December 16, 2019 (original report date).
UPDATE: Dec. 17, 2019 (typographical edits).
UPDATE: Jan. 10, 2020 (update, content edit).
UPDATE: Feb. 5, 2020 (Senate Acquits Trump on Impeachment Charges).
FINAL UPDATE: Feb. 7, 2020 (Additional Trial & other Findings).
EXCERPT: There have been some three years of debate, albeit one-sided, whether to impeach President Trump and for what exactly? Despite lowering taxes, cutting regulations, aggressively fighting for U.S. jobs, re-building the U.S. military, creating better trade deals, creating higher domestic wages, creating higher middle-class income, and building the strongest U.S. economy since 1969, Democrats had enough of America First.
We previously talked about the Impeachment Fantasy. In order to impeach Trump, Dems had to bypass the U.S. Constitution, and make up their own rules as they saw fit.
Here, we reviewed the Democrats’ claims; what Democrats actually did, and noted related legal statutes. We also examined Democrat claims of what President Trump did; are such action(s) unlawful, and or impeachable? We further reviewed the House Dems articles of impeachment and provide analysis hereto.
Finally, we also touched on the three-year old topic of “interference” in the 2016 and now the 2020 U.S. elections, all here in this report.
written by Net Advisor™
WASHINGTON, D.C. Democrat efforts to impeach Trump began after his 2016 election win, and before Trump was even sworn into office. Democrats have accused Trump of just about everything, including chastising Trump for having two scoops of ice cream.
[1] House Falls to Democrat Control in 2018.
Democrats managed to take back the House of Representatives in 2018 with the help of 39 Republicans not seeking re-election in 2018 – the most since 1930. Dems took power and decided to run Congress however they wanted, regardless of law. Congressional Democrats and Anti-Trump sympathizers launched some thirty investigations into Trump hoping to find something to get rid of Trump.
Normally, what happens in law; a crime is committed first; there is evidence to such crime, then an investigation begins.
Here, Democrats started all kinds of investigations using tax-payer dollars hoping they could find a crime.
[2] Muller: In Search of a Crime.
Democrats and Anti-Trump Republicans held over from the Obama Administration managed to deceive a FISA Court with false evidence in order to spy on the Trump Campaign which became the basis for a Special Counsel to investigate Trump and associates.
After two years, 2,800 subpoenas, about 500 witnesses interviewed, review of 1.4 Million documents and $30-40 Million taxpayer dollars, nothing was found that shows Trump violated any law; no obstruction, no collusion (AG Letter).
Despite the anticlimactic end to the Mueller investigation, Democrats vowed to continue new investigations to try and get rid of Trump.
[3] Impeachment 4.0
This current impeachment drive is the fourth effort in three years by Democrats. The current impeachment rant is over a phone call and that Trump did not do what Democrats demanded.
Impeachment 4.0 process began with this 9-page “whistle-blower” complaint.
- The “whistle-blower” was a CIA analyst, reportedly worked for then Vice President Joe Biden in the Executive Branch, and still has ties to Biden’s 2020 Presidential Campaign.
- The “whistle-blower” has a political bias against President Trump.
- The “whistle-blower” reportedly, or secretly conspired with Adam Schiff (D-CA), his staff, and or the intelligence committee while Schiff was acting as the committee chairman, investigating President Trump.
- The “whistle-blower” admitted in his own complaint, that he was “not a direct witness to most of the events described,” (hearsay).
- Schiff or other Dems, never called or would permit the “whistle-blower” to testify under oath regarding his allegations about President Trump.
The subject is not a “whistle-blower” because he admitted having no first hand facts, and instead he leaked classified information – a crime under 18 USC § 798.
Although not required by any law, President Trump declassified the 5-page Ukrainian phone transcript in question.
There was nothing in this transcript we could identify that could be associated under U.S. Criminal Code, let alone an impeachable offense.
Still unable to come up with something to get rid of President Trump, Democrats grants themselves unheard of powers.
[4] Dems Grant Themselves Totalitarian Authority Over Impeachment.
House Majority Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) appointed Intel Committee Chairman, Adam Schiff (D-CA), for an impeachment inquiry over President Trump. Democrats made up impeachment rules with virtual totalitarian authority (H. Res 660). This authority granted Schiff – one person – to decide who can be heard and who can’t be heard during the impeachment hearings.
“House Minority Whip Steve Scalise of Louisiana ripped into the resolution. “It gives veto authority by the chair to literally reject any witness that is brought forward by the minority…”
If one was interested in getting to the truth, why would you need to grant someone the power to hand-pick and or block witnesses? Isn’t that like, obstruction?
Schiff also blocked Trump’s lawyer(s) from being present at the Intel Committee’s impeachment hearings.
Schiff was also empowered to BLOCK Republicans from submitting evidence or other documents before any impeachment hearing. The committee could vote to override Schiff, and did so by the Minority party, on many occasions. However the Committee is controlled by Anti-Trump Democrats who had no interest in permitting Republicans to submit any affirmative evidence or counter evidence before the Committee.
Schiff didn’t like how things were going, so he alone changed the rules again in the middle of an impeachment hearing.
Even as the hearings moved to the Judiciary Committee which is also Controlled by Democrats, rules set up by Democrats gave Chairman Nadler (D-NY) totalitarian authority to BLOCK the President, and his legal counsel to call any (defense) or other witnesses unless President Trump does whatever the Committee demands – even if it is unlawful/ unconstitutional.
Basically Trump and his lawyers had to give up all their legal and Constitutional rights to Due Process; including waving Executive Privilege (further reading); provide any record Democrats demanded, and do whatever else Dems demanded (even if they had no legal right to such); or Trump and his lawyers could not be heard.
Can you imagine being accused of something and unless you waved all your legal rights, you could not provide any evidence in defense, or be allowed to speak? This is exactly what kind of abusive powers Democrats set up for themselves.
Speaker Pelosi called this, “patriotism.”
[5] “Witnesses?”
When questioned under oath, all of the impeachment “witnesses” acknowledged they had NO legal evidence, or no other evidence to support action that is criminal or unethical of President Donald J. Trump. In short, ALL but one of the “witnesses” purported their personal opinion and personal feelings about what they “heard” (law: hearsay) or thought.
There is no court in the United States that would ever convict someone based on, ‘we’ll, I heard he did it’ or ‘I think he did it;’ or, ‘Although, he has not committed a crime in the past, I think he could, therefore he’s guilty? Can you prove he’s guilty? No, I can’t prove that, but I think that he is, so he’s guilty.’
The majority of “witnesses” are or were employees of the U.S. government whose job is to implement the policy of a sitting president. These witnesses had strong disagreement of public policy, and felt that they were the experts, and their views on policy should be followed, not the President’s view on policy.
That’s not how government employment works. Their job is to implement the policy of a sitting president. If they disagree, or choose not to follow, they can quit. If the policy is unlawful they can go to the Attorney General and file a written complaint for investigation.
The one and only witness who did not purport his personal vendetta against Trump said he did not vote for Trump. Providing impartial Constitutional analysis before the House Committee resulted this witness subject to being repeatedly threatened and asked to resign from his jobs by radical (Democrats).
In other words, if anyone disagrees with the Democrats, then one should be fired from their job, be abused and be subject to death threats? If one has been following along with our years of reporting, this is a party of radicals pushing Group Think, and hatred.
- Understanding the TRUE Nature of the New Democratic Party (2016)
- Understanding the Differences Between a Democracy and a Republic (2016)
- The Tea Party – Threat to the Progressive Agenda (2013)
- ObamaCare is an Example of Groupthink Gone Wrong (2013)
- Democrats Planning to Disarm Americans for Over 50 Years (2012)
[6] Generally What Can a President Do?
A president can do many things. For purposes here:
A president sets the administrative political policies for the country, this of course includes, foreign policy.
A president is not required to follow political policies of a prior president.
A president is not required to provide any aid to any country; especially when a country is known for corruption at the top of the political spectrum. Even if the Congress passes legislation providing the aid, a president can veto legislation.
A president can and should call for investigation when there is compelling evidence that a crime occurred.
“…he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed, and shall commission all the officers of the United States.”
— Article II, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution.
This means, as the Executor, a president is in charge to insure laws are being enforced, and a president can commission officers to enforce such laws.
Next, government employees are not elected; not above Congress, not above a president; do not make policy, but again, their job is to follow policy set-forth by a president. Their job is not to “resist,” obstruct, or sabotage, etc., U.S. policy. All such contrary acts would be a violation of their duty, and in some cases may be criminal under 5 USC § 3331.
Despite the lack of evidence, Democrats charged President Trump with two articles of impeachment.
[7] Article I Charge: “Abuse of Power.”
Democrats claim that the President “solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election” (P2). President Obama appointed then Vice President Biden to oversee Ukrainian corruption and U.S. policy. Dems claim that Trump called for an investigation into former Vice President Joe Biden’s Ukrainian actions.
Despite what Dems falsely claimed, the new Ukrainian president repeatedly stated there was no quid-pro-quo. There is not a single witness that has come forth, nor any record to show that Trump used his office to withhold aid to Ukraine unless Ukraine investigates Biden.
How Vice President Biden Abused His Oath of Office.
The only quid-pro-quo that is obvious and well publicized is when then Vice President Biden threatened the government of Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who was investigating a Ukrainian company and potentially Biden’s son, Hunter.
Biden’s son, Hunter, 45 years old in 2015, a lawyer, and ‘former’ Washington, DC., lobbyist. In 2014, Hunter Biden was discharged from the Navy Reserve. Hunter tested positive for use of cocaine.
Hunter Biden’s father was the sitting U.S. Vice President at the time and in charge of Ukraine relations supposedly fighting corruption in Ukraine. With no experience or training, Hunter Biden was reportedly paid $83,333 per month (second UK source) to sit on a Ukraine natural gas company’s board of directors.
Biden knew about this criminal investigation as he publicly admitted such Jan. 18, 2018. Biden boasted that he (with then President Obama’s support), told the previous Ukrainian president that Biden would, “withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees unless they fired Prosecutor General Shokin,” investigating the same natural gas Ukrainian company where Hunter Biden was an unusually well-paid board member.
Joe Biden: “I looked at them and said: I’m leaving in six hours. If the prosecutor is not fired, you’re not getting the money. Well, son of a bitch. (Laughter.) He got fired…”
— Former Vice President Biden said Jan. 18, 2018 at a CFR interview, recalling his government power (Sources: JustSecurity.org PDF and RCP, PDF)
Then VP Biden did interfere in a foreign criminal investigation in order to protect his son who sat on the board of a company being investigated for alleged crimes.
Sure, a parent would want to protect their offspring from potential or current problems. VP Biden could have got his son an army of lawyers. But instead, VP Biden abused his power to shut down a criminal investigation in a foreign country, and threatened the government that U.S. government aid would be withheld unless Ukraine followed Biden’s personal demands.
Under Code of Federal Regulation addresses “Use of public office for private gain.”
(d) Performance of official duties affecting a private interest. To ensure that the performance of his official duties does not give rise to an appearance of use of public office for private gain or of giving preferential treatment, an employee whose duties would affect the financial interests of a friend, relative or person with whom he is affiliated in a nongovernmental capacity shall comply with any applicable requirements of § 2635.502.
By this account, it appears VP Biden used his office to personally gain protection for Hunter Biden.
The Ukrainian company is under investigation again for tax violations and money laundering including ‘theft of government funds on a large scale.’ Hunter Biden is not accused of any crime, but has since left the Ukrainian board.
Hunter Biden conceded on ABC’s ‘Good Morning America‘ show that he probably got this Ukrainian job because his dad was (then) Vice President.
Russian Aggression.
- Democrats claim that President Trump ‘compromised (U.S.) national security’ (p3). Democrats claim that the President withheld release of aid to Ukraine (to oppose Russian aggression).
In 2014, over two years before Trump became U.S. President, Russia invaded the country of Ukraine. Then U.S. President, Barack Obama did nothing to try and slow or stop the Russian invasion. As a result, Russia annexed (seized) Crimea, the southern part of Ukraine as part of Russia.
In fact, the Obama-Biden Admin refused to sell or give weapons to Ukraine and instead sent blankets and other non-lethal aid.
The former “top Russia expert” under the Bush and Obama Admin was Fiona Hill. She testified that she was previously against sending weapons to Ukraine to fight off the Russian invasion because she thought it would provoke Russia more.
Sanctions Against Russia.
Russia was suspended from “The Group of Eight” leading industrialized nations in 2014. Russia later stated they withdrew from the “G8” permanently in 2017.
International sanctions were imposed on Russia beginning in 2014 costing Russia a reportedly (US) $570 Billion, and caused a financial crisis in Russia.
Stronger sanctions were imposed by the Trump Administration in 2017, 2018 (PDF) and 2019 severely impacting Russia’s economy. Separately, in 2018, twenty-three Russian diplomats were expelled in the USA and Europe after Russia killed a former Russian agent in the UK.
Despite Dems’ claim that Trump abused his power, Democrats ADMITTED (p4) that President Trump did release military aid to Ukraine, when the Obama-Biden Admin refused to grant military aid to Ukraine.
[8] WHO Interfered in the 2016 Election?
There are several parties who interfered in the 2016 election.
1. The Hillary Clinton 2016 Campaign, the DNC & Previous Ukraine Gov.
The material players were the Hillary Clinton 2016 Campaign, the DNC, and certain high-level officials under the Obama Administration.
“Ukrainian government officials tried to help Hillary Clinton and undermine Trump by publicly questioning his fitness for office…they (Ukraine gov) helped Clinton’s allies research damaging information on Trump and his advisors, a Politico investigation found.”
— Source: Politico (PDF), Jan. 1, 2017
According to Politico‘s investigation, Ukraine began supporting Hillary Clinton since 2013. Ukraine’s then President, Viktor Yanukovych entered into a multi-billion-dollar bailout agreement with Russia. This action upset the people of Ukraine. The Ukrainian President fled the country and moved to Russia under Russia government protection. The following year (2014), Russia invaded Ukraine.
A DNC staffer and Ukrainian-American operative, Alexandra Chalupa worked as a “consultant” for the DNC from 2004-2016. She was paid $412,000 a year, and had prior work with the Bill Clinton Administration. Democrats refused to call Chalupa to testify during the Trump Impeachment hearings, and instead redacted her name in transcripts for her foreign role (allegedly) interfering in the 2016 U.S. election.
2. Russia.
Russia had a minor role, where Russian actors bought some Facebook ads that were pro-Trump, anti-Trump; pro-Hillary, and anti-Hillary.
3. Did Joe Biden Interfere in the 2020 Election?
Presidential candidate Joe Biden may have obstructed justice and or interfered in the 2020 election by sending out letters to the media demanding the media to block booking of Trump’s lawyer on TV because Biden doesn’t want them to talk about his own and his son about Ukraine.
“The presidential campaign of Democratic candidate Joe Biden contacted executives at ABC, CBS, NBC, CNN, and Fox News on Sunday and demanded that they no longer book Trump lawyer Rudy Guiliani on their networks because Biden does not want the attorney talking about the allegations surrounding the Biden-Ukraine corruption scandal.”
— Source: Daily Wire, Sept. 30, 2019, PDF
Can you imagine if President Trump sent letters to the media telling them what guests could or could not be on air? The media would have a conniption, screaming 1st Amendment rights and they would be correct.
4. The biggest interference in the 2016 election and today were Obama Admin officials, certain select members or now former members of the DOJ, FBI, and others. This part is still under investigation by the U.S. government and reports are expected to be released.
[10] Threat to National Security?
- Democrats claim that the ‘President is a threat to national security and will continue to be a threat so long as he is in office’ (p5).
Unlike his predecessor Barack Obama, who dramatically downsized the U.S. military, illegally weakened U.S. immigration system, threatened Congress, repeatedly gave in to demands by Russia, Afghanistan, the Taliban, Iran and Syria, and put Americans’ safety at risk. So if you are looking for impeachable offenses (such as providing aid and comfort to the enemy – treason, 18 USC § 2381; and at the expense of U.S. tax payers), there you go.
Is Trump a threat to national security? President Trump has dramatically increased U.S. military spending, modernizing it. Trump declared a National Emergency (Executive Order) to protect U.S. borders from what was an effective invasion from illegal aliens from all over the world, coming in mostly from the Southern U.S. border.
House Democrats and sixteen Democrat-ran states actually sued the Trump Admin from defending the United States from foreign invaders. It took the U.S. Supreme Court to uphold Trump’s Executive Order as lawful. Again, if you are looking who should be impeached, it would be the ones who don’t uphold U.S. laws, including immigration laws, who consistently failed to defend U.S. borders.
We’d argue the biggest threat to Democrats by Trump is being re-elected in 2020.
This argument was clearly stated by a Democrat Congressman on MS-NBC who pushed for the three prior impeachments of President Trump.
“I’m Concerned If We Don’t Impeach This President, He Will Get Re-Elected”
Is Trump really bad for the U.S., or is he just bad for Democrat radical-Socialist policies that took down once prosperous Venezuela to total chaos, crime and mass poverty?
[11] Article II Charge: “Obstruction of Congress.”
- Democrats claim President Trump was ‘in defiance of Congressional subpoenas,’ and this was ‘an abuse of power’ (p6).
- Democrats also claim President Trump had ‘no lawful cause or excuse’ and directed his “Executive Branch” officials not to comply with Democrat subpoenas for documents or testimony (p6-7). Democrats further claim their subpoenas were “lawful” (p7).
Democrats seem to think they are Judge, Jury, and Executioner; that Democrats have the final answer in anything (again, totalitarianism). This of course is not true.
Under the U.S. Constitution we have a Separation of Powers for a reason. This is so that one Branch can’t overpower another Branch. We have the U.S. Supreme Court who has the final say in legal matters. Democrats don’t get to single-handedly decide what is and is not a ‘lawful cause or excuse.’ A court, the Judicial Branch makes that decision.
Notice the graphic above. The House of Representatives, let alone a Committee does not represent or speak for the U.S. Senate, and vice versa. The House is not the Executive Branch, nor the Judicial Branch.
Democrats could go to Court; present their subpoenas with legal rational, and see if the Court agrees that they have Constitutional or other legal authority to make their demands lawful. This is actually REQUIRED.
Under Title 18 of the U.S. Code, CRIMES AND CRIMINAL PROCEDURE, referencing Congressional proceedings,
“In the case of any individual who has been or may be called to testify or provide other information at any proceeding before or ancillary to either House of Congress, or any committee, or any subcommittee of either House, or any joint committee of the two Houses, a United States district court shall issue, in accordance with subsection (b) of this section, upon the request of a duly authorized representative of the House of Congress or the committee concerned, an order requiring such individual to give testimony or provide other information which he refuses to give or provide on the basis of his privilege against self-incrimination, such order to become effective as provided in section 6002 of this title.
(b) Before issuing an order under subsection (a) of this section, a United States district court shall find that—
(1) in the case of a proceeding before or ancillary to either House of Congress, the request for such an order has been approved by an affirmative vote of a majority of the Members present of that House;
(2) in the case of a proceeding before or ancillary to a committee or a subcommittee of either House of Congress or a joint committee of both Houses, the request for such an order has been approved by an affirmative vote of two-thirds of the members of the full committee; and
(3) ten days or more prior to the day on which the request for such an order was made, the Attorney General was served with notice of an intention to request the order.”
— 18 USC § 6005 (bold emphases added). Additional Source: Govinfo.gov
So in the current 116th Congress, there are 13 (D) and 9 (R) on the HPSCI (House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence). Democrats would need two (R) to support their subpoena to meet the 2/3rds threshold.
In the House Judiciary Committee, there are 24 (D) and 17 (R). Democrats would need three (R) to support their subpoena to meet the 2/3rds threshold.
Dems could try to go to Court but we’d argue that would ultimately fail either in the District or U.S. Supreme Court. The moving party needs to have EVIDENCE. Making up false accusations is not legal evidence. A statement (opinion) by someone calling something fact, but not providing fact of law, is not legal evidence.
So one can’t “Obstruct Congress” when either body of Congress, or a Congressional committee, etc., fails to go to the District Court and plead their case as REQUIRED by law.
IF, any such matter went to the District Court, then upon any appeal to the U.S. Supreme Court; and upon such order by the High Court finds one must comply with the demand sought, but refused the SCOTUS Order, THEN and only then, this would be an obstruction of Congress and perhaps Obstruction of Justice.
Democrats at first tried to go to court demanding they have unfettered access to Trump’s financial records, which they have wanted for several years. Lower District, Democrat-friendly courts initially permitted the records access until an appeal was made before the U.S. Supreme Court who temporarily blocked such request.
The U.S. Supreme Court will now hear full cases brought by two by (D) Committees and by a (D) NY prosecutor related to alleged payments to Stormy Daniels. Democrats are seeking Trumps tax and financial records. Under existing federal law, tax returns and other personal financial records are deemed confidential and protected under 26 USC § 6103.
The only way to legally obtain such tax or other financial records is if one is investigating an EXISTING CRIME, 26 USC § 6103 (i)(1). Starting an investigation, then looking for a crime does not count.
Speaker Pelosi said she just didn’t want to wait for the courts to make legal decisions, so Democrats will ignore the Constitution (abuse of power), and make all legal conclusions on their own.
“We’re not going to wait until the courts decide,” she said to reporters at her weekly briefing. “That might be information that’s available to the Senate…but it’s a technique. It’s Obstruction of Justice. It’s Obstruction of Congress.”
— House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), Fortune (PDF), Nov. 21, 2019
Despite the incorrect legal views of Pelosi, et al, the U.S. Constitution is not a (legal) technique.” The Constitution includes provisions of legal protections. Congress MUST go through the legal system, where the Court(s) determine what is and is not lawful; what is, and what is not permitted; what is, and what is not an overreach or abuse of power by one Branch over the other.
Next,
- Democrats claim that their Executive Branch witness list was “consistent” in alleged prior efforts to undermine (Democrat) investigations into foreign interference in U.S. elections’ (p7).
We’ll, as we’ve discussed, we already know that isn’t true. Both the Intel and Judiciary Committee chairs were granted totalitarian power to hand-pick or block any witnesses or documents they wanted.
Yet, Democrats claim that because Trump did not follow their made up rules and totalitarian demands, that Trump has been an ‘Obstruction of Congress?’ (p8).
We looked at both federal law and Congressional Research on this subject.
Under federal law, “obstruction of justice” as an act that “corruptly or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication, influences, obstructs, or impedes, or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede, the due administration of justice.”
Did Trump do anything that can be articulated using the legal definition above? The legal answer is, NO. Democrats don’t cite any specific law anywhere in their Articles of Impeachment.
Regardless of opinion, § 1503 “applies only to federal judicial proceedings” – this means the Courts, not a House or Senate Committee make such legal decisions.
There is an Obstruction of Congress clause under 18 USC § 1505 which involves either Antitrust Civil Process Act, or “Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law…”
Congressional Research Service has found “prosecutions under § 1505 have been repetitively few” – seven cases to be exact through 2007 (pps 16-17). To be charged with Obstruction of Congress requires three elements (pps 16-17).
- “There must be a proceeding pending before a department or agency of the United States.”
- “The defendant must be aware of the pending proceeding.”
- “The defendant must have intentionally endeavored corruptly to influence, obstruct or impede the pending proceeding.”
In the seven Obstruction of Congress cases, EVERY ONE of them were decided by the Courts – not by the House, Senate, or a Congressional Committee.
— Source: Congressional Research Service, 2010 report, footnote 91 (P17)
The Democratic Intel and Judicial Committees have violated Trump’s and possibly others’ Due Process Rights afforded by the 14th Amendment.
“…when it comes to enforcing subpoenas for witness testimony, the onus is on the House to go to court, and they’ve not done so in the Ukraine probe.
“Democrats have said they don’t have the time or interest to play “rope-a-dope” with the administration, as Schiff has phrased it.”
— Source: Roll Call, Dec. 9, 2019
Again, recall other Democrats saying we don’t have time for the courts, we just have to impeach Trump (before the Nov. 2020 Election).
- Democrats claim that if Trump stays in office he will ‘remain a threat to the Constitution’ (p8).
Democrats have not provided any legal evidence, in their Articles of Impeachment. Instead, Democrats unilaterally decided and defined their own rule of law, and that everyone they say must be held accountable (to their law). We’re not sure what country Dems are living in, but there are no laws in the United States that come close to this kind of totalitarian action.
Democrats Spying on Congress & Trump’s Lawyer?
Intel Committee Chair, Adam Schiff (D-CA) was caught spying on members of Congress, and Trump’s personal lawyer. All of this was done without a warrant, without Court approval as required by the 4th Amendment.
“the Supreme Court held that searches conducted outside the judicial process, without prior approval are prohibited under the Fourth Amendment, with a few detailed exceptions”
— Katz v. United States, 389 U.S. 347 (1967), Source: Cornell Law School
It’s funny and scary, that Democrats make the claim that Trump is a threat to the Constitution; when in fact as we have shown, Democrats are the ones actually violating the U.S. Constitution (Due Process Rights, 4th Amendment, 14th Amendment).
If Dems can bypass the Courts, the U.S. Constitution, and our civil liberties; make up laws as they see fit and attack (impeach) a sitting president, it probably would not be too hard to go after any U. S. citizen, their family and anyone else you know. This is Democrat’s rise of Totalitarianism.
The two Articles of Impeachment were signed by House Judiciary Chairman Jerold Nadler (D-NY)(p1).
[12] Dems: We Are Just Defending the Constitution? STOP IT.
Democrats have repeatedly said that they are upholding their oath of office and just defending the Constitution. This is the biggest farce since the nut groups who still think the world is flat.
The truth is, Democrats despise the Constitution.
They have repeated attacked the Constitution as they are doing now (said above). Democrats want to restrict or strip the 1st Amendment – restrict or ban certain speech they don’t agree with (example)(example)(example)(example)(example)(example)(example); they want to (tried to block) and suspend social media accounts they disagree with; control the news media; they want to strip the Second Amendment (reports), and confiscate all personally owned firearms in the country (example)(example)(example)(example)(example)(example) – just like all totalitarian dictators have throughout history.
So please stop the fake ‘we are just upholding our oath of office/ defending the Constitution’ nonsense.
[13] New Standard: OK to Impeach For ANY Reason (or No Reason).
Democrats have outlined the case where any future president can be impeached by a House or Senate for any reason without evidence.
Impeachment Trial is ALWAYS Decided by the Senate.
Even if the Democrat House votes to impeach Trump regardless of “evidence” and really lack thereof; by law (U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4), the actual trial is held by the Senate, unless dismissed. The Senate must have 2/3rds vote for conviction and removal of a President. We predict there are not sufficient votes by the Senate to remove Trump from office. If Dems had control of the Senate, they could impeach and remove Trump (or any future president) from office for no lawful reason.
[14] 2020 Win After Being Impeached?
It is very possible that if the (D)-controlled House is bent on impeaching the president; and (presumably), if the (R)-controlled Senate dismisses or acquits the House impeachment; Trump could end up being the first U.S. President to win a second presidential election after being impeached.
Feb 5, 2020 UPDATE:
U.S. Senates Acquits Trump on Impeachment Charges (CBS News).
Feb 7, 2020 FINAL UPDATE:
Additional Findings: Trial Review.
If you liked this article, please “like us” on Facebook or share on Twitter or through your favorite social network. We are a non-profit education media org.
Third-party content copyright by their respective owners. Original content copyright ©2019-2020 NetAdvisor.org® All Rights Reserved.
NetAdvisor.org® is a non-profit organization providing public education and analysis primarily on the U.S. financial markets, personal finance and analysis with a transparent look into U.S. public policy. We also perform and report on financial investigations to help protect the public interest. Read More.
