https://i1.wp.com/buchanan.org/blog/wp-content/uploads/001-trump-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!

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 Trump 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 Trump 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 Trump 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, Trump’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 Trump for conspiring with Russia to steal the 2016 election? Answer: The House could no more prove this charge than could Robert Mueller after two years.
Other events are breaking Trump’s way.

The James Comey-FBI investigation Mueller inherited has begun to take on the aspect of a “deep state” conspiracy.
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 Trump. 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 Trump.
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 Trump 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” Trump 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 Trump.
With the Horowitz report confirming what the Trumpers 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 conspiracy theories” seems to have been toned down.
Carter Page, once considered a dupe of the Russians, is now seen as a patriot 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 Trump’s way.

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

"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 legitimatelyl say he wasn't impeached
at all."

Noah Feldman
Harvard Law Professor
and Democratic witness at the impeachment inquiry

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 Trump.

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.

---

###

Peℓσѕι is stalling the impeachment being sent to the Senate because she's waiting for the 2020 election to give the CommieCrats control of the Senate, thereby, giving them enough votes to oust Trump.

But it's all a WWF entertainment wresting show. In reality, Trump 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 Trump saying on live TV (debates) he'd appoint a special prosectutor to go after her.

The American people are easily deceived and manipulated.