trump-impeachment-push-n2558364?utm_campaign=inarticle

It’s Not the Size of the Dog in the Fight; It’s the Size of the Fight in the Dog

TRUMP - wrestling belt

(Photo from Twitter)

by Diane Rufino, December 18, 2019

Mark Twain once said: “It’s not the size of the dog in the fight, it’s the size of the fight in the dog.”

With President Donald Trump we have both the size of the dog and the size of the fight.

This is re-affirmed to us every single day.

Trump took on the historic tasks of making America great again, draining the DC swamp, and returning the government to the people, as he promised in his inaugural address. For these admiral goals, he has been vilified, persecuted, and hated.

For these admirable goals, we are witnessing evil-intentioned partisan political insiders attempt something that was also attempted in 1868 with Andrew Johnson – a political coup to oust a president that is intent on frustrating the policies and goals of a political party. The Radical Republicans wanted to punish the defeated southern states and use the freed slaves to re-make the body politic in the south to reject the Southern Democrats and to align with them politically. Only then would Lincoln’s War to force the South Back into the Union achieve its ultimate goal – to re-join the Union and to go back to paying all the protective tariffs. Johnson was impeached in the House for violating the Tenure of Office Act (hastily passed by the Radical Republicans to prevent him from removing the vile and ambitious Secretary of War (Edwin Stanton) that Lincoln had appointed but saved in the Senate from removal by only 1 vote. The Tenure of Office Act, by the way, was found to be unconstitutional. [Sounds like today’s ambitiously blind Democrats!]. Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, and the rest of the ilk initiated impeachment hearings after almost 4 years of conducting a witch hunt in their frenzied attempt to remove Trump from office. Since there was no crime to attach to Trump, one had to be found (or made up) – the so-called “insurance policy.” For that, a witch hunt needed to be initiated. And politically-motivated elements of the Obama administration, including Obama himself and the likes of James Comey, Andrew McCabe, Rod Rosenstein, Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, were happy to accept the Steele dossier that was given to them by the Hillary Clinton campaign together with the DNC without verifying or confirming its accuracy and veracity. Why? Because the ends justified the means. When political insiders attempt a coup, they don’t care that it is based on actual facts or evidence of actual wrongdoing. And so these ambitious and rogue elements of our government presented this unverified and unproven dossier to the FISA court in support of its application for FISA warrants to spy on members of the Trump campaign, and withheld KEY information that the judges would have needed to prevent a fraud from being perpetrated on the court. These persons (criminals) without information proving the highly partisan nature of the information (it was intended merely for “opposition research” to be used against Trump by Clinton in her campaign, plus it was paid for by her and the DNC), withheld information undercutting the truth of the information (no verification at all; the only information to support it was given by Steele himself – from an article that he wrote – totally self-serving), and withheld information which would have persuaded the FISA court to protect Trump’s privacy (exculpatory information). The real Russian Collusion scandal was between Hillary Clinton, the DNC, Obama, the FBI and DOJ, and the mainstream media – for the sole purpose of interfering with the 2016 presidential election.

Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Chuck Schumer, and the rest are attempting a political coup to undo a lawful election result that was constitutional and legitimate. They are attempting a political coup for no other reason than they are angry. They are attempting a political coup to undo the collective will of the American people who have been rightfully frustrated over the years by the political goals of DC politicians, have been robbed of their interests by the Deep State and by powerful special interest groups, and have been ignored and used/abused by Obama and the Democratic Party. The so-called “party of the people” (Democratic Party) is actually the “party of political elites.” It is a group of hypocrites skilled at mobilizing useless idiots.

WE MUST DO ALL IN OUR POWER TO SUPPORT DONALD TRUMP THRU THESE TRYING TIMES and MOST IMPORTANTLY, SUPPORT HIM in 2020 !!

The Impeachment Scheme – It’s not Going to Work

IMPEACHMENT - Pelosi (GOPUSA)

(Photo Courtesy of GOPUSA)

by Diane Rufino, October 31, 2019

Now that Democrats have launched an impeachment inquiry, they’ll need to convince 20 Republicans in the Senate to vote to convict and remove him from power. We all know that the Senate will never remove him. And Democrats know that as well.

So what is the Democrats’ real goal? What is their end game?

Pelosi, Schiff, Shumer, D’Nang Dick Blumenthal, and all the other unhinged Democrats understand that the most important number when it comes to removing Trump from power isn’t the 67 votes in the Senate needed to convict. It’s his APPROVAL RATING. They have chosen this particular point in time to launch an Impeachment Inquiry because of the upcoming 2020 presidential election. They are hoping to capitalize on a tanking approval rating (as a result of the inquiry) to affect the election. They are hoping to impugn Trump’s reputation as they did to Nixon in the Watergate investigation (leading to his resignation in August 1974) and as Republicans did to President Clinton in the late 1990’s in the wake of the Monica Lewinsky scandal.

But here is the difference between the Clinton impeachment investigation and the Trump impeachment investigation. Donald Trump has done absolutely nothing to warrant such an investigation. Remember the impeachment standard – “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Impeachment was reserved for those actions of a President that are so objectionable, so touching on his character and fitness for office as to convince members of BOTH PARTIES that the best thing for the country is to remove him from office. It is not a mere political tool – to be used by one political party to effect a political coup-d’état and remove a president they hate from office. Yet that is what we are seeing from the rabid Democrats from the very minute that Donald Trump took that historic walk down Pennsylvania Avenue to the Capitol Building to take the oath of office in 2017.

Bill Clinton, on the other hand, committed actual crimes – 11 felonies to be exact. That was the conclusion of the (Ken) Starr Report which was issued in 1998 to the House Judiciary Committee. The Report cited 11 possible grounds (felonies) for impeachment – that can be lumped into four general categories: perjury, obstruction of justice, witness tampering and abuse of power. All of these felonies were linked to Clinton’s affair with Monica Lewinsky. These felonies were:

1. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil case when he denied a sexual affair, a sexual relationship, or sexual relations with Monica Lewinsky.

2. President Clinton lied under oath to the grand jury about his sexual relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

3. In his civil deposition, to support his false statement about the sexual relationship, President Clinton also lied under oath about being alone with Ms. Lewinsky and about the many gifts exchanged between Ms. Lewinsky and him.

4. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Ms. Lewinsky concerning her involvement in the Jones case.

5. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth about their relationship by concealing gifts subpoenaed by Ms. Jones’s attorneys.

6. During the Jones case, the President obstructed justice and had an understanding with Ms. Lewinsky to jointly conceal the truth of their relationship from the judicial process by a scheme that included the following means: (A) Both the President and Ms. Lewinsky understood that they would lie under oath in the Jones case about their sexual relationship; (B) the President suggested to Ms. Lewinsky that she prepare an affidavit that, for the President’s purposes, would memorialize her testimony under oath and could be used to prevent questioning of both of them about their relationship (C) Lewinsky signed and filed the false affidavit; (D) the President used Ms. Lewinsky’s false affidavit at his deposition in an attempt to head off questions about Ms. Lewinsky; and (E) when that failed, the President lied under oath at his civil deposition about the relationship with Ms. Lewinsky.

7. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice by helping Ms. Lewinsky obtain a job in New York at a time when she would have been a witness harmful to him were she to tell the truth in the Jones case. (Quid-pro-quo for Lewinsky’s silence)

8. President Clinton lied under oath in his civil deposition about his discussions with Vernon Jordan concerning Ms. Lewinsky’s involvement in the Jones case.

9. The President improperly tampered with a potential witness by attempting to corruptly influence the testimony of his personal secretary, Betty Currie, in the days after his civil deposition.

10. President Clinton endeavored to obstruct justice during the grand jury investigation by refusing to testify for seven months and lying to senior White House aides with knowledge that they would relay the President’s false statements to the grand jury – and did thereby deceive, obstruct, and impede the grand jury.

11. President Clinton abused his constitutional authority by (iA lying to the public and the Congress in January 1998 about his relationship with Ms. Lewinsky; (B) promising at that time to cooperate fully with the grand jury investigation; (C) later refusing six invitations to testify voluntarily to the grand jury; (D) invoking Executive Privilege; (E) lying to the grand jury in August 1998; and (F) lying again to the public and Congress on August 17, 1998 – all as part of an effort to hinder, impede, and deflect possible inquiry by the Congress of the United States.
[Reference: Wikipedia, “The Starr Report”]

Trump has been the victim of a fabricated plot to affect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election (the “Russian Collusion” scandal), which will backfire on Democrats and on Obama and his FBI and DOJ officials, has been the victim of a phone call scandal that Rep. Adam Schifty Schiff has inappropriately misrepresented to the House Judiciary Committee and to the American people, has been the victim of a secret Democratic plot to conduct an Impeachment Inquiry, and has been effectively under investigation and been the target of aggressive smear campaigns from the minute he took office, effectively hampering every step he undertakes as president of the United States.

The Democrats are the ENEMY and not President Trump. The only individuals who should suffer in their approval ratings are Democrats. In a world that should ultimately be rewarded for good and not evil, and in a world that we hope should even out as karma would have it, we should see Democrats losing popularity in their districts and then losing seats in Congress in November 2020. Let’s hope that as Democrats continue their witch hunt and their political coup d’état, President Trump’s approval rating will continue to rise !!

 

The Road to Impeachment: Trump Calls Pelosi’s Bluff

IMPEACHMENT INQUIRY - Trump v. Pelosi (Gage Skidmore, US Coast Guard)

(Photo Courtesy of Gage Skidmore, US Coast Guard)

The Mueller Report concluded that there were no grounds to indict President Trump. There were no grounds related to the so-called Russian Collusion allegation or any other allegation that was included in the Special Counsel’s investigation. So what to do? What to do??

The Democrats needed another avenue to frustrate the President and to find a potential “high crime or misdemeanor” to try to impeach him. And that’s where the phone conversation between Trump and the Ukrainian president came in. Democrats expected this to have great potential to blow out of proportion, as they like to do, but what they didn’t expect was for Trump to release the unredacted transcript of that conversation.

The transcript showed that Trump never engaged in any incriminating conservation and breached no unlawful or inappropriate topic with the new Ukrainian president, Volodymyr Zelensky. [Refer to this interview with Legal Analyst and best-selling author, Gregg Jarrett where he explains the Joe Biden and Hunter Biden situation regarding the Ukraine. https://twitter.com/realDonaldTrump/status/1180521871223246848/video/1 ]

All one needs to know about that conservation is this: President Trump has every right and full authority to ask a foreign government if there has been any corruption or illegality by officials of the United States. In the conversation, that is all Trump refers to. He did not phrase the question in terms of “quid-pro-quo” action, meaning that if the Ukrainians didn’t comply, the United States would retaliate in some way, nor did he promise something in return if the Ukraine provided evidence. That would be government coercion. Quid-pro-quo action is what Vice President Biden engaged in during the Obama years with the Ukraine.

Despite the unredacted transcript, House Democrats have had the audacity to accuse the White House of providing a transcript that doesn’t honestly reflect what the national leaders talked about. As always, they think they know better (yet at every step, they have not).

On Tuesday, September 24, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the House would launch a formal impeachment INQUIRY into President Trump. Adding to our absolute frustration with Congressional Democrats, Pelosi announced last week that the House would yet again be neglecting its actual constitutional obligation to legislate and take care of the country’s problems in order to continue to investigate President Trump. She said a number of committees have been tasked with gathering “facts” and “evidence” in order to build a case. What she didn’t announce was a VOTE on impeachment. In other words…. Democrats intend to engage in yet another fishing expedition. We can interpret this as affirming that there still is no grounds for impeachment, but maybe, if the House investigates enough, if enough people lie and leak privileged information that can be misconstrued, if every aspect of Trump’s life is examined under a microscope, there may ultimately be grounds to move forward on articles of impeachment.

How this will play out is just beginning to unfold. Here were the possibilities:

(i)  The House could find nothing and close the investigation.

(ii)  The House could investigate in perpetuity effectively tying up the legislative calendar for the remainder of the year.

(iii)  The House could move forward and hold a vote to impeach the president.

(iv)  The White House could refuse to comply to the subpoenas and other requests for information UNTIL Nancy Pelosi first holds a vote on impeachment.

Trump decided to go with option #4.

The Trump Administration is not easily tricked, it knows the evil games that Democrats play, and it has no intention of complying with their fishing expedition. The White House is taking the position that it does not have to treat the House subpoenas or other requests for information as having the force or weight of impeachment law. In other words, he cannot be forced to comply. And so, yesterday afternoon, the White House sent a letter to House Speaker Pelosi calling her bluff on impeachment. The letter made it clear that it will refuse to comply with witness or document requests until a full House VOTE is taken and impeachment is officially underway, thwarting their witch hunt – the tactic used by Democrats since Trump announced he was running for the presidency. Pelosi, on the other hand, believes she does not need a vote to begin the process, as she has stated. The reality is that she is using the “inquiry” approach to avoid an actual vote in order to protect approximately a dozen Democratic House members who believe they will lose reelection if they vote to impeach President Trump.

As we are all too well aware, the effort to impeach President Trump began even before he was inaugurated on January 20. 2017. It began, on one front, with Senators Elizabeth Warren, Dick Durbin, and others attempting to tie the president’s business ventures to a violation of existing law and elevating that violation to a “high crime or misdemeanor” under the impeachment clause of the U.S. Constitution, at the same time the FBI’s “insurance policy” was being advanced. In fact, the first articles of impeachment were drafted in 2017, just months after President Trump took office. And Democrats have been beating that tired drum ever since. Their methods are just becoming more desperate and insane.

Impeachment in the United States, as we all know, is the process by which the lower house of a legislature brings charges against a civil officer of government for crimes alleged to have been committed, analogous to the bringing of an indictment by a grand jury. At the federal level, the Constitution gives the powers of impeachment and conviction to Congress: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” Each house of Congress plays a part.

The House of Representatives is the chamber tasked with bringing articles of impeachment against the president (or other official). Article I, Section 2, clause 5 reads: “The House of Representatives shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.” A president is “impeached” by the House by a simple majority vote (51%), but he still remains in office.

The next step is removal, which is at the sole discretion of the Senate. Article I, Section 3, clauses 6 provides: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two-thirds of the Members present.”

In short, impeachment is a political process controlled by Congress, and is a tool to punish wrongdoing as defined by the constitution, not to settle policy disputes. Political hatred is not included in “high crimes and misdemeanors” and if Democrats decide to go that route, God help our country moving forward. Using this standard, political parties would be able to execute an internal government coup whenever their hatred level rises high enough.

Former federal prosecutor Andy McCarthy explains why Pelosi’s current impeachment gamble, which has given the Trump campaign an extra $15 million in just a few days, isn’t impeachment at all:

“The House has not voted as a body to authorize an impeachment inquiry. What we have are partisan theatrics, proceeding under the ipse dixit of Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.). It raises the profile, but not the legitimacy, of the same “impeachment inquiry” House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) previously tried to abracadabra into being without a committee vote.

Moreover, there are no subpoenas. As Secretary Pompeo observed in his fittingly tart response on Tuesday, what committee chairmen Nadler issued was merely a letter. Its huffing and puffing notwithstanding, the letter is nothing more than an informal request for voluntary cooperation. Legally, it has no compulsive power. If anything, it is rife with legal deficiencies.

The Democrats, of course, hope you don’t notice that the House is not conducting a formal impeachment inquiry. They are using the guise of frenetic activity by several standing committees — Intelligence, Judiciary, Foreign Affairs, Oversight and Reform, Financial Services, and Ways and Means — whose normal oversight functions are being gussied up to look like serious impeachment business.”

Taking the position that the White House has taken (calling Pelosi’s bluff on impeachment) will likely have the following effects:

1).  Speaker Pelosi and House Democrats will challenge the Trump Administration in court to compel them to comply with the impeachment inquiry (Good luck Democrats once it gets to the Supreme Court!!), and

2).  The first stage of the impeachment process will drag out over a longer period of time (making it more likely that Trump will be re-elected and Democrats will lose seats in Congress).

Regarding the first, this will cause our government to enter largely untested legal waters. Speaker Pelosi will attempt to use the legal process to threaten Administration officials to comply with her requests or risk their own legal problems, and she will threaten to add “Non-Compliance” or “Obstruction” along with her list of impeachment charges against President Trump. As hinted above, conservatives should be consoled should any constitutional questions need to be addressed by the Supreme Court.

Regarding the second, House Pelosi and Democratic Leadership have desperately tried to avoid entering into an impeachment fight because of Trump’s popularity and the public’s overall approval and support of his policy initiatives. They approve of the direction he is taking our country and they feel the positive effects of his policies. There are several House Democrats know it will be political suicide to try to impeach such a popular president.

At this initial phase of this impeachment battle, the extreme partisanship of House Democrats and their vitriolic rhetoric against the president would suggest that the House will likely proceed with filing articles of impeachment against Trump. They actually may be forced to do so by the position taken by the White House. Without compliance by the White House regarding subpoenas and requests for information, the House will have a hard time making an actual case for impeachment. The Ukrainian phone call is turning out to be another disaster for them. But, if Pelosi decides to call for a vote, if Democrats vote as a block, and if Democrats are not afraid to face their voters to explain their vote, impeachment will be successful. With a full membership of the House and having a majority, 218 Democratic “YES” votes will impeach President Trump.

What can we expect from the Senate after a House Vote?

If the House does happen to vote to impeach President Trump, the Senate would have no choice but to take up the issue of removal. Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell admitted as such. The Senate rule on impeachment requires the Senate to receive the House managers of impeachment, provide the opportunity for the managers to reveal the articles of impeachment on the Senate floor, and begin the trial no later than one o’clock in the afternoon of the following day.

Normally, the Vice President of the United States, as President of the Senate, presides over Senate business, but in order to avoid a conflict of interest, the Constitution directs “When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside.” In the case of President Trump being impeached, Chief Justice of the Supreme Court John Roberts would preside over the trial, maintaining order and ensuring Senate rules are followed.

However, while Leader McConnell is correct that the Senate must consider the articles of impeachment, there are several different possibilities for how the Senate could deal with the impeachment of the president:

(1)  The Senate could begin the trial and in short order move to dismiss the articles of impeachment.

(2)  They could also entertain a motion to send the articles and the trial to a committee of the Senate.

(3)  They can dismiss some articles (if the House makes more than one accusation against the president) and hold a trial on the other articles.

(4)  They could also have a full blown trial on the Senate floor at which President Trump’s defense attorneys would be able to present and examine evidence, to call and cross-examine witnesses, and to deliver opening and final arguments.

Once the trial takes place, the Senate would likely debate in executive (or closed) session followed by a vote in open session as to whether or not to convict Trump. In order for the president to be convicted of the accusations contained in the articles of impeachment, two-thirds of senators present and voting must vote “YES.” A conviction is required to remove the president from office. The Senate may then vote to bar the president from holding federal office again.

Impeachment is perhaps the most serious exercise that our representative government can undertake. The purpose is to remove an unfit president from continuing in office where his seriously flawed judgement and dishonest intuition will have the chance to prejudice the country. It recognizes the fundamental code in our country that no one is above the law, including the President of the United States. The cavalier manner in which Speaker Pelosi is beginning this process exposes the worst kind of partisan politics. She has been mentally, emotionally, and psychologically compromised by her hatred of President Trump. Her hatred and her absolute desire to rally the Democratic Party behind an effort to unseat the man that is doing to most to hurt her party has her hijacking the power of her office and her position for purposes not allowed by the Constitution, nor contemplated by it. Again, political hatred does not come under the purview of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” which is the historic and constitutional threshold for impeachment. Presidents Nixon and Clinton faced an impeachment inquiry only after a vote by the House. Speaker Pelosi is buckling under the pressure of left-wing activists to impeach President Trump while violating the proper process to do so in order to protect Democratic members who may lose re-election if they vote on impeachment.

If you listen to the mainstream news or do a google search (which of course, will take you to a progressive/liberal site rather than any conservative ones), you will hear crazy talk like “Polls show more Americans are in favor of impeachment” and “More compelling evidence against President Trump.” None of these stories is true. The truth is that Democrats are suffering from Trump Derangement Syndrome which is causing them to ignore the Constitution, to ignore the will of the people at the ballot box in 2016, and to ignore proper codes of conduct and to persecute and harass the President every chance they get (or to manufacture a reason to do so).

I wish the Supreme Court would issue a “cease and desist” order to House Democrats, instructing them to stop harassing President Trump and ordering them BACK TO WORK !!

All the facts in this impeachment reveal a purely partisan attempt to overturn the will of the American people and to remove from office a man who won a historic victory at the ballot box. The victory was not simply to put him in office but it was a message rejecting Hillary Clinton and the Democratic pollical machine. The incessant investigations, allegations, and calls for impeachment are merely illegitimate attempts (ie, a coup) to overturn the election of President Trump in 2016.

But the American people are not without a role in the righteousness of the impeachment or the injustice of the impeachment. The American people have the opportunity to weigh in at the ballot box regarding their views of the impeachment. If the impeachment was clearly justified, the party responsible for bringing the articles of impeachment and for removing the dishonorable president will be rewarded with more seats in Congress. On the other hand, if a particular political party misused or abused its impeachment power, that party will suffer at election time. For example, after impeaching President Clinton, congressional Republicans faced backlash and lost seats in the subsequent election. The overwhelming majority of Americans had no idea of the actual legal basis for his impeachment (for he committed an actual crime by knowingly lying under oath as a defendant in a lawsuit) but just knew that he was a popular president who seemed to be impeached for his inability to keep his little willie in his pants.

It will be up to us, and those of us who appreciate Donald Trump and who are sickened by the actions of the Democratic Party, to push back against this evil myoptic political party and to make sure their numbers and their voice in government is minimized. We must make it abundantly clear that it is NOT acceptable to ignore one’s constitutional obligations and oath to office and instead to co-opt the powers of the federal government for the singular purpose of advancing the interests and power of a political party.

 

 

Reference:

“Oppose Impeachment,” Heritage Action. Referenced at: https://heritageaction.com/toolkit/oppose-impeachment?utm_source=heritageaction&utm_medium=email&utm_campaign=newsletter_10-05-2019&mkt_tok=eyJpIjoiWVRneFl6bGtaR1ptTW1ObCIsInQiOiJFYzNUM1wvODhGeHJ2N2NpeGFZaTFmVTRYWFFyUWhBQ0FGVjNkOFFtVDVweTFDa3ZQQm1hK25rS1wvcTZOWnVZU0RsM3o0SFM5K2VIeVI2bXRnYmtBR05yVGVFVktUR2NEQWVSdGx0NStcL3cyQjVrZ1J3cTlJdGZzWnBQTVwvSE1tR2YifQ%3D%3D

The Desperate Acts of a Dying Political Party

DEMOCRATS - Desperate Democrats

(Photo courtesy of BlazeTV)

by Diane Rufino, August 14, 2019

We cannot deny that the Democrats and those on the left are engaging in some terribly troubling and questionable conduct. And we know exactly why they are pursuing the questionable policies and the questionable direction they are pushing.

The explanation is simple: We are witnessing the desperate acts of a dying party. These desperate acts are designed to help them remain a viable party and to hopefully win elections. What are these desperate acts?

(1)  Democrats and rogue leftist elements of the federal government, serving under President Obama in the FBI and DOJ, committed many criminal acts against the United States when they set out to create a dossier implicating then-candidate Donald Trump in acts amounting to collusion with Russian officials to effect the outcome of the 2016 presidential election and then to use that dossier to launch full-scale surveillance on the Trump campaign using the full resources of the federal government. The goal, of course, was to poison the Trump campaign (which didn’t work) and in the alternative, to provide evidence of crimes to impeach him should he surprisingly happen to win the election. Democrats broke further federal laws by misappropriating classified government documents and memos and leaking them to the press and to other individuals. It was this leaking that ultimately led to the appointment of Robert Mueller as Special Counsel and then a 2-year-long investigation into all things Trump. No other president was forced to face what Trump faced when he stepped into the Oval Office to run our country. First, he faced a very hostile mainstream media (so hostile that one commentator postulated what might happen if he were to be assassinated before taking the oath of office), then he faced a very hostile group of disappointed and maladjusted voters when they marched in Washington DC (the “Woman’s March”), then he faced an almost unanimous deranged Hollywood and Entertainment Industry crowd who spoke, posted, tweeted, or otherwise very publicly expressed their absolute hatred of him and his family, then he faced insane Democrats shouting “racist” at him and “Impeach Him” whenever they could grab a microphone, and then finally he faced the intense scrutiny of the Mueller investigation and the chilling of his actions that naturally results from such scrutiny.

For over two years, Democrats never gave up hope and never lost faith that Trump would be found to have committed actionable Obstruction of Justice, and when the Mueller Report was released and showed there was no such grounds for an indictment on obstruction, they absolutely refused to believe that the Report was correct. They were, and still are, manic disbelievers in the truth about Donald Trump, which is that he did not engage in any collusion with Russia to effect the 2016 presidential election, that he did not engage in any conduct that rises to the level of obstruction of justice, that he is not a racist, and that he is wildly popular and much-loved by the majority of the American people. They still hope to find some reason to impeach him. They will continue to probe every inch and every aspect of his life to find anything – anything at all – that they can use to try to impeach him. .

Democrats have been so completely consumed with hatred for Donald Trump that they have chosen to focus on harassing him rather than serve the general interests of our country. In other words, they chose to put hatred of Donald Trump over love of country.

(2)  Democrats are pushing to abolish the Electoral College. They want presidential elections to be tied to the national popular vote, which is controlled by between 10-15 of the nation’s largest cities. These cities, of course, are concentrated areas of liberal identity groups; in other words, the want the nation’s largest (liberal) cities to pick our American president. The hell to all the other areas of the country, which tend to be conservative and rational.

(3)  Liberal Democrats delivered a threatening brief to the Supreme Court of the United States, instructing them to “straighten up” or else Congress will “restructure” the Court. You can’t make this up, folks. Ignoring the age-old “Separation of Powers” doctrine and the “check and balance” that such a separation provides, liberal Senate Democrats Sheldon Whitehouse of Rhode Island, Mazie Hirono of Hawaii, Richard Blumenthal of Connecticut, Richard Durbin of Illinois, and Kirsten Gillibrand of New York sent an “amicus brief” to the Supreme Court, in support of the state of New York in the current case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, accusing the high court of being “sick” and “motivated primarily by politics” and thus being inept at continuing to rule on important cases.

The amicus brief ended with this paragraph, which certainly sums up their position quite well:

“Today, fifty-five percent of Americans believe the Supreme Court is “mainly motivated by politics” (up five percent from last year); fifty-nine percent believe the Court is “too influenced by politics”; and a majority now believes the “Supreme Court should be restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.” The Supreme Court is not well. And the people know it. Perhaps the Court can heal itself before the public demands it be “restructured in order to reduce the influence of politics.” Particularly on the urgent issue of gun control, a nation desperately needs it to heal.”

The Democrats never complained about political motivation on the Court when it was engaging in the most egregious exercise of judicial activism in cases such as Roe v. Wade (abortion case, 1973), Swann v. Charlotte-Mecklenburg Board of Education (the bussing case, 1971), Miranda v. Arizona (Miranda warning needed when a criminally accused is taken into custody and before he/she makes any statements, 1966), National Federation of Independent Business v. Sebelius (the Obamacare case, 2012), Obergefell v. Hodges (gay marriage, 2015), and so many others.

(4)  Democrats are threatening a duly-appointed and duly sworn-in conservative Supreme Court justice with possible impeachment. House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) and Rep. Hank Johnson (D-Ga.), who together chair the Courts, Intellectual Property, and the Internet Subcommittee, wrote a letter last Tuesday (Aug. 6) to the head of the National Archives and Records Administration asking the agency to provide Justice Brett Kavanaugh’s records from when he served in the George W. Bush administration as staff secretary and in the White House Counsel’s Office, spanning the years 2001-2006. In that letter, the representatives wrote: “In the coming year, the Supreme Court will again address important matters regarding civil rights, criminal justice, and immigration. The Court may also review certain high-profile cases related to reproductive rights, the separation of powers, and the limits of executive authority — all topics within the jurisdiction of the House Judiciary Committee,’ and they have concerns that Kavanaugh will be able to rule with equal and impartial justice, based on some “inappropriately partisan statements” he made during his confirmation hearing and his “behaving in a demonstrably hostile manner.” We certainly all remember how forcefully and passionately and honestly he pled his case in trying to clear his good name… in front of his family.

Hmmmmmm….. This letter from Nadler and Johnson, this concern of professionalism on Justice Kavanaugh’s part, comes after Senate Democrats spent months launching false accusations against Judge Kavanaugh in an attempt to smear his reputation and block his confirmation to the US Supreme Court. And it also comes immediately after a judicial panel, the Judicial Conference’s Committee on Judicial Conduct and Disability, ruled to dismiss ethics complaints filed against Kavanaugh, finding that it did not have authority to review the claims against him because confirmation to the high court excludes him from the ethics rules in question.

Apparently, House Democrats refuse to take NO for an answer, just like they refused to give up on the notion that somehow Trump colluded with Russia to steal the election from Hillary Clinton and just like they refused to give up on the notion that Trump somehow committed obstruction of justice in reaction to a fabricated and contrived allegation. Apparently, House Democrats refuse to give up another fishing expedition to tarnish his good name and threaten him with possible impeachment.

They are seeking to harass and then impeach Justice Kavanaugh for no other reason than he is a strong conservative justice, appointed by their sworn enemy, Donald Trump. Such a brazen and dangerous precedent to set. Again, they have chosen to dismiss the notion of Separation of Powers and have chosen to disregard the respect members of Congress are expected to have for justices of the Supreme Court.

(5)  Democrats are opposed to the enforcement of our nation’s immigration laws and refuse to participate in any solution to address the illegal immigration situation. In fact, when President Trump characterized the situation at the southern border as a “national crisis,” they went ballistic. It was clear, and continues to be clear, that they put the interests and issues of illegals over the rightful concerns of American citizens (and taxpayers). Democrats want – and NEED – illegal immigration in order to build a new basis of Democratic voters. Their radical and un-American rhetoric is being lost on their traditional supporters. Long-time Democrats are finally realizing that the party has not delivered on its promises and even more, that it is taking the country in a very dangerous direction. At the end of the day, many long-time Democrats are realizing that they love their country more than they feel loyalty to the Democratic Party.

(6)  Democrats are pushing, in their states, laws to allow illegals to vote. Again, they are pushing these laws because illegals are their new voting base. Illegals want the free services and the representation that the Democratic Party is willing to give them (at the expense of legal citizens and from their purses).

(7)  Democrats fought strenuously to fight President Trump’s initiative to put a Citizenship question on the national Census Bureau Survey. The census is required by Article I, Section 2 of the US Constitution to be taken every 10 years. Article I, Section 2 states: “Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States… according to their respective Numbers… . The actual Enumeration shall be made within three years after the first meeting of the Congress of the United States, and within every subsequent Term of ten Years” Section 2 of the 14th Amendment amended the section to remove the phrase “and excluding Indians not taxed and three-fifths of all other persons” and to substitute that the respective numbers of the respective states will be determined by “counting the whole number of persons in each State… excluding Indians not taxed…” In other words, the purpose of the census is to determine the numbers of persons in each state in order to determine the number of representatives that each state will have in the House of Representatives. It has always, ALWAYS been assumed that “persons” for the purpose of representation refers only to “legal citizens.” Democrats want all people to be counted (that is, they don’t want to the Census Bureau Survey to distinguish between illegal aliens and legal American citizens) for the state’s representation in DC as a way to increase their number of representatives (or at the very least, to keep their high numbers, as in the case of California, the state making the greatest noise over the citizenship question). They want to inflate their numbers using illegal aliens.

(8)  Democrats talk about “transforming the government of the United States and “transforming the Constitution.” Just recently in New Hampshire, Bernie Sanders promised, if elected, to “transform the government so that it works for everyone, and not just the 1%.” Other Democratic presidential hopefuls have delivered similar promises or are putting out similar rhetoric. This theme goes back to a promise that candidate Barack Obama made when he was running to be president in 2008. He promised to “fundamentally change the United States,” when he was in Columbia, Missouri on October 30, 2008, on the cusp of his historic presidential election. Obama pretty much made good on his promise, although he had hoped to go much further. Luckily, President Trump is steadily un-doing and unraveling the damage that Obama had done. Immigration is one big area, the military is another, our relationship with the many nations of the world is yet another, and healthcare will be the next. Fundamentally changing the United States means that those systems and institutions providing the foundations for our country and our society must be changed or substituted or abolished. Religion has already been attacked; national hostility to religion continues to grow in order to replace morality and biology with the LGBT and transgender agenda. The Constitution defines our government system and for years, we watched as a liberal majority Court has “transformed” the meaning of the document through a soft interpretation of a “living, breathing document.” Hard interpretations are those made by an analysis of a constitution that has a clearly defined meaning, unchanging in time, with explanations and instructions provided by those who wrote, ratified, and engaged in the debate that led to its ratification and adoption. Democrats believe in soft interpretations; they believe that Article V (outlining the only legal way to amend the Constitution, which is the amendment process) is essentially useless and that the Constitution can be amended by men in black robes from the Supreme Court bench who view it as a “living, breathing document,” being capable of being transformed by courts to bring it in line with changing social times.

(9)  Despite the obvious crises that plague our country – illegal immigration, drug smuggling and drug trafficking, human trafficking, opioid overdoses, morbid obesity, an intolerant millennial population, Antifa and other violent leftist protest groups, mass shootings, an under-educated general population that lacks requisite speech, reading, writing, and math skills, too many people on government assistance and not contributing to society, and fear and crime, to name a few – Democrats assert that the real crises in the country are racism and white supremacy. Every time a conservative opens his or her mouth, and especially when President Trump opens his mouth, Democrats shout “RACIST!” Every time a conservative speaks out against illegal immigration, including President Trump, Democrats should “WHITE SUPREMACY!” Democrats love to assert that it is Donald Trump’s rhetoric that is causing division, anger, frustration, hatred, and violence in this country, when in fact, it is the rhetoric of the Democrats that is causing all of those things.

Which party and which party’s rhetoric has been responsible for the unprovoked killing and other violent attacks on innocent police officers? It is the Democratic Party. Which party and which party’s rhetoric has been responsible for the attacks, the harassment, and the threats against ICE agents?   It is the Democratic Party. Members of the Democratic Party explicitly and expressly encourage people to harass and otherwise do harm to ICE agents and its facilities. Which party and which party’s rhetoric has been responsible for the savage beating, the bullying, the threats, the assaults, and the destruction of personal property of those who hold different political views? It is the Democratic Party that has not only created Antifa and other such homegrown terrorist groups, but it constantly encourages them to shut down the speech and the venues of conservatives. The members of which party have called on people to “show up wherever we have to show up. And if you see anybody from [Trump’s] Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd. And you push back on them. And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere” ? It is the Democratic Party that has called on its party members to physically harass Republicans and their families. Which party refers to the opposing party using the most disgusting and vile of terms, comparing them to body parts, and telling them they should be doing things with certain body parts or they should be raped ? It is the Democratic Party, and in particular members of the Hollywood and Entertainment industry. They can’t help but act uncivilized.

In short, modern-day Democrats are a group of un-hinged and un-American politicians and voters that despise our American system, despise President Donald Trump and all those who support him, despise the wealthy, despise our Constitution, despise our Founding Fathers, despise our Rule of Law, and despise deeply what our country has historically stood for. They believe that representation in the federal government is not about serving the American people as a whole and to meaningfully (and constitutionally) address our nation’s problems but rather it’s about frustrating President Trump, harassing him and his family every single day and for every single reason, about opposing Republicans, about fomenting hatred and division among identity groups, about ignoring the immigration, drug, and human trafficking crisis stemming from our southern border, about preventing the enforcement of our immigration laws and encouraging and increasing illegal immigration, and about advancing their progressive agenda for political, social, and government change.

Ask yourself this: A party that is so readily willing to ignore our Rule of Law, to ignore and disregard the US Constitution, to transform the Constitution to meet the party’s political needs, to allow for the invasion of our country by aliens for the sole purpose of quickly changing the body politic in order to gain the votes it needs to stay in power, to put the interests of illegal aliens before the rightful concerns and expectations of American citizens is a party that will readily turn its back on the people just as soon as it consolidates its political power.

Desperation is a dangerous thing.

 

Reference:

Amicus Brief submitted to the Supreme Court from US Senate Democrats, in furtherance of the case New York State Rifle & Pistol Association v. City of New York, New York https://www.whitehouse.senate.gov/imo/media/doc/New%20York%20Rifle%20&%20Pistol%20Association%20v.%20New%20Yor

IMPEACH MAD MAX! (Maxine Waters)

MAXINE WATERS - Impeach Mad Max

by Diane Rufino, June 24, 2018

Maxine Waters needs to be impeached and removed from Congress. Her actions are detestable and unconscionable, and her conduct is unethical and un-American and unbecoming a member of the US Congress. She clearly is suffering from mad cow disease and a horrible case of racism. She serves no useful purpose in Congress and is nothing more than a destabilizing and divisive figure in this country. On top of all that, she is dishonest and corrupt as all hell.

And impeachment is the proper form of Congressional discipline for Mad Max. For members of Congress, the grounds for impeachment are not set as high as for president. In the past, members of Congress have been brought up for impeachment on such grounds as corruption, supporting the Confederacy, “disorderly conduct,” bribery, criminality, “ethically repugnant behavior,” and even disloyalty to the US. Clearly, several of those apply to Waters.

The conduct of Maxine Waters, as well as the conduct of other Democrats (including Hollywood and the entertainment industry in general), and including the mainstream media (who they are in bed with), and the Obama administration FBI and DOJ, are telling. These are the desperate acts of a desperate party. We are witnessing the Democratic Party in its death throes.

One final thought:  Maxine Waters and Democrats are encouraging (and have been since the election of Donald Trump) harassment and even violence against Trump supporters, to “convince” them not to support and align themselves with the president. It’s sort of like what the KKK did to African-Americans and to other Republicans.

I see the Democratic Party hasn’t changed a bit.

The Ongoing Effort to Remove Trump: A Coup d’etat is Brewing

Coup d etat

by Diane Rufino, May 21, 20 17

KEEP AN EYE on the POLITICAL COUP that is brewing. It is coordinated at many levels.

A coup d’etat is defined as an overthrow of government, and hence the state, by the illegal and overt seizure of power by the military or other elites within the state apparatus. James Downton explains: “Unlike the coup d’etat that sees a military or popular figure lead a minority resistance or majority force into power over the legitimate government, this coup d’etat is leaderless and exposes some of the deepest fissures in our system of government. This coup d’etat represents not the rule of one man or even many, but by the multitude of our elites.”

Ever since I shockingly watched as a news reporter pondered on air what would happen if both Donald Trump and Mike Pence were assassinated during the inauguration ceremony, and ever since I witnessed the Women’s March on January 21… And as I continue to observe how members of Congress have absolutely lost all semblance of obedience to the Constitution and respect for the Electoral College outcome as they attack Trump for every word and breath he has taken so far in office, as I disappointingly note how the liberal courts are doing their best to re-write the Constitution and federal laws duly enacted by prior administrations, and as I listen disbelievingly each day to the conjured, false narrative that the Russians interfered with the presidential election and that there was collusion between Putin and Trump and his team in order to rob Hillary of her victory, and as I read about the audacious repeated leaks from government in violation of our federal Espionage and other laws in order to frustrate and taint our new president, and I see college students act like uncivilized savages on their campuses when any conservative speaker dares to be invited, and as I listen dumbfounded to members of Congress call for Trump’s impeachment when no action has warranted this action, I know that we are in the midst of a coup d’etat. I’ve made this allegation for months now and I can’t help but notice how many are now saying the very same thing.

I’m still, to some extent, affected deeply by the dark depths to which the Trump-hating media went on that glorious inauguration day. Who can ever forget it?  During the inauguration events, CNN contributor Brian Todd had the audacity to openly brainstorm what would happen if President-elect Donald Trump and Vice-President-elect Mike Pence were assassinated.  (Who would be in charge if an attack hit the incoming president, vice-president, and Congressional leaders just as the transfer of power is underway?”)  Their conclusion? According to their diabolic, yet hypothetical scheme, it would be a member of the Obama cabinet who would be selected to take over as president. As Todd explained: “According to the Constitution, if the president and vice president are killed or incapacitated, next in line is the House Speaker, then the President Pro Tempore of the Senate……  But what if something happened to them at the inauguration, too?”

He continued: “After that, it goes down the list of cabinet secretaries, starting with secretary of state. On the day of the inauguration, as a precaution, a cabinet secretary called the ‘designated presidential successor’ will not attend the inauguration, ready to step in if something happens. But it won’t be a Trump cabinet secretary, since none of them have been confirmed yet. It will be an Obama appointee.”

But Todd wasn’t the only one to mention a hypothetical assassination. Before his report, news anchor Wolf Blitzer led into the story by asking: “What if an incoming president and his immediate successors were wiped out on day one?”  As anyone can recall, tensions had never been higher than they were on election night, when ALL polls were proven wrong and Donald Trump was elected president, and in all the days after, even leading up to Inauguration Day. After all, that was what the Women’s March was all about and thousands upon thousands turned out for that. The remarks by Blitzer and Todd were highly reckless given the tension level and the frazzled, fragile psyche of many progressives who wouldn’t need any more than a suggestion to commit such an unspeakable act. How many “crazed lone gunmen” have assassinated our political figures in the past? How many have done so with less of a provocation? We are told that Jack Ruby silenced Lee Harvey Oswald in order to spare Jackie Kennedy the ordeal of seeing the man who murdered her husband go on trial.

And so, as Downton aptly describes it, this brewing coup d’etat “represents not the rule of one man or even many, but by the multitude of our elites.”  A full-on smear campaign is being coordinated at many levels, including by rogue officials remaining from the previous administration, by a group of exceedingly ignorant and partisan US politicians, by statist Republicans, and most brazenly, by the leftist media (ie, over 90% of the media). There is only one word to describe their conduct – other than “treasonous” and “rebellious” – and that is “deception.”  They are trying to deceive the American people of the worth of the man they elected. It is a smear campaign and nothing more. Downton explains it best: “The attack on Trump from within is coordinated and purposefully geared to make a lack of evidence seem like a mountain of evidence and be as damning as possible, although what it truly amounts to is a paper tiger. With the administrative state leaking and the partisans giving context, the media gins up a plot that declares Trump guilty of crimes of which there is no concrete evidence he committed. This is how you build the consensus behind a coup d’etat.”

We the People need to figure out a way to help conservatives ORGANIZE across the country so that if the government devolves according to the leftist plan and all hell breaks loose, we can put a plan in place to defend our rights under the Declaration (with respect to government) and to prevent the evil from taking hold. If government cannot function for the people who elected this president, then we don’t need government at all. It will have ceased to be a constitutional republic and will have officially become a political oligarchy, where a select group of political heavyweights run the country.

We have a dark group that is using the Democratic Party for their own purposes and a dark group within our government that continues to ignore us and work against us, that continues to subvert the useful ends of government, and that continues to want to un-do the legitimate and constitutional election of Donald Trump – a man who won the presidency against all odds and against a powerful machinery that did everything it could to prevent it from happening.  These dark forces have, as their ultimate goal, the undoing of the values and principles in our Declaration of Independence and rendering of our precious Constitution as nothing more than a piece of useless parchment paper, all in order to control absolutely “We the People.”

The Democratic Party, the progressive movement, the likes of George Soros, entrenched government elites, members of the Shadow Government saw the election of Hillary Clinton as the cement to consolidate power of the administrative state – the government that progressives have long hoped for. These groups of political elites and these multi-millionaires and billionaires, all believing that their kind have the right to power and the right to determine the future of this country view the rest of us as pawns, as mere putty in their hands who, with the right “incentives” will vote for their agenda and surrender in the process our precious liberties and our virtues. Virtues and principles and individual liberties, after all, must be surrendered for unelected individuals to assume total power.

For those of us who can recognize the precarious situation facing our country right now, we also have noticed the trend that has gotten us to this point… the massive growth of a “dependency” culture, the massive expansion of an “entitlement” mentality, the persistent division of individuals along race, culture, gender, and sexuality lines, the increasing attacks on morality and the laws of nature, and the increasing immigration of those who don’t have traditional “American values” as their primary reason for coming here. For decades, we have predicted these growing trends as an intentional design to erode our nation’s foundations.  “If conservatives are right about the importance of virtue, morality, religious faith, stability, character and so on in the individual; if they are right about sexual morality or what came to be termed “family values”; if they are right about the importance of education to inculcate good character and to teach the fundamentals that have defined knowledge in the West for millennia; if they are right about societal norms and public order; if they are right about the centrality of initiative, enterprise, industry, and thrift to a sound economy and a healthy society; if they are right about the soul-sapping effects of paternalistic Big Government and its cannibalization of civil society and religious institutions; if they are right about the necessity of a strong defense and prudent statesmanship in the international sphere—if they are right about the importance of all this to national health and even survival, then they must believe—mustn’t they?—that we are headed off a cliff.”  [See James Downton’s article in The Federalist at http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/19/watching-slow-motion-coup-detat/ ]

If it looks like it, feels like it, smells like it, acts like it…   we call it what it is…… TYRANNY.

I can’t help but sense a similarity to the John F. Kennedy administration.  Kennedy vowed to “splinter the CIA into a thousand pieces.” The CIA could not allow this to happen and the next thing you know, Kennedy was removed. The assassination of JFK let to a complete reversal of policy, particularly in foreign policy and with the Vietnam War.  Many have termed the assassination (and a government conspiracy, as concluded by the Senate Select Committee on Assassination in 1979) “a coup d’etat with Lyndon Johnson waiting in the wings.” (partial quote taken from the movie JFK).  Trump has made it a point (indeed, a campaign pledge) to seek the dismantling of the administrative state.  While the CIA during Kennedy’s administration did not fight back publicly, the administrative state (the secret government) is clearly more than capable of fighting back and seizing additional power through leaks, fabrication, partisan loyalty, and incest with the media. The removal of Trump, according to their plans, can be accomplished by non-violent means. The American people, after all, are a one-issue people (abortion, gay rights, transgender rights, women’s rights, illegal rights, entitlement rights) and are therefore without principle or sense of civic duty. They are meek.  Conservatives may get angered, Democrats believe, but they quickly go back to their routines –  living their lives and working; they don’t have the time or the stomach for prolonged protest or resistance.

In short, the powers that be are determined – and capable – of ensuring their survival.  Since they couldn’t achieve that end through the election of Hillary Clinton, they are prepared to go the more insidious route – the coup d’etat.

If you are as concerned as I am and believe there is a sense of urgency to our current situation, I ask that you consider what we can do and what we MUST do. The witch-hunt against Trump is historic and the liberals will not rest until they over-throw the will of the people, effect a coup in this country and erect a government not of the people’s choosing and not concerned with their legitimate issues. Real patriots would not allow this to happen. We have to assess all that is happening, what the counter-efforts are, what the likelihood is that their evil measures will be effective, and again, what we can or SHOULD do.  “A good patriot must always be willing to defend his country, even against his government.”

“Is a government worth preserving when it lies to the people?  It’s become a dangerous country when you cannot trust anyone…. when you cannot tell the truth.  I say ‘Let justice be done, though the heavens fall’!”  [Jim Garrison in Oliver Stone’s movie JFK]

References:

James Downton, “We Are Witnessing a Slow-Motion Coup d’Etat,” The Federalist, May 19, 2017.  Referenced at:  http://thefederalist.com/2017/05/19/watching-slow-motion-coup-detat/

“CNN Prophesizes Trump, Pence Getting Assassinated During Inauguration,” Sputnik News, January 19, 2017.   Referenced at:  https://sputniknews.com/us/201701191049784915-shoddy-cnn-reporting-trump-inauguration/