Author Topic: Is Impeachment Backfiring on Democrats?  (Read 284 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online RomanCatholic1953

  • Hero Member
  • *****
  • Posts: 10245
  • Reputation: +3201/-195
  • Gender: Male
  • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
Is Impeachment Backfiring on Democrats?
« on: December 20, 2019, 09:19:30 AM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • https://i1.wp.com/buchanan.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/001-Tɾυmρ-impeachment-bengarrison-234-e1576812993284.jpg?w=1200&ssl=1




    Is Impeachment Backfiring on Democrats?
    December 19, 2019 by Patrick J. Buchanan
    Votes: 4.90 Stars!
    This post was viewed 519 times.
    Help Wake Up America - Share Pat's Columns!

    Quote
    The message sent by Peℓσѕι’s call for more time before the trial, and Schumer’s call for more witnesses, is one of fear that not only could the House’s case for impeachment fail, it could be laughed out of the Senate. And the American people might be fine with that.
    “We’re gonna impeach the (expletive deleted).”
    Thus did the member from Michigan, Rashida Tlaib, declare last January to be the goal of the 2019 House Democratic Caucus.
    Wednesday night, Speaker Nancy Peℓσѕι delivered the goods.
    The House impeached President Donald Tɾυmρ on a straight party-line vote. Not one Republican signed on to the most partisan impeachment in U.S. history.
    Yet, as we head for trial in the Senate, Democrats seem to be having nervous second thoughts over what they have done.
    Minority Leader Chuck Schumer called for the Senate to subpoena four new witnesses the House never heard. Nancy Peℓσѕι signaled Wednesday night that she might not send over to the Senate the articles of impeachment the House had just approved.
    Majority Leader Mitch McConnell took to the floor both Wednesday night and Thursday morning. To have the Senate, which is judge and jury of the impeachment charges, to start calling witnesses whom House prosecutors failed to pursue “could set a nightmarish precedent.”
    Said McConnell, Schumer “would apparently like our chamber to do House Democrats’ homework for them.”
    Schumer’s plea for new witnesses is an admission that the House’s case for impeaching Tɾυmρ is inadequate and deficient and could prove wholly noncredible to the American people. After all, if you need more witnesses, you probably do not have the smoking gun.
    The message sent by Peℓσѕι’s call for more time before the trial, and Schumer’s call for more witnesses, is one of fear that not only could the House’s case for impeachment fail, it could be laughed out of the Senate. And the American people might be fine with that.
    The Democratic Party has bet the ranch on the impeachment and removal of Tɾυmρ for imperiling our “national security.” But are Schumer and Peℓσѕι behaving as though the republic is in mortal peril?
    Schumer’s call for new witnesses also underscores the thinness of Article I of the impeachment, Tɾυmρ’s alleged “Abuse of Power.”
    Beneath Article I, there is not a single crime listed — no treason, no bribery, no extortion, no high crimes.
    What kind of impeachment is this, with not one crime from the list the Founding Fathers designated as impeachable acts?
    Why did the Democratic House not impeach Tɾυmρ for conspiring with Russia to steal the 2016 ɛƖɛctıon? Answer: The House could no more prove this charge than could Robert Mueller after two years.
    Other events are breaking Tɾυmρ’s way.

    The James Comey-FBI investigation Mueller inherited has begun to take on the aspect of a “deep state” cօռspιʀαcʏ.
    According to the Justice Department’s IG Michael Horowitz, the FISA court warrants used to justify FBI spying were the products not only of incompetence but also of mendacity and possible criminality.
    The “essential” evidence use by the FBI to get the FISA judge to approve warrants for surveillance was the Steele dossier.
    An ex-British spy, Christopher Steele was working in mid-2016 for a dirt-diving operation hired by the DNC and Clinton campaign to go after Tɾυmρ. His altarpiece, the dossier, we learn from Horowitz, was a farrago of fabrications, rumors and lies fed to Steele by a Russian “sub-source.”
    In the four FBI submissions to the FISA courts for warrants to spy on Carter Page, there were “at least 17 significant errors or omissions.”
    And all 17 went against Team Tɾυmρ.
    Moreover, the discrediting of the Comey investigation has just begun. U.S. Attorney John Durham will report this spring or summer on his deeper and wider investigation into its roots.
    As IG of Justice, Horowitz’s investigation was confined to his department and the FBI. But Durham is looking into the involvement of U.S. and foreign intelligence in the first days of the FBI investigation.
    Attorney General Bill Barr and Durham have both said that they do not share Horowitz’s view that there was no political bias at the beginning of the investigation of the Tɾυmρ campaign. Durham’s writ is far wider than Horowitz’s and he has the power to impanel grand juries and bring criminal indictments.
    Among the fields Durham is plowing are reports that agents and assets of the FBI and CIA may have “set up” Tɾυmρ foreign policy aide George Papadopoulos. Possible purpose: to feed him intel about Russia having dirt on Hillary Clinton, and then entrap him, put him in legal jeopardy, and turn him into an investigative instrument to be used against Tɾυmρ.
    With the Horowitz report confirming what the Tɾυmρers have been reporting and saying about Comey’s investigation for years, and the newly proven manipulation of the FISA courts, the media hooting about “right-wing cօռspιʀαcʏ theories” seems to have been toned down.
    Carter Page, once considered a dupe of the Russians, is now seen as a ραƚɾισt who assisted his country’s intelligence services only to be made a victim of injustice who saw his civil rights be trampled upon by his own government.
    The cards appear to be falling Tɾυmρ’s way.

    https://buchanan.org/blog/is-impeachment-backfiring-on-democrats-137906

    Offline Maria Regina

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3759
    • Reputation: +996/-551
    • Gender: Female
    Why the Impeachment stall?
    « Reply #1 on: December 20, 2019, 08:21:44 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1


  • Four important reasons why Peℓσѕι is stalling to deliver the two articles of impeachment to the Senate:

    1. The impeachment articles are too weak and cannot condemn President Tɾυmρ of any serious crime.

    2. Peℓσѕι fears that if she does not get any concessions from Senator McConnell and Senator Graham, then the Republicans will acquit President Tɾυmρ.

    3. Peℓσѕι and the Deep State need time to find dirt on any and all Republican Senators and/or their family members so that these Republican Senators can be blackmailed. If only ten Republican Senators can be flipped to the Democratic side through death threats and blackmail, then the Senate might be able to condemn and impeach President Tɾυmρ. Peℓσѕι and her kind are wicked and dєαdlу. Lord have mercy.

    4. The major reason for the stall: Supreme Court Justice Ruth Ginsberg could be dying or already dead. Peℓσѕι and the Deep State Swamp Creatures need more time to find more convincing articles of impeachment on President Tɾυmρ and V.P. Pence.
    Thus Adam Schiff and his Demonrats continue their secret inquiries. If Justice Ginsberg is declared dead or incapacitated, then Peℓσѕι could raise the claim that a President who is about to be impeached cannot nominate another justice. This entire impeachment scam could then be another insurance policy to guarantee that another conservative pro-lifer is not placed on the U.S. Supreme Court.

    However, something huge is about to take place, which could interfere with Peℓσѕι's and Schiff's flimsy plans. Apparently, Admiral Rodgers is cooperating with John Durham with evidence that can take down the Democratic House.



    Most Holy Theotokos, save us.
    Lord have mercy.


    Offline Maria Regina

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3759
    • Reputation: +996/-551
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Impeachment Backfiring on Democrats?
    « Reply #2 on: December 20, 2019, 08:48:33 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1


  • "If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate,
    it hasn't actually impeached the President. If the articles are not
    transmitted, Tɾυmρ could legitimatelyl say he wasn't impeached
    at all."

    Noah Feldman
    Harvard Law Professor
    and Democratic witness at the impeachment inquiry
    Lord have mercy.

    Online RomanCatholic1953

    • Hero Member
    • *****
    • Posts: 10245
    • Reputation: +3201/-195
    • Gender: Male
    • I will not respond to any posts from Poche.
    Re: Is Impeachment Backfiring on Democrats?
    « Reply #3 on: December 20, 2019, 09:04:31 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!0
  • It is just one big show, enjoy the show.

    It is just being used by the deep state because they are planning a series of fαℓѕє fℓαgs so they can capture
    the narrative.

    Such as mobilizing the national guards in Virginia to grab the guns and will not hesitate to kill people defying the
    orders to surrender their guns.

    Another mass shooting and blame it on those defending the 2nd Amendment.

    We are assured by Q anon that all their efforts will fail.  They will expose their dark side for everyone to see.


    Offline Maria Regina

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3759
    • Reputation: +996/-551
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Impeachment Backfiring on Democrats?
    « Reply #4 on: December 20, 2019, 10:57:59 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • From Infowars: Normally, I do not post from Infowars, but this is a great article written by Kit Daniels.
    https://www.infowars.com/supreme-court-ruling-knocks-down-Peℓσѕιs-impeachment-demands/

    Supreme Court Ruling Knocks Down Peℓσѕι’s Impeachment Demands

    “…The Framers did not intend to impose additional limitations on the form of the Senate proceedings,” the Supreme Court stated in Nixon v. United States

    Kit Daniels | Infowars.com - December 20, 2019

    The Supreme Court has already pointed out that the Constitution doesn’t require the “additional procedural requirements” that House Speaker Nancy Peℓσѕι is apparently demanding from the Senate before it tries the impeachment of President Tɾυmρ.

    Peℓσѕι (D-Calif.) has stated that she intends to withhold the articles of impeachment from the Senate until the upper chamber agrees to terms she has set forth.

    But in the 1993 ruling Nixon v. United States, the Court ruled that “additional procedural requirements” on the Senate are “inconsistent with the three express limitations” that the Constitution has set on the Senate for trying impeachments in its associated Clause.


    In other words, they aren’t required by the Constitution.

    Despite the case’s name, the 1993 ruling doesn’t have anything to do with the impeachment of Richard Nixon but revolved around the impeachment of US District Court Chief Judge Walter Nixon, who refused to resign after being convicted of perjury charges.

    Nixon had suggested that because a Senate committee – and not the full Senate – had received the evidence, which was then reported to the full Senate, the impeachment was unconstitutional.

    In response, the Supreme Court said the Constitution gave broad discretion to the Senate in how it handled impeachments, pointing out that the Constitution imposed no such requirements on the Senate
    .
    The court even refrained from reviewing Nixon’s impeachment due to this discretion afforded to the Senate, another branch of government, as part of the separation of powers.

    …The existence of the three very specific requirements that the Clause’s second and third sentences do impose – that the Senate’s Members must be under oath or affirmation, that a two-thirds vote is required to convict, and that the Chief Justice presides when the President is tried – the precise nature of which suggests that the Framers did not intend to impose additional limitations on the form of the Senate proceedings.

    The Clause’s first sentence must instead be read as a grant of authority to the Senate to determine whether an individual should be acquitted or convicted, and the commonsense and dictionary meanings of the word “sole” indicate that this authority is reposed in the Senate alone.

    …Requiring impeachment only by the full Senate is unnatural, and would impose on the Senate additional procedural requirements that would be inconsistent with the three express limitations that the Clause sets out.

    Thus it can also be argued that Peℓσѕι is in no position to dictate terms with the Senate before sending over articles of impeachment because the Constitution imposes no such requirement outside of the three limitations the Constitution does enforce on the Senate.

    And it can be argued that the Senate is free to take up the case once the House vote is officially recorded.

    This argument is also bolstered by the Constitution stating that the “Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments,” suggesting that Peℓσѕι has no say in the matter as House Speaker because the Senate has broad discretion:

    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.

    ###
    Lord have mercy.


    Offline Maria Regina

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 3759
    • Reputation: +996/-551
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Impeachment Backfiring on Democrats?
    « Reply #5 on: December 20, 2019, 11:17:47 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • House Democratic Whip Willing To Never Send Articles Of Impeachment To Senate

    David Krayden Ottawa Bureau Chief  December 20, 2019


    Democratic South Carolina Rep. Clyburn told CNN Thursday that the Democrats are prepared to bide their time for “as long as it takes. Even if [Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell] doesn’t come around to committing to a fair trial, keep those articles here. So keep it as long as it takes. If you know and he’s told you what he’s going to do, let’s give him a fair trial and hang him. It’s the reverse of that.”

    House Speaker Nancy Peℓσѕι began talking about withholding the articles almost as soon as the House had voted along party lines to impeach the president.

    When asked if that literally meant “it’s possible you will never transmit the articles of impeachment,” Clyburn responded,  “If it were me, yes, that’s what I’m saying. I have no idea what the speaker will do. But if you have a preordained outcome that’s negative to your actions, why walk into it? I’d much rather not take that chance.”

    Clyburn was shown a clip of Pelsoi backing away from the impeachment process, stating: “We cannot name managers until we see what the process is on the Senate side, and I would hope that that will be soon as we did with our legislation, our resolution 660, to describe what the process would be. So far we haven’t seen anything that looks fair to us. Hopefully it will be fair.”

    Clyburn explained that the delay ”is made necessary” because Republicans in the Senate have indicated that they have already made up their minds about the impeachment question.

    Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham has indicted that he wants impeachment to “die quickly” in the Senate in order for the federal government and the country to move on to other issues.

    But Clyburn even referred to collusion to describe McConnell’s expressed intent “that he’s not going to be impartial. He’s not going to be fair. He will collude, if you please, with the Whιte House.”

    Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) speaks to the media after attending the Senate Republican policy luncheon on Capitol Hill, on Dec. 17, 2019 in Washington, DC. (Photo by Mark Wilson/Getty Images)

    Despite impeachment being described by many Democrats as an urgent need, the congressman is in complete agreement with Peℓσѕι’ strategy. “I applaud her for this. In fact, I was one of the ones arguing that this ought to be the case,” he told CNN.

    At a Thursday news conference, Peℓσѕι suggested impeachment had brought a new day of hope for Americans and a “spring” in their step — though she quickly told reporters that she didn’t want to talk about the issue anymore.


    https://dailycaller.com/2019/12/20/house-democratic-whip-james-clyburn-never-impeachment-senate/



    My thoughts:

    How much longer must we wait until we learn of the death of a Supreme Court Justice?

    Is this the reason for the delay, so that Democrats can state that an impeached President cannot nominate a new Supreme Court Justice to take her place.









    Lord have mercy.

    Offline josefamenendez

    • Full Member
    • ***
    • Posts: 1926
    • Reputation: +1251/-79
    • Gender: Female
    Re: Is Impeachment Backfiring on Democrats?
    « Reply #6 on: December 20, 2019, 11:44:05 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • My thoughts:

    How much longer must we wait until we learn of the death of a Supreme Court Justice?

    Is this the reason for the delay, so that Democrats can state that an impeached President cannot nominate a new Supreme Court Justice to take her place.



    Excellent point MR. They will do whatever they can to keep killing the unborn. It's their satanic energy tonic.
    Someone needs to throw water on old witch Peℓσѕι and see if she melts. RBG has already melted.





    Offline JezusDeKoning

    • Sr. Member
    • ****
    • Posts: 2940
    • Reputation: +1086/-2220
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Impeachment Backfiring on Democrats?
    « Reply #7 on: December 21, 2019, 01:20:15 PM »
  • Thanks!0
  • No Thanks!1
  • Yes, because it's dead in the Senate. Absolutely no way that any Senate Republicans are voting against Tɾυmρ. 
    Remember O most gracious Virgin Mary...


    Offline 30 06

    • Newbie
    • *
    • Posts: 23
    • Reputation: +17/-10
    • Gender: Male
    Re: Is Impeachment Backfiring on Democrats?
    « Reply #8 on: December 21, 2019, 03:11:13 PM »
  • Thanks!1
  • No Thanks!0
  • Peℓσѕι is stalling the impeachment being sent to the Senate because she's waiting for the 2020 ɛƖɛctıon to give the CommieCrats control of the Senate, thereby, giving them enough votes to oust Tɾυmρ.

    But it's all a WWF entertainment wresting show. In reality, Tɾυmρ and Peℓσѕι work for the same team, and the rule of law doesn't apply to same team. That's why Hillary, et al, are still free as birds despite Tɾυmρ saying on live TV (debates) he'd appoint a special prosectutor to go after her.

    The American people are easily deceived and manipulated.


     

    Sitemap 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16