James Comey

[kcrufnek]

Thanks for the CNN stuff so I can know the truth.

I hope you don't do all this cutting and pasting on your phone. That's a shit ton of work.

[soonernvolved]

Liberal reporter Kyle Cheney posted the latest controversial language in the Democrat Party’s sham impeachment report.

The Democrats are alleging a 20 year prison sentence for something THEY NEVER EVEN VOTED ON~~

[soonernvolved]

Ouch....

www.zerohedge.com/political/fisa-court-slams-fbi-rare-public-statement

In Stunning Public Rebuke, FISA Court Slams FBI, Says Worried About 'Other Warrants'

The Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Act (FISA) court slammed the FBI on Tuesday in a rare public statement over the agency's handling of former Trump campaign aide Carter Page's warrant application and subsequent renewals, according to the Wall Street Journal.

www.wsj.com/articles/secretive-surveillance-court-rebukes-fbi-over-handling-of-surveillance-of-trump-aide-11576615299

"In order to appreciate the seriousness of that misconduct and its implications, it is useful to understand certain procedural and substantive requirements that apply to the government's conduct of electronic surveillance for foreign intelligence purposes," reads the statement.
The punchline: "The FBI's handling of the Carter Page applications, as portrayed in the OIG report, was antithetical to the hieghtned duty of candor" required by federal investigators, adding "The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable," wrote the court, which called the recent watchdog report from the DOJ's Inspector General "troubling."

The court ordered the government, by January 10, 2020, to explain what steps it's was taking to prevent such lapses in the future.

Former FBI Director James Comey admitted on Fox News Sunday that he was "overconfident in the procedures that the FBI and Justice had built over 20 years," adding "It's incredibly hard to get a FISA. I was overconfident in those because he's right, there was real sloppiness. Seventeen things that either should have been in the applications or at least discussed and characterized differently. It was not acceptable, so he's right, I was wrong."

[soonernvolved]

Red Flag when even CNN is reporting negative news for Democrats:

www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/17/cnn-poll-shows-support-impeachment-dropping-even-among-democrats/amp/

Support for impeaching President Trump is dropping while opposition is growing, a CNN poll released this week reveals.

www.cnn.com/2019/12/16/politics/impeachment-poll-cnn/index.html

A full House vote on the two approved articles of impeachment against the president, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, is expected to take place this week. However, as recent polls have indicated, support for impeachment is dropping and opposition is growing.

A CNN poll released this week, conducted by SSRS December 12-15, among 1,005 adults, found that 45 percent support impeaching the president. That reflects a 5-point drop from November’s results, which showed support for impeachment at 50 percent.

Support for impeaching the president, even among Democrats alone, is dropping. In November, 90 percent of Democrats supported impeaching the president. The most recent results show the number falling to 77 percent — a 13-point drop in one month.[/i][/u]

Meanwhile, opposition is growing. According to the poll, 47 percent oppose impeaching the president, reflecting a four-point jump from last month’s results, when opposition stood at 43 percent. The poll’s margin of error is +/- 3.7 percentage points.

The results coincide with the House Judiciary Committee’s decision to advance articles of impeachment against the president. The full House is expected to vote this week. According a report from the Wall Street Journal, Democrats have enough votes to impeach, making a trial in the Senate inevitable.

[soonernvolved]

www.nationalreview.com/news/fisa-court-issues-rare-public-order-condemning-fbi-for-russia-probe-abuses-and-demanding-reforms/amp/

FISA Court Issues Rare Public Order Condemning FBI for Russia Probe Abuses and Demanding Reforms

In a rare public order issued Tuesday, the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court condemned the FBI for the errors and omissions in its application to surveil Trump-campaign adviser Carter Page and gave the bureau until January 10th to propose reforms to prevent future abuses.

The order follows the release of Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report, which detailed 17 “significant errors and omissions” in the warrant application to surveil Page.

“The frequency with which representations made by FBI personnel turned out to be unsupported or contradicted by information in their possession, and with which they withheld information detrimental to their case, calls into question whether information contained in other FBI applications is reliable,” wrote the FISA court.

Therefore, the Court orders that the government shall, no later than January 10, 2020, inform the Court in a sworn written submission of what it has done, and plans to do, to ensure that the statement of facts in each FBI application accurately and completely reflects information possessed by the FBI that is material to any issue presented by the application,” the order continues.

The publication of the IG report caused Senate Republicans to call for reform of the FISA application process, and several publicly acknowledged Utah Senator and FISA-skeptic Mike Lee as a leader on the issue.

“I wish Mike Lee weren’t sitting here two people from me right now, because as a national security hawk, I’ve argued with Mike Lee in the four-and-a-half or five years that I’ve been in the Senate that stuff just like this couldn’t possibly happen at the FBI and at the Department of Justice,” Senator Ben Sasse (R., Neb.) said during a Senate hearing on the IG report.

“Because we’ve now seen the abuses we were warned about, you can smirk again, you were right,” Senator Thom Tillis (R., N.C.) told Lee.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

In an exchange with Senator Josh Hawley (MO), Horowitz admitted he “did not reach a conclusion” when asked if political bias affected the FBI’s investigations.

“Was it your conclusion that political bias did not affect any part of the [Carter] Page investigation, any part of Crossfire Hurricane?” Hawley asked Horowitz.


“We did not reach that conclusion,” Horowitz said.

[soonernvolved]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi wore black at her funeral Wednesday night after she walked her caucus off the cliff.

Pelosi had to silence cheers from Democrats on the House floor as she adopted the first article of impeachment.

Watch Pelosi raise her hand and shoot Democrats a dirty look to silence them:

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

Following the party line vote by Democrats to impeach President Trump Nancy Pelosi spoke to reporters and threatened to withhold the articles of impeachment unless the US Senate bows to her demands!

Speaker Pelosi: We have legislation approved by the Rules Committee that will enable us to decide how we send over the Articles of Impeachment. We’re not sending it tonight because it’s difficult to determine who the managers would be until we see the arena of which we will be participating.

This is the Larry Tribe plan on impeachment.

The House is threatening the US Senate.
These crazy Democrats are sooo out of control!

[soonernvolved]

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi lost her cool after her caucus voted to impeach President Trump on Wednesday evening.


Pelosi was not acting victorious — she was on edge and realized she just sacrificed her majority after the Dems impeached Trump.

Pelosi lost it as reporters began to ask questions — she told journalists that they’re “starting to act like another country.”


“Don’t shout, okay!” Pelosi nervously said as she waved her hands.

Watch Pelosi slur and fight to keep her teeth from flying out of her skull (again):

[soonernvolved]

nypost.com/2019/12/18/nancy-pelosis-stomach-turning-impeachment-charade-damages-america-goodwin/

It is said there are two things you should never watch being made: sausage and government budgets.

Now we can add impeachment to the list of stomach-turning sights to avoid.

The arcane rules, phony cordiality and debates over the second sentence in paragraph G of Point Six were bad enough, but the nausea meter hit the roof when Nancy Pelosi took the microphone. Wearing a funereal black dress, she stood next to a cardboard American flag and recited the Pledge of Allegiance.

I would have counted her more honest if she had pledged her allegiance to a Democratic donkey.

As the leader of a party that has marinated its mind in unadulterated hatred of President Trump, Pelosi bears unique responsibility for this calamity. She could have stopped it.

Watching the so called debate Wednesday, I was moved by how the impeachers, desperate to inflate their base partisan passions into something noble, have cheapened our nation’s history and language.

They resembled Grade B actors performing for the cameras, their rehearsed references to oaths, prayers, the Founding Fathers, the rule of law, checks and balances and the Constitution itself all sounding contrived. Rather than reflecting an actual gravitas, the words were trotted out to create the appearance of it.

[soonernvolved]

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2019/12/18/media-house-trump-impeach/

Members of the media celebrated after the House voted to pass both articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Wednesday evening.

The House voted Wednesday to pass both articles of impeachment — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — with votes of 230-197 and 229-198, respectively.


“People say we live in a post-truth world,” CNN’s Brian Stelter tweeted. “I hate that term. Some truths cannot be denied — like the truth of this impeachment vote.”

“On Trump’s first weekend in office, Kellyanne Conway coined ‘alternative facts.’ Rudy Giuliani later said ‘truth isn’t truth.’ Trump told a crowd that ‘what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.’ But there is no way to deny: Trump has been impeached,” Stelter added in another tweet.

Stelter, along with CNN’s Oliver Darcey, re-tweeted multiple media reactions about the impeachment vote, with many of them being positive. Both also re-tweeted the Thursday front pages for numerous newspapers.

On Trump’s first weekend in office, Kellyanne Conway coined “alternative facts.” Rudy Giuliani later said “truth isn’t truth.” Trump told a crowd that “what you’re seeing and what you’re reading is not what’s happening.” But there is no way to deny: Trump has been impeached.

— Brian Stelter (@brianstelter) December 19, 2019

Primis Player Placeholder


“This is the first time -if you don’t count 2018 -Donald Trump has suffered poltical consequences for his actions,” MSNBC anchor Katy Tur noted. She continued on with a long thread of allegations against the president, including “separating families and traumatizing children.” (RELATED: EXCLUSIVE: We Asked Every GOP Senator About Impeachment. Seven Ruled It Out)

“No matter what happens next, even if the Senate acquits him, even if he is re-elected, he will forever have an asterisk next to his name,” Tur added.

Multiple journalists apparently celebrated the news with beers, according to Washington Post reporter Rachael Bade. She tweeted out a picture alongside Washington Post reporters Paul Kane, Karoun Demirjian, Seung Min-Kim and Mike DeBonis.

Bade, Demirjian and Min-Kim are also CNN analysts.


Merry Impeachmas from the WaPo team! ⁦@pkcapitol⁩ is buying … w/⁦@karoun⁩ ⁦@seungminkim⁩ ⁦@mikedebonis⁩ pic.twitter.com/empd3Z4bfX

— Rachael Bade (@rachaelmbade) December 19, 2019

MSNBC’s Chris Hayes parroted Tur’s commentary, suggesting it was “the first time in the man’s [Trump] life that he is facing any concrete judgment on the nature of his behavior,” according to Darcy.

“So it turns out that day 1063 is impeachment day,” The Daily Beast’s editor-at-large Molly Jong-Fast tweeted.

“I don’t Know who needs to hear this but bribery is illegal and getting a blowjob is not,” Jong-Fast added alongside a clip of Republican South Carolina Sen. Lindsey Graham saying former President Bill Clinton, who also faced impeachment, committed a crime.

The Republican-led Senate will now have to determine whether to remove Trump from office.

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-trump-issues-perfect-response-following-impeachment-vote

Late Thursday night, President Donald Trump reacted to the House impeachment vote with a meme on social media.

“In reality, they’re not after me, they’re after you,” the text of the meme, which features a photo of the president, declares. “I’m just in the way.”

Trump’s post hits at the heart of the partisan vote. Without even a clear crime convincingly laid out in the articles of impeachment, without a single Republican voting in favor of either article, and with House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) potentiality withholding the articles from the U.S. Senate, the impeachment process appears to be a route to overturning the 2016 election, not upholding the Constitution.

Mere hours before Trump’s post, Democrats voted along party lines in support of two articles of impeachment: “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress.” While not a single Republican voted in support of either article, some Democrats defected from the party-line vote.

“On the first article of impeachment, ‘abuse of power,’ Democrats voted 228–2, Republicans voted 0–195, and the one independent member of Congress voted for impeachment,” The Daily Wire reported. On “obstruction of Congress,” “Democrats voted 228–3, Republicans voted 0–195, and the one independent member of Congress voted for impeachment.”


Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard of Hawaii voted “present” on both articles.

“I could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country,” Gabbard explained, according to Fox News reporter Chad Pergram.

While the House debated and voted on the articles of impeachment, President Trump spent his time at a rally in Battle Creek, Michigan, delivering on the same message.

“With today’s illegal, unconstitutional and partisan impeachment, House Democrats are declaring their deep hatred and disdain for American Voters,” he said. “This lawless and partisan impeachment is a political suicide march for the Democrat Party!”

The president, in typical Trump fashion, also taunted Democrats while at the rally. “I don’t know about you, but I’m having a great time,” he said as the impeachment vote took place.

As reported by The Daily Wire Thursday morning, Democrats were given instruction to avoid “cheering” following the impeachment vote and told to keep it “solemn.”

“House Democratic leaders told caucus members not to cheer or applaud when today’s impeachment vote totals are announced, and Democratic members described the day as sad and solemn,” an Axios report said.

“One Democratic member from a Trump-won district said the instruction is: ‘Don’t cheer, keep it solemn,’” the report added.

Keeping with the “solemn” theme, Pelosi and other Democratic women even wore black to signal just upsetting the occasion was.

To the displeasure of House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA), this did not happen, leading to another telling moment of the night. The Daily Wire reported:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was forced on Wednesday night to stop House Democrats from cheering their purely partisan impeachment of President Donald Trump following the vote as reports also surfaced that House members were taking selfies.

“Article one is adopted,” Pelosi said.

Immediately after she pounded her gavel, clapping broke out on the Democrats’ side, which prompted a death stare from Pelosi.

WATCH:

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/watch-pelosi-forced-to-stop-democrats-from-cheering-impeachment-vote-taking-selfies

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi was forced on Wednesday night to stop House Democrats from cheering their purely partisan impeachment of President Donald Trump following the vote as reports also surfaced that House members were taking selfies.

“Article one is adopted,” Pelosi said.

Immediately after she pounded her gavel, clapping broke out on the Democrats’ side, which prompted a death stare from Pelosi.


WATCH:

Nancy Pelosi forced to silence impeachment cheers from self-proclaimed “solemn” and “prayerful” Democrats pic.twitter.com/8khCTikx6C

— Steve Guest (@steveguest) December 19, 2019

Politico Congressional bureau chief John Bresnahan observed, “Members taking selfies during impeachment vote.”

Democrats’ apparent glee over impeachment comes after they voted for the first time in U.S. history to impeach a president on a purely partisan basis, as only Democrats supported the effort.

The Daily Wire reported the results of the Democrats’ partisan impeachment of the president:


On the first article of impeachment, “abuse of power,” Democrats voted 228–2, Republicans voted 0–195, and the one independent member of Congress voted for impeachment.

The final vote on the first article of impeachment was 230–197–1.

The vote on the second article of impeachment, “obstruction of Congress,” concluded with even more Democrats defecting from their party and voting against impeachment.

The final vote on the second article of impeachment is Democrats voted 228–3, Republicans voted 0–195, and the one independent member of Congress voted for impeachment.

The final vote on the second article of impeachment was 229–198–1.

However, there was a bipartisan effort that opposed impeachment, as all Republicans voted against it, multiple Democrats voted against it, and Democrat presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard voted “present.”

Gabbard, according to Fox News political reporter Chad Pergram, said, “I could not in good conscience vote for impeachment because removal of a sitting President must not be the culmination of a partisan process, fueled by tribal animosities that have so gravely divided our country.”

On the floor of the House, Pelosi said, “That is why today as speaker of the House, I solemnly and sadly open the debate on the impeachment of the president of the United States.”

“One of Pelosi’s colleagues also told CNN that several female Democrats intentionally wore all black in order to gesture that the day of the impeachment vote was a somber one,” Fox News reported. “Pelosi, along with Democrat Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez from New York, Donna Shalala from Florida, Robin Kelly from Illinois and Suzanne Bonamici from Oregon were all seen Wednesday wearing dark outfits. On top of Pelosi’s black dress was a golden pin of the Mace of the Republic — a symbol of the House of Representatives’ authority.”

Socialist Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-NY) told reporters on Wednesday: “Well I think one of the things that our caucus has consistently said is that today is a solemn day for our country. (We) laid out over several months what the president has done to essentially extort foreign governments to betray our nation and enrich himself. So today isn’t a day of celebration, but I think it is a day of resolve and a day that we’re upholding our oath and our constitutional duty.”

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/breaking-pelosi-considers-withholding-articles-of-impeachment-from-senate-heres-the-insane-reason-why

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi is reportedly considering withholding articles of impeachment from the U.S. Senate, which would delay the Senate trial, because she is concerned that Republicans would be too biased and would not hold a fair trial.

“So far we haven’t seen anything that looks fair to us,” Pelosi told reporters following the Democrats’ purely partisan impeachment. “That would’ve been our intention, but we’ll see what happens over there.”

“Pelosi’s comments, which echo suggestions raised by other Democrats throughout the day, inject new uncertainty into the impeachment timetable and send the House and Senate lurching toward a potential institutional crisis,” Politico reported. “Though the House adopted two articles of impeachment charging Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of congressional investigations, it must pass a second resolution formally naming impeachment managers to present the case in the Senate. That second vehicle triggers the official transmission of articles to the Senate.”

“In 1998, minutes after the House impeached President Trump, the House approved a secondary resolution which dispatched the articles of impeachment, plus the impeachment managers to the Senate. Nobody thought much about it,” Fox News reporter Chad Pergram tweeted, adding, “Pelosi is always deft at finding a wedge. So she’s willing to hold onto the articles of impeachment to see if McConnell/Schumer can come to an agreement for a fair trial – and not tilt the field toward the President in the GOP-controlled Senate.”

Pelosi’s suggestion that Republicans might not be fair in an impeachment trial comes after Democrats held secret hearings for weeks to develop the basis for their impeachment attempt and, according to Republicans, selectively leaked portions of the depositions to the media that were beneficial for advancing the Democrats’ narrative.


Pergram added, “Some polling reveals that impeachment is really hurting Democrats. Perhaps this was Pelosi’s gambit all along. Impeach the President. Take a stand for the Constitution. But apply an emergency hand brake on impeachment by not sending the articles to the Senate.”

Rep. Lee Zeldin (R-NY) responded to the news by writing on Twitter, “After Pelosi put our country through all of this impeachment nonsense, it’s crazy she is now considering destructively stalling and prolonging the pain for Americans. We should be healing and she would instead be pouring salt on the wounds she created.”

Earlier this week, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell told reporters, “I’m not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There’s not anything judicial about it. The House made a partisan political decision to impeach. I would anticipate we will have a largely partisan outcome in the Senate. I’m not impartial about this at all.”

Former White House Press Secretary Ari Fleischer wrote: “What a farce, a total farce. I thought Trump had [to be] removed to save the Republic. For this to even be possible shows what a game this has been for the [Democrats] all along.”

Federalist co-founder Ben Domenech tweeted: “What Pelosi wants to avoid is the outcome of any trial in the Senate: a bipartisan vote to acquit.”

[soonernvolved]

www.zerohedge.com/political/heres-what-expect-house-prepares-historic-impeachment-vote

As was 100% expected, the House has voted to impeach President Trump (for abuse of power), who joins Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton as the only presidents to be impeached since the adoption of the Constitution in 1788.



It all began just after midday with the following...

"Today, as speaker of the House, I solemnly and sadly open the debate on the impeachment of the president of the United States," Speaker Nancy Pelosi said from the House floor shortly after noon.

"It is tragic that the president's reckless actions make impeachment necessary. He gave us no choice."


And ended just over eight hours later

House Minority Leader Kevin McCarthy closes: “He is president today, he’ll be president tomorrow and he will be president when this impeachment over.”

Rep. Steny Hoyer (D-MD) closes: "All of us feel a sense of loyalty to party. It's what makes our two-party system function. But party loyalty must have its limits...it has become increasingly clear that the limits of partisanship have been reached and passed."

And the result after 219 speakers from both sides of the aisle today, as most expected, all Republicans voted against impeachment, all Democrats except three voted for the first article of impeachment...

Article 1 - Abuse Of Power - vote 230 in favor, 197 opposed, 1 present:



All Republicans voted against impeachment, all Democrats except four voted for the second article of impeachment...

Article 2 - Obstruction - vote:



Tulsi Gabbard voted "present" while New Jersey Rep. Jeff Van Drew, who’s in the process of becoming a Republican; and Minnesota Rep. Collin Peterson, who represents what’s considered the country’s most conservative Democratic district, both broke ranks and voted against impeachment.



...and Michigan Rep. Justin Amash (the sole Independent member of the House) voted for impeachment.

The question now is simple - will Pelosi keep the articles to herself (to avoid the spectacle of utter defeat in the Senate)? Or pass them on for what McConnell has called a quick decision.

What the Constitution says about what happens next

A president who has been impeached by the House can still serve as president. It’s up to the Senate to hold a trial to decide whether to remove him from office. The two other presidents impeached by the House, Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson, were both acquitted by the Senate.

The Constitution only says that the Senate has to hold a trial, with the senators sitting as jurors, House lawmakers serving as prosecutors known as managers and the chief justice of the United States presiding over it. They must take a public vote, and two-thirds of senators present must agree on whether to convict the president and thus remove him from office. But the Constitution doesn’t lay out exactly how to hold a trial.

But, as WaPo reports, a group of House Democrats is pushing Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other leaders to withhold the articles of impeachment against President Trump that are expected to emerge on Wednesday, potentially delaying a Senate trial for months.

The notion of impeaching Trump but holding the articles in the House has gained traction among some on the political left as a way of potentially forcing Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) to conduct a trial on more favorable terms for Democrats.

And if no agreement is reached, some have argued, the trial could be delayed indefinitely, denying Trump an expected acquittal.

However, as Byron York noted rather pointedly:

"How do Democrats impeach and withhold when they've been telling everybody Trump must be removed right now because he poses an immediate threat to our elections?

Would Dems go straight from pre-emptive impeachment to deferred impeachment?"

And remember, the public is now against impeachment broadly...



Some high/lowlights from the multi-hour debacle include:

Here is what the Democrats believed...Cicilline said if they do not hold Trump accountable, then “we will live in a dictatorship.”



Democrats were, in their own words, "sad" to impeach the president... “I’m saddened, but I’m not shocked,” Democratic Rep. Barbara Lee of California said.



Serial impeacher Rep. Al Green decided to use a fake, debunked photo of an immigrant child crying as an example of why Trump should be impeached... “In the name of democracy, on behalf of the republic, and for the sake of many who are suffering,” Green said as he pointed directly of the photo, “I will vote to impeach and I encourage my colleagues to do so as well. No one is beyond justice in this country.”



Texas Republican Rep. Louie Gohmert passionately warned that the end of America was in sight... “This is a travesty and we’re in big trouble because Schumer was right... This country’s end is now in sight... I hope I don’t live to see it. This is an outrage."



And finally, Louisiana Republican Rep. Clay Higgins delivered the darkest, most ominous speech of the day.

“I have descended into the belly of the beast. I have witnessed the terror within, and I rise committed to oppose the insidious forces which threaten our Republic,” Higgins opened.

“America’s being severely injured by this betrayal, by this unjust and weaponized impeachment, brought upon us by the same socialists who threaten unborn life in the womb, who threaten First Amendment rights of Conservatives, who threaten Second Amendment protections of every American patriot, and who have long ago determined that they would organize and conspire to overthrow President Trump.”

“We don’t face this horror because the Democrats have all of a sudden become constitutionalists. We are not being devoured from within because of some surreal assertion of the socialists’ newfound love for the very flag that they trod upon.”

“They are deep established D.C.,” he continued.

“They call this Republican map flyover country. They call us deplorables. They fear our faith. They fear our strength. They fear our unity. They fear our vote, and they fear our president.”

“We will never surrender our nation to career establishment D.C. politicians and bureaucrats,” Higgins closed. “Our republic shall survive this threat from within. American patriots shall prevail.”

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/18/pollak-senate-can-acquit-even-if-house-doesnt-transmit-articles-of-impeachment-constitution/

Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) appears to be considering an idea Democrats have floated for several days of holding back the articles of impeachment to exercise leverage over the Senate and the president.

She declined formally to transmit the articles to the Senate on Wednesday evening after the House voted to impeach President Donald Trump.




Unfortunately for them, the Senate can act, regardless — and would vote to acquit.

That’s because the Constitution is absolutely clear about the Senate’s authority. Article I, Section 3 says: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”

Want Breaking News from Breitbart Direct to Your Inbox? Takes Just 2 Seconds...
Enter your email address
SIGN UP
That is all.

The Chief Justice presides over a trial involving the president, but the Senate makes the rules. And the Senate is controlled by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who regards what the House has done with contempt.

You’re in Cocaine Mitch’s court, now.

Politico outlined Democrats’ new idea, citing constitutional lawyer Laurence Tribe (but, interestingly, not the Constitution itself). Pelosi hopes to pressure McConnell into holding a “fair trial” — this, after she and her party broke every relevant House rule and precedent, and several Amendments in the Bill of Rights, all in the name of their “sole Power of Impeachment.”

They forget that a “fair trial” applies to the accused, not the accuser, and has since 1215.



Set aside, for the moment, that holding onto the articles of impeachment would contradict everything Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the Democrats have said for weeks about the “urgency” of impeachment. They needed to stop him before he could “cheat in the next election,” we were told — that’s why the House could not wait for the courts to rule on the White House’s resistance to stop congressional subpoenas.

All of that would be exposed as a lie.

If Pelosi refuses to submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, McConnell can convene the Senate anyway, summon the Chief Justice, and swear in the Senators as jurors. Democrats can boycott, but they can’t stop the trial.

McConnell can then propose to dismiss the charges or even hold a vote to acquit the president.



Pelosi can hide the articles of impeachment in Adam Schiff’s basement forever, and it won’t make a bit of difference.

Case closed.

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2019/12/19/why-impeachment-is-a-massive-blunder-for-nancy-pelosi/

Why Impeachment Is A Massive Blunder For Nancy Pelosi
Despite Wednesday's long-expected vote and the media cheer group accompanying it, impeachment is going terribly for the Democrats.
DECEMBER 19, 2019 By Christopher Bedford
Washington, D.C. — It’s been an ugly fall in Washington. Wet, dreary and deeply stupid. In the season we’re supposed to be shopping for the perfect gift for our loved ones, instead most of us are busily shopping for a reason to give America what they say she wants more than her two front teeth: impeachment.

But despite Wednesday’s long-expected vote and the media cheer group accompanying it, this is going terribly for the Democrats.


There’s a willful suspension of belief at work in the capital city. Self-proclaimed defenders of the Constitution make excuses for sloppy spying on a major candidate for president. Men who compare themselves to those at Valley Forge shift seamlessly from allegations of urine-soaked escapades to collusion with the Kremlin, from the Kremlin to Ukraine, and finally from quid-quo-pro to bribery to obstruction, with stopovers on NFL anthem protests and insults to “The Squad.” The speaker quotes the deceased Elijah Cummings in wondering, “When we’re dancing with the angels, the question will be asked, in 2019,” did we impeach Donald Trump?

Media commentators in Washington and New York read D.C. bedtime stories about a majority of Americans backing their efforts– a statistic you would have to spend nearly all your time in New York or D.C. to remotely believe. When polls don’t fit that worldview, they’re discarded. “I don’t believe that poll for one second,” CNN’s Jeffrey Toobin balked when CNN political director David Chalian showed declining enthusiasm for a impeachment in a network poll. “David, that poll is wrong. Just because I said so.”

After the Robert Mueller Russia fiasco, it takes willful stupidity to think that a solid majority of Americans ever wanted to see this impeachment go through over a country some of them might recognize from a Risk game. But the delusions don’t end with the same polls that predicted President Hillary Clinton. From the nature of the impeachment to the lionization of its leader, media elites and their Democrat allies have misread this political situation more seriously than any since the eve of Trump’s election, when paragraphs of space were devoted to what catering reporters were eating as they awaited Her big win.

The New York Times served “an array of Greek food and Dallas BBQ” while giving Clinton an 85 percent chance of winning. Politico served chicken, shrimp and salads.

Three years later, Republicans across the board have rejected the impeachment proceedings as unjust, unfair, and undemocratic. Since Justin Amash, a libertarian who loves to disagree and gives the strong impression he annoyed classmates in his youth, became an independent five months ago, the ranks have closed. According to Wednesday’s conventional wisdom, though, this marks a new chapter in “three years of unshakable and at times irrational support for Trump.”

“Irrational.”

Democrats, the same article follows, are falling “almost uniformly” in line. Except for Democrat Reps. Jared Golden and Collin Peterson , who Wednesday voted against impeachment. And Democratic presidential candidate Tulsi Gabbard, who voted present. And of course New Jersey’s Jeff Van Drew, who is telling colleagues he’s becoming a Republican in protest.

Understand that to the political press corps, a GOP that unanimously backed the president and opposed Pelosi is “at times irrational,” and three Democrats voting against their speaker and one defecting from the entire party is “almost uniformly” in line. This “conventional wisdom” is accepted by nearly the entire corporate media, and parroted to Americans forced to listen at airports and gyms across the country.

Amazingly, though, it is not nearly the greatest media distortion of even the day. For example, it is far surpassed by the worship, adoration and glorification of Madam Speaker, the Democrats’ leader in the fight.

“Her command of legislation, her control over her caucus, her ability to confront a historically hostile president and GOP-run Senate on equal terms are unparalleled,” Politico crows in a hard-hitting piece about the how the 79-year old congresswoman in office since Ronald Reagan was president “has roared back.”

“She’s the one person in Washington who can beat Trump at his own game,” Politico continues, “though she never wanted to play it.”

And the pews in the speaker’s church are just overflowing.

“Nancy Pelosi: An Extremely Stable Genius,” the New Yorker cheers.

“Political Grandmaster,” Vanity Fair crowns.

“Nancy Pelosi Has Trump Right Where She Wants Him,” Politico Magazine pretends.

“She May Not Acknowledge It, But Nancy Pelosi Is A Fashion Icon,” The Washington Post blogs.

“She,” a Food And Wine profile assures, “can also locate Paris’s best croissant.”

Casual readers will be forgiven for not knowing that the speaker has never actually beaten the president. Even on Wednesday when the addled, shaky pillar of Democrat might led impeachment, she seemingly failed to win the national argument and likely strengthened the president’s re-election prospects.

Just before the impeachment vote, while not agreeing to the number the White House asked for, Congress sent another $1.4 billion to build the president’s wall. The day after impeachment, Pelosi appears ready to pass the president’s trade deal. And since impeachment began, the president’s party gained more than 600,000 new donors and raised more than $10 million.

Of course, the president won’t be leaving office despite all the drama on CNN. Then, Washington is a town where Melania Trump is unfashionable and Ruth Bader Ginsburg is a paragon of strength and health, so these things are to be expected.

It’s not hard to guess what my glorious city will be eating this Election Day.

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2019/12/19/pelosi-decision-on-impeachment-process-reveals-it-was-a-sham-all-along/

Pelosi Decision On Impeachment Process Reveals It Was A Sham All Along
Nancy Pelosi refused to commit to sending Trump's articles of impeachment to the Senate, confirming House Democrats' true intentions are far from 'saving our democracy.'
Kylee ZempelBy Kylee Zempel
DECEMBER 19, 2019
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi would not commit to sending the articles of President Donald Trump’s impeachment to the Republican-controlled Senate, citing concerns about fairness.

“So far we haven’t seen anything that looks fair to us,” Pelosi said of Senate Republicans immediately after the Democrat-controlled House of Representatives voted to impeach Trump Wednesday evening. “I could not be prouder or more inspired than by the moral courage of the House Democrats,” she said.


House Democrats lodged two articles of impeachment against the president related to allegations that Trump sought Ukrainian interference in the upcoming presidential election and that he refused to cooperate with the ensuing House impeachment inquiry. The two articles alleged “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress,” and each passed in an overwhelmingly partisan vote.

All Republican House members voted against impeachment, with two Democrats voting against the first measure and three against the second. Democrat Tulsi Gabbard, a congresswoman from Hawaii and a 2020 presidential contender, voted present for both measures.

The House must now pass another resolution to establish formal managers who will present the impeachment case in the Senate. The articles of impeachment would officially transfer to the upper chamber with the passage of that resolution. Pelosi, however, has hinged moving forward with the resolution on Senate actions, making its passage contingent upon House Democratic leadership’s perception of Senate Republicans’ fairness.

“We cannot name managers until we see what the process is on the Senate side,” Pelosi declared. “Hopefully it will be fairer, and when we see what that is, we’ll send our managers.”

Pelosi went a step further, however, refusing to commit to sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate at all. When a reporter asked about the possibility of her never sending the articles, she promptly shut him down, and in so doing, also confirmed the impeachment vote had less to do with “protecting democracy” and more to do with partisan political games and 2020 election strategy.

We are not having that discussion. We have done what we have set out to do. The House has acted on a very sad day to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States, to do so in a way that was fair even though the other side was mischaracterizing it. Nonetheless, it was fair and appropriate — and urgent, and urgent. So we will make our decision as to when we’re going to send it when we see what they’re doing on the Senate side.

Sending the articles to the Senate “would have been our intention, but we’ll see what happens over there,” Pelosi then replied to a different reporter, undercutting her own appeals to urgency.

Pelosi’s remarks shed further light on House Democrats’ true intentions, which are seemingly to smear Trump with an “impeachment” brand as voters venture into a highly contentious election year. “We did all we could, Elijah,” Pelosi said, referring to the late Rep. Elijah Cummings. “We passed the two articles of impeachment. The president is impeached.”

If they send the articles of impeachment over to the Senate, Democratic lawmakers could ultimately end up with egg on their faces, a risky move heading into an election year — and a possibility Pelosi may well now be considering. For Trump is nearly guaranteed an acquittal in the Senate. For a president to be removed from office, the Constitution requires a two-thirds vote in the upper chamber, which would necessitate that 20 of the Senate’s 53 GOP members join Democrats in expelling a Republican president.

However, egg on one’s face seems a small price to pay for supposedly saving the republic and remaining, Pelosi said, “very true to the vision of our founders.”

I view this day, this vote, as something that we did to honor the vision of our Founders to establish the republic, the sacrifice of our men and women in uniform to defend our democracy and that republic, and the aspirations of our children that they will always live in a democracy and that we have tried to do everything we can to make sure that that is their reality.

Really? Everything you can do? Or just a rubber stamp maneuver to smear the duly elected president, whom Democrats have promised to impeach since his 2016 election?


“Right now, the president is impeached,” Pelosi declared, striking the podium with each word.

I’ll let the speaker speak for herself.

[soonernvolved]

Ruth Bader Ginsburg spoke with the BBC this week about the upcoming impeachment trial in the US Senate. During her questioning Justice Ginsburg suggested that US Senators could be disqualified from the proceedings if they are not impartial.

Justice Ginsburg: “The House indicts, and the Senate tries. Should a trier be impartial? Of course, that’s the job of an impartial judge.”

hotair.com/archives/allahpundit/2019/12/18/ginsburg-hints-senators-cant-impartial-trumps-trial-disqualified/

If Schumer or Pelosi (or whoever might have standing) sues McConnell and Graham, arguing that they’ve disqualified themselves from the trial, presumably SCOTUS could choose to hear that appeal. Could Ginsburg take part in that case now, having already stated her opinion that senators have a duty to be impartial as the triers of fact in impeachment? “I would not be surprised if some members of the Senate quoted RBG’s remarks to criticize their colleagues neutrality,” Blackman noted at one point in today’s post. Indeed. Ginsburg is now a player in this dispute, inadvertently or not, not just a potential adjudicator. Way to go.

[soonernvolved]

dailycaller.com/2019/12/18/steny-hoyer-democrats-impeach-trump-video/



House Majority Whip Steny Hoyer drew laughter and jeers from Republican lawmakers after he said Democrats “did not wish” to impeach President Donald Trump.

Hoyer, the second-highest ranking Democrat in the House, spoke shortly before the House voted to impeach the president. “Democrats did not choose this impeachment. We did not wish for it,” he said.


A Republican lawmaker interrupted the Maryland Democrat and shouted: “Oh, come on!” Other Republicans in the chamber laughed at Hoyer’s assertion, with some booing it as well.

WATCH:


“We voted against it. We voted against it once,” Hoyer continued. “We voted against it twice. We voted against it three times as recently as July. We did not want this. However, President Trump’s misconduct has forced our constitutional republic to protect itself.” (RELATED: Flashback: Rashida Tlaib Campaigned On Impeachment In 2018)

The House voted Wednesday night to impeach Trump on two separate articles of impeachment: one article on abuse of power and one on obstruction of Congress.


Republican Texas Rep. Will Hurd, a frequent critic of the president, said ahead of Wednesday’s vote that Democrats were setting a “dangerous precedent” in their efforts to impeach Trump. “Today, a dangerous precedent will be set: impeachment becoming a weaponized political tool,” Hurd warned.

[soonernvolved]

www.dailywire.com/news/democracy-dies-at-happy-hour-washington-post-cnn-reporters-shredded-for-celebrating-impeachmas-after-trump-impeachment

‘Democracy Dies At Happy Hour’: Washington Post, CNN Reporters Ripped For Celebrating ‘Impeachmas’ After Trump Impeachment

A group of Washington Post reporters, several of whom are also CNN analysts, faced intense scorn online following Democrats’ partisan impeachment of President Donald Trump after they posted a picture of themselves celebrating “impeachmas” over drinks.

House Democrats voted on Wednesday to, for the first time in history, impeach a president along strictly partisan lines, as no Republicans supported their effort and multiple Democrats defected and sided with the Republicans.

Left-wing Washington Post journalist Rachael Bade tweeted out a photograph of herself along with four of her colleagues — Paul Kane, Mike DeBonis, as well as Seung Min Kim and Karoun Demirjian, who are both paid CNN contributors along with Bade.


Bade tweeted, “Merry Impeachmas from the WaPo team!”

The tweet instantly went viral for all the wrong reasons, and numerous notable media analysts and political figures quickly weighed in on it by condemning the blatantly partisan celebration from a group of journalists that routinely portray themselves to be non-partisan.

Bade deleted the tweet approximately an hour after she tweeted it and then claimed in a subsequent tweet: “I’m deleting a tweeting tonight that is being misinterpreted by some as an endorsement of some kind. To be absolutely clear, we at the Post are merely glad we are getting a break for the holidays after a long 3 months. I will retweet the group photo w/ a better caption!”

By the time she cast blame on others for “misinterpret[ing]” her tweet, the damage had already been done as numerous news reports had been published and dozens of numerous notable figures had weighed in on the tweet.

White House Press Secretary and Communications Director Stephanie Grisham tweeted: “And on cue some reporters will circle the wagons & defend their colleagues at all costs. Calling out reporters for inappropriate behavior is labeled (by the media) an attack on the free press. Reporters claim they ‘hold the powerful accountable’. But who holds them accountable?”

Columnist Stephen Miller tweeted: “Do these people have any self awareness? Any at all?”

Joe Concha, media reporter at The Hill, tweeted: “Washington Post reporter and CNN political analyst Rachel Bade celebrates Impeachmas, which isn’t a horrible look for both news organizations or anything…”

Fox News Los Angeles reporter Bill Melugin tweeted: “What the hell were you thinking when you tweeted this? Some of us still care about ethics and unbiased reporting, and this garbage makes it harder for all of us by reinforcing a stereotype. Come on guys.”

Federalist writer Erielle Davidson commented on Bade’s follow-up tweet, writing: “LOL this is so sad”

Another notable account, which is very critical of Trump, tweeted: “I don’t really think it was misinterpreted at all, alas. And if you can’t convince someone like me, who is pretty mild about these things (and deeply anti-Trump), you sure as heck aren’t going to convince anyone to my political right.”

Immigration attorney Matthew Kolken mocked The Washington Post’s “Democracy Dies in Darkness” slogan, which was adopted by the newspaper at the start of the Trump administration, tweeting: “Democracy dies at happy hour.”

Trump campaign manager Brad Parscale tweeted: “Ladies & gentlemen, your fair and objective press corps in action! What a joke.
Media needs to stop acting like they are ‘impartial’.”

Fox News contributor Mollie Hemingway tweeted: “Washington Post celebrating the impeachment of their biggest political opponent. An impeachment that they worked so hard to achieve over several years.”

NewsBusters Managing Editor Curtis Houck comments on Bade’s follow up tweet, writing, “The best part is she thinks we’re misinterpreting her!”

CNN contributor and Trump campaign surrogate Steve Cortes tweeted: “Since the coward ‘journalists’ at WaPo deleted the tweet, re-posting the screenshot here. Far too many in corporate media ‘form a cabal of group-think ‘resistance’ advocates masquerading as reporters.'”

[soonernvolved]

www.zerohedge.com/political/heres-how-trump-using-impeachment-his-political-advantage

Here's How Trump Is Using Impeachment To His Political Advantage

Where was President Trump last night while House Dems (with the notable exception of Tulsi Gabbard) were voting to impeach him? He was in Battle Creek, Michigan - a critical swing state - doing what Trump does best: campaigning.

And understandably so. Polls suggest that Democratic Congressional leaders Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer were right to initially oppose impeachment, because at least half of voters - instead of being swayed by Pelosi's arguments about a sworn duty to defend the constitution - believe the Dems have wrongfully persecuted the president, and are ready to reelect him in 2020, even if there's no precedent for a president being reelected following impeachment.

According to Bloomberg News, not exactly a Trump-friendly outlet, recent polls have shown weakening support for Trump’s removal from office, and in states including Wisconsin, Michigan and Pennsylvania, data and interviews suggest impeachment has only galvanized support for President Trump.

At Trump's Merry Christmas rally, Trump came through with the attacks on local politicians, exposing the hypocrisy of local Rep. Debbie Dingell.



The message to the American people, as Trump put it in a tweet:

Later, he touted the fact that Republicans are 100% united behind him.

Trump's chances of being convicted in the Senate are essentially zero (though we're sure Mitch McConnell will enjoy the leverage that presiding over such a trial will inevitably bring). And on Wednesday night, as the Dems voted to impeach, Trump told supporters in Battle Creek exactly what they wanted to hear. That the Dems were the real lawbreakers, having abused the Constitutional process to persecute a president against whom they harbor an almost pathological antipathy.

"This lawless, partisan impeachment is a political suicide march for the Democratic party," Trump told supporters in Battle Creek, Michigan, a Republican stronghold that helped him win the traditionally Democratic state in 2016.

Across the battleground states of the midwest, polls and anecdotal evidence suggest Trump will have the upper hand in 2020. Some 52% of registered Wisconsin voters oppose Trump’s impeachment and removal from office, according to a recent Marquette University Law School poll. The amount who support impeachment is just 40%.

Independent voters across the state sing Trump's praises.

Trump also enjoys a receptive audience across swaths of Wisconsin. Dawn Anderson, 60, said that she and her husband are independents who voted for Trump in 2016 and can’t wait to do it again next year.

"I’m mad," she said in an interview outside a Woodman’s Markets grocery store in Kenosha. "He shouldn’t have to defend himself the way he is."

Trump won Wisconsin by some 22,000 votes in 2016, a margin of less than 1%. It was the first time a Republican won the state since 1984.

When discussing the impact of impeachment on Trump's share of the vote in Wisconsin, one Republican Party official in the state compared the impact of impeachment to the impact of the recall vote on Gov. Scott Walker, which also galvanized the state's conservatives to take a stand against Democrats who were believed to be unfairly persecuting another. People who never voted before registered and supported Walker because they were so annoyed at the Democrats.

NEVER MISS THE NEWS THAT MATTERS MOST
ZEROHEDGE DIRECTLY TO YOUR INBOX

Receive a daily recap featuring a curated list of must-read stories.

Your email...
In his office in Madison, Mark Jefferson, executive director of the Wisconsin Republican Party, pulled out a poster-sized map of the state from beneath a pile of Trump and Mike Pence merchandise. The map showed county-level voting results from the 2016 election for both Trump and Ron Johnson, the state’s Republican U.S. senator.

Jefferson pointed out areas where Johnson enjoyed a higher margin of victory over his opponent than Trump did - growth opportunities for the president in 2020, he said. The party tailors its message in part based on geography: rural voters may be more attracted to Trump’s unconventional approach to governing, while those in suburbs may be more interested in his policy achievements, Jefferson said.

He likened the impact of impeachment to former Wisconsin Governor Scott Walker’s 2012 re-election campaign, which followed a failed effort to recall the Republican.

"I took my car to a mechanic here in Dane County and he was an older guy about 70 years old, said he had never voted before in his life, but he went and voted this one time because he was so irritated with the recalls," Jefferson said. "I think there are going to be some people who are really turned off by this."

Indeed, earlier this week, President Trump once again showed off his innate talent for politics with his six-page letter to Nancy Pelosi, warning that the impeachment vote would backfire.

"He’s a counter-puncher," said Kelly Sadler, a spokeswoman for America First, the primary Super-PAC working on Trump’s re-election. "We’re being aggressive because we know that this is a highly partisan endeavor."

Finally, let's not forget:



Trump's party is firmly behind him, with the support of more than 9 in 10 Republicans, there isn't even one credible candidate coming forward to try and challenge Trump for the nomination despite the impeachment. That tells us everything we need to know about its credibility.

[soonernvolved]

www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/19/donald-trump-democrats-lose-by-default-if-they-dont-show-for-senate-trial/

President Donald Trump mocked Democrats on Thursday for voting to impeach him without delivering the articles of impeachment to the Senate.

“Now the Do-Nothing Party want to Do Nothing with the Articles and not deliver them to the Senate, but it’s Senate’s call!” Trump wrote on Twitter.




Trump noted it was the job of the Senate to set the time and place of an impeachment trial.

“If the Do-Nothing Democrats decide, in their great wisdom, not to show up, they would lose by Default!” he wrote.

Want Breaking News from Breitbart Direct to Your Inbox? Takes Just 2 Seconds...
Enter your email address
SIGN UP
Pelosi told reporters on Wednesday night after the impeachment vote she did not have a timeline for sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate, saying she was concerned about whether or not they would get a fair trial in a Republican-led Senate.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell is expected to respond to Pelosi’s process in a Senator floor speech on Thursday morning at 9:30 a.m.



Trump again marveled not a single House Republican voted to impeach him, signaling the overall partisan exercise undertaken by Pelosi.

“100 percent Republican Vote. That’s what people are talking about,” he wrote. “The Republicans are united like never before!”

I got Impeached last might without one Republican vote being cast with the Do Nothing Dems on their continuation of the greatest Witch Hunt in American history. Now the Do Nothing Party want to Do Nothing with the Articles & not deliver them to the Senate, but it’s Senate’s call!

— Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump) December 19, 2019

“The Senate shall set the time and place of the trial.” If the Do Nothing Democrats decide, in their great wisdom, not to show up, they would lose by Default!

— Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump) December 19, 2019

PRESIDENTIAL HARASSMENT!

— Donald J. Trump (@realdonaldtrump) December 19, 2019

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2019/12/19/outside-of-dc-nobody-paid-any-attention-to-impeachment/

Outside Of DC, Nobody Paid Any Attention To Impeachment
The way all facets of my city seemed to simply hum along, as if nothing very important was happening, kind of sums up this entire shambolic impeachment effort.
David MarcusBy David Marcus
DECEMBER 19, 2019
I had not planned to watch any of the impeachment debate or vote yesterday. My buddy’s moving company had a huge job on the Upper East Side, and he wanted me to drive the second truck. I like driving trucks, I like money, and since I had watched all of the intelligence and judiciary committee hearings I knew I would learn nothing new, and I knew how the vote would come out.

I listened to sports radio in the truck on the way to the job, and impeachment never came up. I chatted with doormen and supers, saw a guy get arrested, made inappropriate jokes with the guys on the crew. But it was only when I took to my phone for email or Twitter that I saw any mention of it. That’s not quite true — it was on the TV of a Crunch gym I walked by on 3rd Avenue.


The way all facets of my city seemed to simply hum along, as if nothing very important was happening kind of sums up this entire shambolic impeachment effort. As President Trump put it at a rally while the vote happened, “It doesn’t really feels like we are being impeached.” If an impeachment falls in the forest and nobody watches it, does it make history? The answer is yes, but it’s not quite the history Democrats are hoping to make.

This impeachment will and should be remembered as one of the most crass, cynical political ploys in American history. How do I know this? Speaker Nancy Pelosi told me so. She assured me just months ago that an impeachment on purely partisan lines was dangerous, and bad, and shouldn’t ever happen. She was right. So what happened?

The conventional wisdom as to why Pelosi opposed impeachment is that she worried about losing seats in purple districts, and I’m certain she does fear that. But she might fear something else as well. This, the first impeachment in which no member of the president’s party voted aye, is now Pelosi’s legacy. Being the first woman to be speaker of the House will pale in historical comparison to this impeachment almost certain to die in the Senate — if it gets there — also on purely partisan lines.

It could also get worse for Nancy. Should Trump win re-election after her waste-of-time impeachment, she will play the part of historical fool, rebuked by the American people for her hubris. The passionate speeches from Democrats will dissolve into mist, and history at best will record that their crime-free impeachment was crushed by the Senate, at worst, by America itself.


I can’t quite decide if it was fortune’s favor or plumb bad luck that a sudden snow squall hit New York at 4 p.m. yesterday. In any event, we got word that ice was falling from a crane at the drop off location, and with trucks all loaded, we could not access the building. “Bring her back to Dyker Heights, do the 7th Avenue parking shot,” my buddy said. So for two hours I drove a 20-foot box truck through Narnia, finally arriving back in my little red Brooklyn enclave.

With a click of a remote and a snap of a beer opening, I was suddenly back in it. All of the grave profound statements of sadness, the members speaking of their children, how that is who they must answer to in this grave time of national emergency. A national emergency that nobody talked or cared about in my vicinity all day. But there it was, on TV, big as life as again. Or so it seemed.

The Republicans in the House and the White House get this a little wrong as well. Their fears that this undermines the Constitution and now every president with a House of the opposing party will be impeached are probably unfounded. No purely partisan vote would ever get 67 senators to convict. The lesson here isn’t that an opposition House can do this, it’s that doing so is pointless and politically counterproductive.

The biggest story of this impeachment is what an insignificant story it is. In historical terms, it will help to define the legacies of a few politicians, Pelosi and Trump among them. But for those us walking, breathing, or driving trucks today? It was Wednesday. Little more, little less. Next year we will have an election. Like any other election, the American people will decide who they want to lead them.


People will have good or bad reasons to vote for or against this or that candidate, but nobody is going say to themselves, “I think Trump is doing a pretty good job, but the House Democrats impeached him so I better not vote for him.” The Democrats have giftwrapped an empty box for their base and want to pretend it is a Christmas present.

Maybe it is. Maybe this impeachment is a cathartic moment for the survivors of Hurricane Donald that hit Brooklyn in November 2016, but for most Americans is a mediocre show on a subscription service they don’t even have. It’s certainly no Disney Plus. And that is the real lesson of the impeachment of President Trump.

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2019/12/19/4-reasons-trumps-impeachment-is-the-weakest-in-u-s-history/

4 Reasons Trump’s Impeachment Is The Weakest In U.S. History
Critics of Trump note that no crime is necessary to impeach the president. While that's true, it speaks to how weak the Democrats' case against Trump is.
Mollie HemingwayBy Mollie Hemingway
DECEMBER 19, 2019
President Donald Trump joined Bill Clinton and Andrew Johnson in the club of impeached presidents Wednesday night. Like the other two, Trump will be acquitted by the Senate once the articles of impeachment are delivered.

The case for Trump’s impeachment is the weakest of the three. If we include Richard Nixon, who resigned on his way to impeachment, it’s the weakest of the four. Here’s why.

1. No Actual Crime

Previous impeachments at least had a crime. Andrew Johnson was the first U.S. president to be impeached. He faced 11 articles of impeachment, mostly built around his violation of the Tenure of Office Act of 1867. That act limited the power of presidents to fire employees in Senate-approved positions without the consent of the Senate. While the law was blatantly unconstitutional, Johnson did violate it by getting rid of Secretary of War Edwin Stanton.

Clinton was impeached for actual crimes that would get the rest of us in a whole lot of trouble. He was impeached for lying to a grand jury about his sexual relationship with Monica Lewinsky, false statements he’d made in an earlier deposition, and false statements he allowed his attorney to make about witness tampering. He was also impeached for obstructing justice in a case filed against him by encouraging Lewinsky to make a false statement and give false testimony, by hiding gifts he’d given to her, getting her a job in exchange for favorable testimony, attempted witness tampering with his secretary, and making false and misleading statements to jurors.

Nixon would have been impeached for obstructing an investigation into the unlawful break-in by his Committee to Re-Elect the President at the Watergate building and using the IRS and other agencies to violate others’ privacy.

By contrast, President Trump was not impeached for any recognizable crime. Critics of Trump note that no crime is necessary to impeach the president. While that’s true, it speaks to how weak the Democrats’ case against Trump is.

2. Punishing Trump for Exercising Constitutional Privileges

Trump is being impeached for abusing his power and for obstructing Congress. The first charge relates to complaints with how Trump handled foreign policy with Ukraine. In a friendly phone call with the Ukraine president, Trump asked for help investigating corruption issues in the country. Since some of the corruption touched on the family of Joe Biden, Democrats say Trump abused his power since Biden may be his 2020 election opponent.

Biden was the Obama administration’s point man in Ukraine when his son, Hunter, who had no expertise in the region or industry, was being paid $80,000 a month to sit on the board of an energy concern there. Setting aside that charge, the second charge is more troubling.

Democrats say that Trump’s decision to exercise his constitutional privilege to protect executive communication means he should be removed from office. That’s their second charge — obstruction of Congress. Many presidents have battled with Congress over their executive privilege and what it covers, but the idea that the debate is cause for impeachment is remarkably weak. If President Trump had defied a court order to turn over documents, that would make for a stronger case. But that hasn’t happened.

3. Bipartisan Opposition Instead of Bipartisan Support
Previous impeachments had bipartisan support. In Trump’s case, not a single Republican supported impeachment and several Democrats declined to support it. This is a remarkable turn of events from the time that impeachment first began to be lobbied for. The media and others in the resistance pushed impeachment within hours of Trump’s inauguration.


The initial plan was to spin up a special counsel that would deliver a report on collusion with Russia to steal the election. That dream fizzled with the inability to find a single American, much less anyone affiliated with the Trump campaign, who had done so. But at its onset, the plan allegedly had Republican support. Now, no Republicans are joining Rep. Adam Schiff and Rep. Jerry Nadler in their impeachment goals.

The plan was clearly to start with limited Republican support and grow from there. Instead, there was no growth in the ranks of Republican support. And while high percentages of Americans have told pollsters for months that they would like the Bad Orange Man impeached, there was no movement in those polls toward more support. Even more surprisingly, Trump’s approval ratings went up. This shows us that the bipartisan growth and momentum that was needed isn’t happening.

4. Failure to Do the Work
Previous impeachments and impeachment efforts required a great deal of work from congressional and other investigators. Some spent years investigating matters before bringing them to Congress.

In this case, impeachment was built entirely around a late July phone call with Ukraine’s president. The original impeachment effort was to say that the phone call violated campaign finance law. That charge morphed into claims of bribery, extortion, and obstruction of justice. By the time two articles of impeachment were drafted, it was clear that the case had lost focus.


After the vote, some Democrats suggested that the House could keep investigating the matter. Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi herself signaled a lack of confidence in her members’ work when she said that the House might not even send the articles over to the Senate for a trial. She claimed that was because of how Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell planned to run the trial, but he said he would use the same rules that were used in the Clinton trial.

House members also coordinated with Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer on how the Senate trial should go. He told television cameras that he would like to call witnesses to further investigate the underlying matter. This would only be necessary if the House didn’t bother to complete their investigation because they were rushing.

Democrats hope to tarnish Trump heading into 2020. While they have done their best, what they’ve mostly provided is the weakest impeachment case in U.S. history.

Mollie Ziegler Hemingway is a senior editor at The Federalist. She is Senior Journalism Fellow at Hillsdale College and a Fox News contributor. Follow her on Twitter at @mzhemingway
Photo The Guardian / YouTube

[soonernvolved]

thefederalist.com/2019/12/16/ukrainian-oligarch-paid-700000-to-the-husband-of-a-house-judiciary-committee-democrat/

Ukrainian Oligarch Paid $700,000 To The Husband Of A House Judiciary Committee Democrat
DECEMBER 16, 2019 By Chrissy Clark
Robert Powell, the husband of Rep. Debbie Mucarsel-Powell, D-Fla., reportedly took $700,000 from a Ukrainian oligarch named Igor Kolomoisky. Mucarsel-Powell sits on the House Judiciary Committee, the committee that drafted two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump for his alleged abuse of power with regards to Ukraine.

In 2018, the Daily Beast reported that a number of businesses linked to Kolomoisky hired Powell as an attorney. One of those firms paid Powell at least $700,000 over two years, according to public records.


The Miami Herald reported Powell was working for companies tied to Kolomoisky for 10 years. Powell made most of his money in the two years leading up to his wife’s election in 2018.

Kolomoisky has been accused of contract killings and embezzlement in the past. Yet, in 2018 when Mucarsel-Powell was running for her seat, she did not see her husband’s work as relevant to her campaign.

“Debbie Mucrasel-Powell is running for Congress, not her husband. To imply that Debbie has anything to do with her indirect shareholder of a parent company that once employed her husband is an enormous stretch,” said Michael Hernandez, senior communications advisor for her campaign in 2018.

While Mucrasel-Powell may have convinced her constituents that her husband’s work is unrelated, it is a clear conflict in the current impeachment of Trump. Mucarsel-Powell voted to impeach Trump.

The House has moved to impeach Trump over a July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. When the House initiated impeachment hearings, they were arguing Trump asked for a quid pro quo or potentially bribed the Ukrainian president. No evidence to corroborate those charges has been found, so now the House is charging the president with abuse of power and obstructing Congress in relation to the Ukrainian phone call.

And yet, no Democrats see a problem with one of their own committee members’ spouses doing business with a Ukrainian ogliarch. There has been no check on whether Mucrasel-Powell is benefitting from her husband’s work with a foreign power that interfered in the 2016 election.

There is a double standard in Mucrasel-Powell’s ability to impeach the President for his work in Ukraine, simultaneously, allowing her husband to earn money from Kolomoisky, a thug from the same foreign power.

[soonernvolved]

www.nationalreview.com/news/mcconnell-to-slam-impeachment-proceedings-in-speech-on-senate-floor/

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell will speak on the Senate floor on Thursday morning to slam the impeachment proceedings against President Trump, Politico reported.

McConnell is expected to describe the proceedings as “the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history,” and will claim that the two impeachment articles approved on Wednesday are “fundamentally unlike any articles that any prior House of Representatives has ever passed.”

“The framers built the Senate to provide stability…to keep partisan passions from boiling over,” McConnell will say. “Moments like this are why the United States Senate exists.”

The House approved the two articles, one for obstruction of Congress and another for abuse of power, in a vote cast largely along party lines. Two Democrats joined Republicans in voting against both articles and there were no Republican defectors.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and other Democrats have suggested they will delay sending the articles to the Senate in a bid to influence the parameters of the upcoming impeachment trial. House Majority Whip James Clyburn (D., S.C.) confirmed on CNN that he would be willing to retain the articles in the House, although he did not know if Pelosi was planning to do so.


“We would be crazy to walk in there knowing he’s [McConnell] set up a kangaroo court,” Clyburn said.

McConnell will accuse Democrats of backpedaling on impeachment, which was confirmed “when Speaker Pelosi suggested that House Democrats may be too afraid to even transmit their shoddy work product to the Senate.”