Categories
Brian mast Commitment democracy IMPEACHMENT Intelwars Jake Tapper Legs War

Jake Tapper questions rep’s ‘commitment’ to democracy after vet who lost his legs argued against impeachment

CNN anchor Jake Tapper questioned a GOP congressman’s “commitment” to democracy on Wednesday for arguing against impeaching President Donald Trump in a rushed vote, after noting that the representative lost both his legs while fighting overseas for the United States.

What are the details?

During a segment covering debates on the House floor ahead of the vote to impeach Trump for allegedly inciting an insurrection, Tapper told co-host Dana Bash, “Congressman Brian Mast, a Republican from Florida, who lost his legs, by the way, fighting for democracy abroad, although—I don’t know about his commitment to it here in the United States.”

Rep. Mast, a Purple Heart recipient and veteran of the Afghanistan War, tweeted in response, “I lost two legs for @jaketapper’s right to say whatever the hell he wants, but that free speech also protects the Republicans he is so eager to condemn for asking Constitutional questions about the election.”

In reaction to Tapper’s statement, BlazeTV’s Dave Rubin tweeted, “This might be the most vile thing ever said on cable news. Tapper was CNN’s last hope and he turned out to be the absolute worst.”

Mast, arguing against impeaching Trump, had asked rhetorically on the House floor earlier in the day if any of the people who stormed the Capitol building last week had been brought before the lower to chamber to testify as to “whether they did that because of our president.”

Bash, after promising to share evidence to the contrary, posted a video online showing a protester yelling outside the Capitol, insisting, “We were invited here! We were invited!…We were invited by the president of the United States!”

Mast tweeted after the impeachment vote, “In the debate of this very serious decision to impeach a President, Congress has not held one hearing or asked any questions. Congress cannot make an honest assessment without conducting an honest deliberation!”

The Democrat-led House acted swiftly Wednesday to vote on impeaching Trump in a 232-197 vote that saw ten Republicans vote in favor of the action.

Democrats have pressed for rushing to impeach the president before he leaves office next week, but the GOP-led Senate will not conduct its trial on the charge against Trump until he leaves office next week, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.).

Share
Categories
decision IMPEACHMENT Intelwars Mitch McConnell trump

Mitch McConnell says he ‘has not made a final decision’ on how he will vote on impeachment

Senator Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) has broken his silence on the second impeachment of President Donald Trump, telling colleagues in a note on Wednesday that he “has not made a final decision” on which way he will vote on the matter.

What are the details?

The Hill reported that according to an excerpt released by his office, McConnell wrote, “While the press has been full of speculation, I have not made a final decision on how I will vote and I intend to listen to the legal arguments when they are presented to the Senate.”

The Republican leader’s statement comes the day after The New York Times reported that McConnell “has told associates that he believes President Trump committed impeachable offenses and that he is pleased that Democrats are moving to impeach him, believing it will make it easier to purge [Trump] from the party.”

Following the House’s voted Wednesday to impeach Trump for “incitement of insurrection” over his actions and rhetoric surrounding the Jan. 6 attack on the Capitol building by a pro-Trump mob, McConnell issued a statement confirming earlier reports that he would not bring the Senate back in session prior to its scheduled Jan. 19 return—despite Democrats’ push for an emergency session ahead of Trump leaving office.

“Given the rules, procedures, and Senate precedents that govern presidential impeachment trials, there is simply no chance that a fair or serious trial could conclude before President-elect Biden is sworn in next week,” McConnell wrote, explaining, “the Senate has held three presidential impeachment trials. They have lasted 83 days, 37 days, and 21 days respectively.”

“Even if the Senate process were to begin this week, and move promptly, no final verdict would be reached until after President Trump had left office,” McConnell continued. “This is not a decision I am making; it is a fact. The President-elect himself stated last week that his inauguration on January 20 is the ‘quickest’ path for any change in the occupant of the presidency.”

McConnell led the GOP-controlled Senate’s successful quashing of House Democrats’ effort to remove Trump from office via impeachment last year, but the Republican leader has taken a different approach this time by not condemning impeachment as he did before.

CNN reported:

Several GOP sources said on Tuesday that if McConnell supports conviction, Trump almost certainly will be convicted by 67 senators in the impeachment trial. “If Mitch is a yes, he’s done,” said one Senate GOP source who asked not to be named.

Many Republican senators are staying quiet about whether they’ll back conviction — a sign that they, too, could support conviction in an effort to rid Trump from their party.

Share
Categories
Capitol riots Capitol siege House votes IMPEACHMENT Intelwars Trump Impeachment

BREAKING: House votes to impeach President Trump for a second time

The House of Representatives voted to impeach President Donald Trump Wednesday afternoon, charging him with “incitement of insurrection” and claiming that his rhetoric surrounding the 2020 election roused a mob of his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol last week as Congress convened to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory.

With the vote, Trump became the only president in United States history to be impeached for a second time, having now received the rebuke twice in the span of 13 months.

What are the details?

The resolution was approved by a vote of 232-197 after all Democratic members of the House and 10 Republicans voted in favor of impeaching the president.

House Democratic lawmakers introduced the single article of impeachment earlier this week, declaring that Trump “engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors by willfully inciting violence against the Government of the United States.”

“Incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to, among other objectives, interfere with the Joint Session’s solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President and Congressional personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts,” the resolution stated.

“President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United States and its institutions of Government. He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transition of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government. He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States,” the resolution added.

What’s the background?

Trump, who has maintained that the 2020 election was fraudulent, delivered a speech to hundreds of thousands of his supporters last Wednesday who were gathered in Washington, D.C., to protest the results of the election. In the speech, he once again claimed that the election was “rigged” and instructed his supporters to march over “to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make [their] voices heard.”

Some of his supporters, however, opted to violently fight with police, breach security perimeters, and invade the Capitol Building. The riot has resulted in the deaths of at least five people and injuries to many more.

In the aftermath of the shocking incident, several lawmakers on Capitol Hill from both parties have pinned blame on Trump for the violence.

Speaking with reporters for the first time since the incident on Tuesday, Trump slammed the move to impeach him a second time as “a continuation of the greatest witch hunt in the history of politics” and defended his speech as “totally appropriate.”

What’s next?

Now that the House has formally impeached the president, the resolution will be transmitted to the Senate for a trial. However, it is unclear whether such a trial will ever take place, since the current Republican-led Senate will not return to session until Jan. 19, just one day before Trump leaves office.

If the impeachment article is withheld until after Senate control flips to the Democrats on Jan. 20, a trial could potentially be held after Trump has already left office.

Share
Categories
brainwash divide and conquer Donald Trump elections are selections government is slavery Headline News IMPEACHMENT Intelwars invike the 25th amendment Laws Mainstream media mike pence no masters no rulers no slaves Politicians propaganda psyop public office rullin class wake up

House Advanced Impeachment Bill Asking Pence to Invoke 25th Amendment

Donald Trump only has 7 days left in office and yet house democrats are desperate to have him removed before his time is up. Congress has voted to advance a resolution calling on Vice President Mike Pence to initiate a process under the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.

Pence has already objected to the move, yet democrats continue to push forward. We should all be asking why democrats are so intent upon making sure Trump is impeached a second time. But because the mainstream media cannot be bothered to do anything but brainwash the public with propaganda, we may never know.

The resolution cleared its first hurdle in the House after a 222-204 vote on Tuesday, with lawmakers voting along party lines. However, while no Republicans openly sided with their rivals across the aisle, seven GOP lawmakers did not cast a vote for the bill but have yet to weigh in publicly to explain their decision. As Congress convened to vote, Vice President Pence issued a statement signaling that he would not take up Democrats’ request to invoke the 25th Amendment, saying the move would set a terrible precedent” and would not be “in the best interest of our Nation,” rendering the House resolution largely symbolic. –RT

As big of a deal as Democrats and the media are making this, it must be more than “largely symbolic.” Some say it’s so Trump cannot run for any public office again. But as we’ve been shown, elections are selections, the voters decide nothing and the ruling class with the help of central banking elitists will select who they want to rule over others. Others say it’s so Trump won’t incite violence anymore.  But again, Trump is now censored on every single platform and doesn’t have the opportunity to even speak to the public much for the next 7 days.

So what gives? This could just be all a part of the distraction, or it could be a part of this massive psyop the government is working on right now:

FBI Warns: Armed Protests Planned For All 50 State Capitols

This one is an obvious psyop and they are really attempting to push people to violence and that will result in more gun control and a police state that will make Nazi Germany look tame by comparison. Stay as far away from these types of events as possible.

Stay alert and know what is going on. Take cues from the mainstream media.  They are telling us what they want us all to think and are doing the bidding of the ruling class.  Make sure your preps are in order and you have what you might need.  Be ready for anything because the rulers will do everything they can to keep us as slaves even as the system of oppression they set up falls. In fact, as more figure this out, they could get more desperate.

 

The post House Advanced Impeachment Bill Asking Pence to Invoke 25th Amendment first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
brainwash divide and conquer Donald Trump elections are selections government is slavery Headline News IMPEACHMENT Intelwars invike the 25th amendment Laws Mainstream media mike pence no masters no rulers no slaves Politicians propaganda psyop public office rullin class wake up

House Advanced Impeachment Bill Asking Pence to Invoke 25th Amendment

Donald Trump only has 7 days left in office and yet house democrats are desperate to have him removed before his time is up. Congress has voted to advance a resolution calling on Vice President Mike Pence to initiate a process under the 25th Amendment to remove Trump from office.

Pence has already objected to the move, yet democrats continue to push forward. We should all be asking why democrats are so intent upon making sure Trump is impeached a second time. But because the mainstream media cannot be bothered to do anything but brainwash the public with propaganda, we may never know.

The resolution cleared its first hurdle in the House after a 222-204 vote on Tuesday, with lawmakers voting along party lines. However, while no Republicans openly sided with their rivals across the aisle, seven GOP lawmakers did not cast a vote for the bill but have yet to weigh in publicly to explain their decision. As Congress convened to vote, Vice President Pence issued a statement signaling that he would not take up Democrats’ request to invoke the 25th Amendment, saying the move would set a terrible precedent” and would not be “in the best interest of our Nation,” rendering the House resolution largely symbolic. –RT

As big of a deal as Democrats and the media are making this, it must be more than “largely symbolic.” Some say it’s so Trump cannot run for any public office again. But as we’ve been shown, elections are selections, the voters decide nothing and the ruling class with the help of central banking elitists will select who they want to rule over others. Others say it’s so Trump won’t incite violence anymore.  But again, Trump is now censored on every single platform and doesn’t have the opportunity to even speak to the public much for the next 7 days.

So what gives? This could just be all a part of the distraction, or it could be a part of this massive psyop the government is working on right now:

FBI Warns: Armed Protests Planned For All 50 State Capitols

This one is an obvious psyop and they are really attempting to push people to violence and that will result in more gun control and a police state that will make Nazi Germany look tame by comparison. Stay as far away from these types of events as possible.

Stay alert and know what is going on. Take cues from the mainstream media.  They are telling us what they want us all to think and are doing the bidding of the ruling class.  Make sure your preps are in order and you have what you might need.  Be ready for anything because the rulers will do everything they can to keep us as slaves even as the system of oppression they set up falls. In fact, as more figure this out, they could get more desperate.

 

The post House Advanced Impeachment Bill Asking Pence to Invoke 25th Amendment first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Capitol riots IMPEACHMENT Intelwars

WATCH LIVE: House debates ‘Incitement of Insurrection’ article of impeachment against President Trump following Capitol riot; vote expected Wednesday

Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives filed a single article of impeachment against President Donald Trump on Wednesday in the aftermath of the riot at the U.S. Capitol last Wednesday.

The impeachment article, “Incitement of Insurrection,” charges the president with inciting a mob of supporters to carry out a violent attack against Congress in an effort to stop the certification of the Electoral College vote that would officially make Joe Biden president-elect.

“Incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to, among other objectives, interfere with the Joint Session’s solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President and Congressional personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts,” the impeachment article states.

Naturally, House Democrats are on board with impeaching President Trump, but they’re not alone. Multiple House Republicans have said that they, too, will vote in support of impeachment.

Debate on the article of impeachment will happen during Wednesday’s session, with a vote expected Wednesday afternoon or evening. You can watch the proceedings live below:


U.S. House: Debate on Impeachment Resolution Against President Trump

www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
25th Amendment Congress IMPEACHMENT Intelwars mike pence Nancy Pelosi

Mike Pence tells Nancy Pelosi he will not invoke 25th Amendment against Trump, urges Congress not to ‘further divide’ nation

Vice President Mike Pence informed House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) Tuesday that he would not invoke the 25th Amendment of the Constitution to remove President Donald Trump from office, and urged Congress not to “further divide the nation” in reaction to last week’s attack on the Capitol building by a pro-Trump mob.

What are the details?

In a letter to the speaker, Pence wrote that “every American was shocked and saddened” by the attack, before telling Pelosi, “but now, with just eight days left in the President’s term, you and the Democratic Caucus are demanding that the Cabinet and I invoke the 25th Amendment. I do not believe such a course of action is in the best interest of our Nation or consistent with our Constitution.”

The vice president explained:

As you know full well, the 25th Amendment was designed to address Presidential incapacity or disability. Just a few months ago, when you introduced legislation to create a 25th Amendment Commission, you said, ‘[a] President’s fitness for office must be determined by science and facts.’ You said then that we must be ‘[v]ery respectful of not making a judgment on the basis of a comment or behavior that we don’t like, but based on a medical decision.’ Madam Speaker, you were right. Under our Constitution, the 25th Amendment is not a means of punishment or usurpation.

Pence went on to add, “I urge you and every member of Congress to avoid actions that would further divide and inflame the passions of the moment,” and reiterated that he would work to “ensure an orderly transition of power.”

The Washington Post reported that the vice president’s “letter came hours before the House was scheduled to vote on whether to officially call on him to declare Trump unfit for office and wrest control.”

Over the weekend, Pelosi had sent Pence what Politico referred to as “an ultimatum,” demanding that Pence invoke the 25th Amendment or the “Democrats will immediately move to force Trump from office for his role in inciting violent riots at the Capitol on [Jan. 6] linked to at least five deaths.”

The Democrat-controlled House is expected to vote Wednesday to impeach President Trump for a second time.

While the lower chamber’s first attempt to impeach the president in 2019 was shut down by the GOP-led Senate, some Republicans in the upper chamber — including Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) — are now reportedly receptive to Democrats’ efforts to oust Trump due to the president’s actions before and after the attack on the Capitol.

Share
Categories
Ilhan omar Ilhan omar impeach trump Impeach trump IMPEACHMENT Intelwars murderer

Rep. Ilhan Omar compares impeaching Trump to holding a ‘murderer’ accountable

Progressive Democratic Rep. Ilhan Omar (Minn.) recently argued that efforts to impeach President Donald Trump are similar to the need to “hold a murderer” accountable for their crimes.

Omar made the comments during an interview with MSNBC anchor Hallie Jackson on Tuesday, during which the congresswoman defended Democratic efforts to impeach the president, accusing him of rousing a mob of his supporters to storm the U.S. Capitol last week.

“I know that some have likened the reaction that we are getting, obviously, from the president and some of, you know, Democrats and some Republicans in Congress, to someone saying, you know, if we were to hold a murderer or someone who has committed violence accountable, there will be more. And to me, it is really the — having consequences for actions that act as a deterrent,” Omar said.

“We know that some have said he’s learned his lesson, some have also used childlike analogies to talk about he has put his hand on a stove and he is now burned and he won’t do it again, but this is not just about him. This is about fulfilling our oath of office. And if we do not take that serious [sic], I don’t know how we can continue to be members of Congress and say that we are to protect our country from domestic enemies,” she added.


Ilhan Omar: The Need to Impeach Trump Is Just Like the Need to ‘Hold a Murderer’ Accountable

youtu.be

Omar had previously argued that Republicans had “blood on their hands” as a result of the riot.

The shocking incident, which resulted in the deaths of five people and injuries to many more, took place last Wednesday after the president delivered an impassioned speech to hundreds of thousands of supporters gathered in Washington, D.C., asking them to “peacefully and patriotically” protest the results of the election.

Tragically, hundreds of the supporters opted to make their voices heard through violence by fighting with police, breaching security perimeters, and invading the Capitol where Congress had convened to certify President-elect Joe Biden’s Electoral College victory.

In his first public comments since last week, the president characterized the latest impeachment effort as a “continuation of the greatest witch hunt in the history of politics” and argued that continuing on with impeachment would only cause “tremendous anger.”

He also defended his speech before the violence, saying it was “totally appropriate.”

“If you read my speech — and many people have done it, and I’ve seen it both in the papers and in the media, on television — it has been analyzed, and people thought that what I said was totally appropriate,” he said. “They’ve analyzed my speech and my words and my final paragraph, my final sentence, and everybody to a T thought it was totally appropriate.”

Share
Categories
act with urgency ask questions capitol Capitol riots Censorship Communications CORRUPTION Headline News IMPEACHMENT inauguration Insurrection Intelwars Joe Biden left vs. right paradigm lie mike pence Nancy Pelosi public question authority Trump administration Trump should resign Twitter Washington D.C.

Democrats Plan To Pressure Pence To Remove Donald Trump

Source: The New York Times

Democrats will move to pressure vice president Mike Pence to invoke the 25th amendment and remove Donald Trump from office.  This seems ridiculous considering Trump has a mere 9 days left as president. So the real question should be: why bother?

If Joe Biden won a “free and fair election” and Trump has said that an “orderly” transfer of power will occur, why would democrats even need to waste their time trying to remove him from office? According to the Wall Street Journal, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi says she will introduce a resolution on Monday; “We will act with urgency.”

Mr. Pence isn’t expected to move forward with a 25th Amendment process, people familiar with his thinking said.

One article of impeachment that accuses Mr. Trump of inciting an insurrection was close to having enough support to pass the House. Meanwhile, more GOP lawmakers said Sunday Mr. Trump should resign. –Wall Street Journal

“In protecting our Constitution and our Democracy, we will act with urgency, because this President represents an imminent threat to both,” Pelosi said in a letter to her Democratic colleagues, according to CNN.  “As the days go by, the horror of the ongoing assault on our democracy perpetrated by this President is intensified and so is the immediate need for action.”

No matter which articles you read, the only reason to push through impeachment in the last 9 days of Trump’s administration is his “inciting” of the riots and protests on January 6th at the Capitol. Again, with only 9 days to go, there’s almost nothing Trump can do at this time and the social media giants have already taken out his means of communicating with the public.

Democrats are justifying the unprecedented push for a second impeachment on the grounds that after his most flagrant abuse of power yet, Trump presents a stark danger to the country and the world and must be removed immediately. Another motivating factor is that a conviction in a Senate trial would likely bar Trump from ever seeking public office again. They parry critiques that such a late-term impeachment would be academic by arguing that Trump’s crime against the Constitution cannot go unpunished. –CNN

If there is success in the impeachment of Trump, he will not be able to seek any public office ever again. Perhaps that’s the goal.  However, we all know elections are selections (that should be obvious by now) and they’ll put whoever they want in power, so what’s the point?

This might be all a distraction to cause more division. Keep your eyes on issues such as this.  There’s a bigger reason for the impeachment of Trump than they are telling us.  There’s a reason and we should be asking these questions.

The post Democrats Plan To Pressure Pence To Remove Donald Trump first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don’t Say We Didn’t Warn You.

Share
Categories
Capitol riots Capitol siege IMPEACHMENT Incitement Intelwars Trump Impeachment

House Democrats formally introduce article of impeachment against President Trump for ‘inciting violence against the government’

Four Democratic lawmakers in the House of Representatives on Monday formally introduced a single article of impeachment against President Donald Trump, claiming that he incited a mob of his supporters to launch an attack on the U.S. Capitol over what he has maintained are fraudulent election results.

Reps. David Cicilline (R.I.), Ted Lieu (Calif.), Jamie Raskin (Md.), and Jerrold Nadler (N.Y.) declared in the article that Trump “engaged in high crimes and misdemeanors by willfully inciting violence against the Government of the United States.”

“Incited by President Trump, members of the crowd he had addressed, in an attempt to, among other objectives, interfere with the Joint Session’s solemn constitutional duty to certify the results of the 2020 Presidential election, unlawfully breached and vandalized the Capitol, injured and killed law enforcement personnel, menaced Members of Congress, the Vice President and Congressional personnel, and engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts,” the impeachment article states.

In a fiery speech last Wednesday, the president spoke to hundreds of thousands of supporters gathered in Washington, D.C., to protest the results of the presidential election, calling the election “rigged” and rousing them to march over “to the Capitol building to peacefully and patriotically make [their] voices heard” as lawmakers convened to certify the Electoral College votes.

Tragically, what ensued was a riot, as hundreds of the president’s supporters fought with police, breached security perimeters, and invaded the Capitol, leading critics to blame the president for directly stirring up the violence. Many of the president’s supporters, however, have argued that the violent riot was disconnected from his protest of the election results.

“President Trump gravely endangered the security of the United states and its institutions of Government He threatened the integrity of the democratic system, interfered with the peaceful transfer of power, and imperiled a coequal branch of Government. He thereby betrayed his trust as President, to the manifest injury of the people of the United States,” the impeachment article continues.

In the article, the authors argue Trump “will remain a threat to national security, democracy, and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office.”

The introduction of the article came after Democratic House Speaker Nancy Pelosi hit Trump with an ultimatum last week: Resign immediately or face impeachment.

On Monday, Politico reported that Democrats in the House had secured enough votes to impeach Trump should it come to the floor this week.

The path following a House vote, however, remains unclear, as last week Republican Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Ky.) signaled that an impeachment trial in the chamber could not happen until after Trump is out of office.

Share
Categories
Capitol chaos Capitol riots Chris Christie IMPEACHMENT Intelwars President Trump

Chris Christie said he’d vote to impeach President Trump for inciting an insurrection at the Capitol

Chris Christie believes that President Donald Trump deserves to be impeached and removed from office for his actions leading up to the riot at the U.S. Capitol building last Wednesday.

While appearing on ABC’s “This Week,” Christie said Trump’s actions were an “impeachable offense,” and urged Republicans to “vote their conscience.”

When asked by host George Stephanopoulos if he had a vote in Congress if he’d impeach the president, Christie responded, “If I think it’s an impeachable offense, that’s exactly what I would do.”

“But I’m not in there,” Christie said. “If you want my opinion, that’s my opinion.”

“I think if inciting to insurrection isn’t [an impeachable offense], I don’t really know what it is,” Christie told Stephanopoulos.

“We had an incitement to riot at the United States Capitol,” Christie, a former U.S. attorney, said. “We had people killed, and to me there’s not a whole lot of question here.”

“Listen, I think they’re going to have to vote their conscience and look at what happened,” Christie said of Republicans in Congress.

“What I’ve heard from fellow Republicans is that they’ve had enough and that the president’s conduct quite frankly since [the riot] has gotten them upset,” Christie said.

Christie pointed out that the Democrats’ impeachment over the president’s phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky tarnished their credibility. “I will say to that the Democrats, by what they did earlier on Ukraine, have kind of cheapened this a little bit too,” Christie said.

Christie had been one of Trump’s closest political allies dating back to the 2016 presidential campaign, and as recently as September when the former Republican governor of New Jersey helped Trump prepare for a presidential debate against Joe Biden.

Christie joins other Republicans who have considered Trump to be impeached over his actions leading to the storming of the Capitol building, including Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey and Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse.

Also on Sunday, former Republican California governor Arnold Schwarzenegger blamed Trump for the violence at the Capitol, and called said he “will go down in history as the worst president ever.”

Share
Categories
25th Amendment ABC Adam kinzinger Capitol riots Donald Trump IMPEACHMENT Intelwars Resign

GOP congressman explains the alternative to impeaching Trump: ‘It makes him look as bad as he has been’

Rep. Adam Kinzinger (R-Ill.) on Sunday spoke out about the Democrat-led effort to impeach President Donald Trump following last week’s riots at the U.S. Capitol, explaining that he does not believe the effort is a “smart move.”

What’s the background?

After the riots, Democrats — and many Republicans — have placed blame for the violence on Trump. Now, Democrats are pushing an expedited effort to impeach Trump for the second time in less than two years for “willfully inciting violence.”

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Friday that impeachment proceedings would begin if Trump does not resign.

However, Trump will likely not be removed from office, according to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell. The Kentucky senator explained that, because of the Senate’s legislative calendar, the upper chamber does not have enough time to conduct a trial prior to President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20.

What did Kinzinger say?

The Illinois Republican explained on ABC “This Week” that impeaching Trump would be the right move if his presidential term were not about to end, but that impeaching him so close to the end of his administration would only “victimize” him and result in an effective exoneration.

“I honestly don’t think impeachment is the smart move because I think it victimizes Donald Trump again,” Kinzinger said.

“I think it would be the right move if we had more than basically 10 days left of the administration,” Kinzinger explained. “I mean, the fact that you mentioned we’re not going to be able to get through a trial. So, yeah, he’ll be impeached a second time, but also exonerated in theory a second time.”

Despite opposing impeachment, Kinzinger has made it clear that he wants Trump out of office — either through Trump’s resignation or by Vice President Mike Pence invoking the 25th Amendment.

In response to a question from show host George Stephanopoulos about the best “alternative” to impeachment, Kinzinger said, “I think the best thing for the country to heal would be for him to resign. The next best thing is the 25th Amendment.”

“It doesn’t victimize Donald Trump. It makes him look as bad as he has been here,” Kinzinger explained.

Still, Kinzinger said he would vote “the right way” if House Democrats bring articles of impeachment against Trump, which appears increasingly likely.


Trump’s resignation would be ‘the best thing for the country to heal’: Kinzinger | ABC News

www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
Capitol riots Constitution free speech IMPEACHMENT Intelwars jonathan turley

Liberal law professor warns of the damage Democrats would do to Constitution if they impeach Trump again

Jonathan Turley, a professor at George Washington University Law School and self-described “liberal,” warned Saturday that Democrats would damage the Constitution if they impeach President Donald Trump over the deadly riots at the U.S. Capitol last week.

What’s the background?

After the riots, Democrats, and many Republicans, placed blame for the violence on Trump. Now, Democrats are pushing an expedited effort to impeach Trump for a second time.

In fact, according to the Washington Examiner, 180 House Democrats support impeaching Trump for “willfully inciting violence.” Indeed, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said on Friday that if Trump does not resign, the House will immediately begin impeachment proceedings against him.

However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell indicated in a memo circulated among Senate Republicans that, even if the House does impeach Trump, the Senate will not have time to hold an adequate trial prior to President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration on Jan. 20.

What did Turley say?

According to the constitutional law professor, Democrats will “gut” the Constitution’s free speech protections and its impeachment standard if they move to impeach Trump over last week’s violence.

Turley explained in an essay for The Hill:

The author Franz Kafka once wrote, “My guiding principle is this. Guilt is never to be doubted.” Democrats suddenly appear close to adopting that standard into the Constitution as they prepare for a second impeachment of President Trump. With seeking his removal for incitement, Democrats would gut not only the impeachment standard but also free speech, all in a mad rush to remove Trump just days before his term ends.

Democrats are seeking to remove Trump on the basis of his remarks to supporters before the rioting at the Capitol. Like others, I condemned those remarks as he gave them, calling them reckless and wrong. I also opposed the challenges to electoral votes in Congress. But his address does not meet the definition for incitement under the criminal code. It would be viewed as protected speech by the Supreme Court.

Not only did Turley write that Democrats are “now seeking an impeachment for remarks covered by the First Amendment,” Turley explained many Democrats are guilty of the exact same accusations they are throwing at Trump.

“Democrats are pushing this dangerously vague standard while objecting to their own remarks given new meaning from critics. Conservatives have pointed to Maxine Waters asking her supporters to confront Republicans in restaurants, while Ayanna Pressley insisted amidst the violent marches last year that ‘there needs to be unrest in the streets,’ and Kamala Harris said ‘protesters should not let up’ even as some of those marches turned violent,” Turley wrote. “They can legitimately argue their rhetoric was not meant to be a call for violence, but this standard is filled with subjectivity.”

Turley went on to say the “damage” done to the Constitution if Democrats move forward with impeachment will “pale in comparison” to the damage caused by the U.S. Capitol riots.

“The damage caused by the rioters this week was enormous, however, it will pale in comparison to the damage from a new precedent of a snap impeachment for speech protected under the First Amendment. It is the very threat that the framers sought to avoid in crafting the impeachment standard,” Turley explained.

“In a process of deliberative judgment, the reference to a snap impeachment is a contradiction. In this new system, guilt is not doubted and innocence is not deliberated,” he continued. “This would do to the Constitution what the violent rioters did to the Capitol and leave it in tatters.”

Share
Categories
Donald Trump Fox News IMPEACHMENT Intelwars Pat Toomey

Top Republican senator declares President Trump committed ‘impeachable offenses’

Pennsylvania Sen. Pat Toomey became the highest ranking Republican senator on Saturday to publicly support accusations that President Donald Trump acted in ways that necessitate his impeachment.

Despite the fact that Trump will be leaving office in just 11 days, House Democrats are pushing an expedited effort to impeach Trump for a second time.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi said Friday that if Trump does not resign, the House would move forward to impeach him for incitement of insurrection. Indeed, the Washington Examiner reported Saturday that 180 House Democrats, the vast majority of their caucus, supports impeaching Trump for “willfully inciting violence.”

What did Toomey say?

Speaking on Fox News, Toomey, who is the top-ranking Republican on the Senate Banking Committee, said he believes that Trump committed “impeachable offenses.”

However, Toomey expressed concern that Democrats may politicize the situation, and that, even if the House does impeach Trump, he’s not certain the articles of impeachment would arrive to the Senate in time for the upper chamber to hold an adequate trial.

“I don’t know what they are going to send over and one of the things that I’m concerned about, frankly, is whether the House would completely politicize something,” Toomey said.

“I do think the president committed impeachable offenses, but I don’t know what’s going to land on the Senate floor if anything,” Toomey continued.

Toomey’s admission came one day after Sen. Ben Sasse (R-Iowa) revealed that he would “consider whatever articles” House Democrats pass, claiming Trump has “disregarded his oath of office.”

Sen. Lisa Murkowski (R-Alaska) also spoke out against Trump on Friday, demanding that he resign.

“I want him to resign. I want him out. He has caused enough damage,” she told the Anchorage Daily News.

Will Trump be impeached?

While the prospect of Trump becoming the first president in U.S. history to be twice impeached appears increasingly likely, Trump will probably not be removed from office prior to Inauguration Day.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell circulated a memo among Senate Republicans on Friday explaining that, because of the timeline between next week and President-elect Joe Biden’s inauguration, the Senate does not have enough time to hold a trial if the House approves articles of impeachment.

The memo explains, according to the Washington Post, “the Senate will not reconvene for substantive business until Jan. 19, which means the earliest possible date that impeachment trial proceedings can begin in the Senate is the day before President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated.”

Share
Categories
IMPEACHMENT Intelwars Mitch McConnell Second Senate Trial trump

McConnell signals that second impeachment trial won’t happen while Trump is still in office

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) issued a memo to his colleagues Friday spelling out how a second impeachment trial of President Donald Trump might be conducted in the upper chamber if House Democrats follow through with their vow to bring articles against the president next week.

One major detail sticks out in the plan: the soonest the Senate would even consider the matter would be the day before the president leaves office.

What are the details?

The Washington Post obtained the memo, and reported that the Senate “will not reconvene for substantive business until Jan. 19, which means the earliest possible date that impeachment trial proceedings can begin in the Senate is the day before President-elect Joe Biden is inaugurated.”

The outlet noted:

Although the Senate will hold two pro forma sessions next week, on Jan. 12 and Jan. 15, it is barred from conducting any kind of business during those days — including “beginning to act on received articles of impeachment from the House” — without agreement from all 100 senators. With a cadre of Trump-allied senators in the Republican conference, that unanimous consent is highly unlikely.

The Washington Examiner pointed out that this revelation means that McConnell is effectively handing the prospective new impeachment battle in the Senate to Democratic Sen. Chuck Schumer (N.Y.), who will take over as Senate Majority Leader after the inauguration due to Republicans losing control of the Senate earlier this week.

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) hailed McConnell’s move on Friday, tweeting, “Completely agree with @senatemajldr‘s analysis that the Senate cannot process the impeachment being contemplated by the House before January 20. I firmly believe impeachment would further destroy our ability to heal and start over.”

Democrats expressed outrage over McConnell’s timeline, with Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.)—who spearheaded the first impeachment of Trump—telling MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow, “If Mitch McConnell wants to move with expedition, he knows how to do it. And if he doesn’t, then he will bear the responsibility for whatever dangerous acts this president commits.”

Anything else?

If the second impeachment trial does occur, “there is also a question of who exactly would preside over a trial of a former president,” The Post stated.

The newspaper reported that according to McConnell’s memo, “Senate impeachment rules require Chief Justice John G. Roberts Jr. preside over a trial of a sitting president, but whether he would have to once Trump is no longer president is ‘unclear.'”

Share
Categories
Brad raffensperger Donald Trump election fraud Georgia IMPEACHMENT Intelwars neal katyal Washington Post

Former solicitor general claims new leaked audio of President Trump suggests crime, ‘impeachable offense’

President Donald Trump is being accused of committing “truly an impeachable offense” over the weekend after the Washington Post published audio in which Trump appeared to tell a top Georgia official to “find” the votes necessary to overturn Joe Biden’s victory in the Peach State.

What did Trump say in the leaked audio?

The Post published a brief, four-minute excerpt of what the newspaper reported was an hour-long phone conversation between Trump and Georgia Secretary of State Brad Raffensperger.

During the phone call, Trump repeatedly claimed that he won Georgia, which Raffensperger refuted.

“The people of Georgia are angry, the people in the country are angry,” Trump said. “And there’s nothing wrong with saying, you know, um, that you’ve recalculated.”

Raffensperger responded, “Well, Mr. President, the challenge that you have is, the data you have is wrong.”

At another point, Trump said, “So look. All I want to do is this. I just want to find 11,780 votes, which is one more than we have. Because we won the state.”

According to the Post, Trump also issued a “vague threat” to Raffensperger and his general counsel, saying that if they did not locate ballots in Fulton County that Trump claimed had been illegally destroyed, the state officials were opening themselves to criminal consequences.

“That’s a criminal offense,” Trump said. “And you can’t let that happen. That’s a big risk to you and to Ryan, your lawyer.”

What was the reaction?

The audio triggered new accusations against Trump, even by former top U.S. officials who suggested that Trump had engaged in criminal behavior during the phone call.

Neal Katyal, who served as acting solicitor general in the Obama administration, claimed on MSNBC that Trump sounded like a “mafia boss” on the call with Raffensperger.

“I’ve heard the extraordinary excerpts that the Washington Post has and, at least based on those excerpts, it sounds like Donald Trump is talking like mafia boss, and not a particularly smart mafia boss at that. This is the way that people in organized crime rings talk, and you see it there,” Katyal said.

Katyal claimed Trump’s actions on the call amount to “really, truly an impeachable offense.”

“This is, you know, the heart of what the abuse of power that our founders worried about so much — it’s, you know, the idea that a government official can use the powers of his office to try and stay in office and try and browbeat other officials that disagree with them,” Katyal said.

“So, one question is whether or not a high crime and misdemeanor was committed, certainly the tape makes it sound like it has. The second is whether or not there has been a criminal offense and the federal code 52 U.S.C. 20511 prohibits a federal official from interfering in a state election process,” he explained.

According to Katyal, the Department of Justice should take immediate action and open an investigation into Trump.

Share
Categories
Hillary Clinton Hunter biden IMPEACHMENT Intelwars Joe Biden Ukraine

The Bidens, Burisma, and Hillary: More back story on ‘Kyiv/Washington gravy train’

A year after the Democratic House voted to impeach President Donald Trump, we’re finding out more about witnesses in the impeachment hearings, the Biden family, Burisma Holdings, and now even Hillary Clinton’s campaign.

My book “Abuse of Power: Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump” explains that Burisma hired Democratic-leaning lobbying firm Blue Star Strategies, which contacted top State Department officials in February 2016 and dropped Hunter Biden’s name as a board member in attempting the make the case there is no evidence of corruption from the Ukrainian energy firm. The book details why Hunter Biden’s work for Burisma sparked State Department concerns from officials who thought it would complicate then-Vice President Joe Biden’s diplomacy in Ukraine.

Blue Star Strategies apparently kept working for its client in both the U.S. and Ukraine, according to new information released by government watchdog group Judicial Watch, which sheds some new light on the events of 2019 and the Democrats’ effort to oust Trump from office without an election.

On Sept. 3, 2016, State Department official George Kent sent an email to then-U.S. Ambassador to Ukraine Marie Yovanovitch and other officials stating that then-Ukraine Prosecutor General Yuriy Lutsenko told him Blue Star Strategies CEO Karen Tramontano offered him meeting with the Hillary Clinton’s presidential campaign. “He confirmed he had been pitched by Blue Star, not sought them out,” Kent’s email said.

“Blue Star CEO Tramontano’s pitch was that she could gain him access to high levels of the Clinton campaign,” the Kent email continued, adding, “and that was appealing – to meet the possible next Presidential Chief of Staff.”

Tramontano was a top White House official under former President Bill Clinton before heading Blue Star Strategies. Kent suggested Lutsenko not take the offer to be in contact with the campaign, suggesting it was unlikely he would gain such access so close to an election, according documents obtained by Judicial Watch through a Freedom of Information Act lawsuit. The subject line from Kent said, “Lutsenko now likely not to go to DC with Blue Star, other Ukr issue comments.” Kent said he talked to the prosecutor about the suspected corruption by Burisma, the Clinton Foundation, and “the media attention being paid at present to the Kyiv/Washington gravy train.”

In 2019, Democrats and media pundits claimed talking about Hunter Biden was a distraction from Trump’s impeachment. “Abuse of Power” contends that Trump’s impeachment was a distraction from the Biden family problems. This is particularly the case now that we know Hunter Biden is under federal investigation for other business deals — though probably not Burisma.

Both Kent and Yovanovitch were witnesses in the House Intelligence Committee impeachment hearings. Kent was the most forthcoming about his concerns regarding Hunter Biden’s job on the board of Burisma, getting paid $50,000 at a time the company was facing corruption allegations.

“This smoking gun email ties Hunter Biden’s Burisma’s lobbying operation to an influence-peddling operation involving the Clinton campaign during the 2016 election,” Judicial Watch President Tom Fitton said in a public statement. “This further confirms the Obama-Biden-Deep State targeting of President Trump was to cover-up and distract from their own corruption.”

Yovanovitch told the House committee in her October 2019 testimony that she knew little about Burisma and that “it just wasn’t a big issue.” In October, Judicial Watch released State Department records that include a briefing checklist of a February 2019 meeting in in Kyiv between Yovanovitch and Sally Painter, co-founder and chief operating officer of Blue Star Strategies.

Last Friday marked one year since House Democrats voted almost along party lines, with four defections on at least one of the two impeachment articles. But impeachment was the culmination of what Democrats sought to do since Trump was elected in 2016. When the Russia case fell apart, Trump’s imperfect phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky would suffice. As it turned out, the phone call gave Democrats an avenue for two political goals impeach Trump and (for the time being) protect the Bidens.

Share
Categories
Amy coney barrett IMPEACHMENT Intelwars Quid pro quo Supreme Court

Leftists already want Amy Coney Barrett impeached from SCOTUS if she doesn’t do what they demand

Amy Coney Barrett has officially been an associate justice on the Supreme Court for barely 24 hours, but liberals have already concocted scenarios demanding that she be impeached and removed from the high court.

Despite the fact that Barrett has not yet heard a single case, liberals want Barrett to recuse herself from a critical case with major election implications, or else be removed from the court.

“If Amy Barrett doesn’t recuse herself on the Pennsylvania voter suppression case going to the Supreme Court she should be impeached,” radio host Chip Franklin said Tuesday.

Franklin is referring to a case in which Pennsylvania Republicans have asked the Supreme Court to determine whether mail-in ballots received after Election Day should be counted.

As TheBlaze reported, the Supreme Court failed to make a determinative ruling last week — due, in part, to the court vacancy — which allowed a ruling by the Pennsylvania Supreme Court, which has a Democratic majority, to stand. The court had ruled that ballots received up to three days after Election Day should be counted, regardless of whether or not a ballot’s postmark is legible or even present.

Meanwhile, lawyers representing the bureau of elections for Luzerne County, Pennsylvania, filed a motion with the Supreme Court on Tuesday requesting that Barrett recuse herself from the case.

“This recusal is compelled since Justice Barrett’s ‘impartiality might reasonably be questioned’ … given the circumstances of her nomination and confirmation,” the attorneys said. The request was later rescinded because it had been filed without first consulting county leaders.

Others accused Barrett of engaging in a quid pro quo.

Norman Ornstein, a scholar who works at the American Enterprise Institute, claimed Trump appointed Barrett to “sway the election,” and Barrett’s participation in such a plot would warrant her impeachment.

“I repeat: If Barrett, acceding to a partisan swearing in at the White House, knowing that Trump explicitly said he nominated her to sway the election, does not recuse, it is an overt quid pro quo. The House should impeach her to leave an irrevocable stain on a dishonorable justice,” Ornstein wrote on Twitter.

Similarly, PBS host Alexander Heffner propagated the conspiracy theory that Barrett will interfere with the election, claiming that Barrett “refusing to recuse herself” from the Pennsylvania mail-in ballot case — which implies that Barrett has an obligation to recuse herself, which she most certainly does not — “would clearly amount to a quid pro quo for Trump’s re-election.”

“By voting against the Pennsylvania Supreme Court and interfering in state’s electoral practices, Barrett’s rank duplicity will be unmistakable,” Heffner claimed.

“This is when Democrats need to pounce on her ethically and legally dubious approach — to serve the interests of the Republican Party rather than uphold the law — and make the argument they were right about not seating her. Any public support for the nominee-turned-justice will crumble. And while there will not be a 2-3 majority to convict in the Senate, [House Speaker Nancy] Pelosi and House Democrats can swiftly impeach her,” he continued.

Heffner, however, provided zero evidence to back his claim that Barrett will “serve the interests of the Republican Party rather than uphold the law.”

In fact, Barrett made clear at her Senate confirmation hearings that the Constitution and law, not political ideology, is exactly what she is interested in serving.

Barrett will begin hearing oral arguments next week.

Share
Categories
Amy coney barrett IMPEACHMENT Intelwars Nancy Pelosi Supreme Court Supreme court nomination

Commentary: 5 reasons impeachment 2.0 may be more likely than you think

Even before President Donald Trump nominated Amy Coney Barrett to serve on the U.S. Supreme Court, numerous Democrats and liberal activist groups had floated the idea of another impeachment as a possible means to stall the Senate’s confirmation of a new justice for the high court.

As I note in my book, “Abuse of Power: Inside the Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump,” the previous impeachment push also seemed improbable and something House Democratic leadership wasn’t on board with — until they were.

Impeachment 2.0 would mean either re-impeaching Trump or bringing impeachment charges against Attorney General William Barr, according to reports. The endgame of course would not be removal of either — but rather stalling a confirmation.

To be sure, another impeachment is still unlikely. But it’s not as improbable as you might think. Here are five reasons you might see Democrats pull the trigger again.

No. 1: The Senate is obliged to start a trial, which could delay the SCOTUS confirmation

The point of an impeachment now would be to force a Senate trial in order to gum up the works and at least delay the Barrett confirmation process. If the confirmation process extends past Election Day and Joe Biden wins the election (and Democrats even perhaps win a majority in the Senate), a vote for Barrett becomes politically more difficult to hold, even for a lame-duck Republican majority.

If the House passed an impeachment — no matter how meritless — under the “Rules of Procedure and Practice in the Senate When Sitting on Impeachment Trials,” the Senate would be required to begin the trial by 1 p.m. on the day following the day that the House sends its impeachment “managers” to the Senate to present the articles of impeachment.

The rules also state the Senate shall “continue in session from day to day (Sundays excepted) after the trial shall commence (unless otherwise ordered by the Senate) until final judgment shall be rendered.” Moreover, all other “legislative and executive business” before the Senate is suspended during the conduct of the trial. Other business would include confirmations — even for a Supreme Court justice.

Of course, Senate Republicans could choose to make it a one- or two-day trial. But that would still delay things for the high court confirmation.

No. 2: Numbers would be there

Democratic leaders worked hard to whip their troops into line for the impeachment vote against Trump held in December. Sources interviewed in “Abuse of Power” said that as many as 10 to 15 moderate Democrats might have defected if the majority followed the original plan of an impeachment vote in October or November. That would have been an embarrassment for Democrats — but the bottom line is that the House majority would still have had the numbers.

If Democrats tried again to impeach — this time for the sole purpose of obstructing a Supreme Court confirmation — they would inevitably have a divided caucus. But there is almost nothing Democratic politicians and progressive activists take more seriously than stopping a Trump Supreme Court pick. Even if there are significantly more Democrats defecting than before, the majority party likely has the votes.

No. 3: Pelosi already caved once on impeachment

After suggesting she was open to re-impeaching President Donald Trump as an “arrow in our quiver” during an interview on ABC News, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi backtracked with familiar words.

“I don’t think he’s worth the trouble at this point,” she told reporters.

Some of us are old enough to remember that in March 2019, Pelosi asserted: “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country, and he’s just not worth it.”

That, incidentally, was before special counsel Robert Mueller’s report that cleared Trump of conspiracy with Russians. But Pelosi didn’t know at the time what the Mueller report would say. So it was rather astonishing that by September of the same year, she was gung-ho for impeachment over an improper phone call. The difference came when the far-left base — led by “The Squad” — as well as activist groups finally got to her. She lost control of her caucus and knew she had to move forward on impeachment for something — anything — to maintain her leadership.

Already, Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), who played an outsized role in pressuring Pelosi to move left, declared “all of the tools available to our disposal … all of these options should be entertained and on the table.”

No. 4: House impeachment manager on board

Moreover, one of the House impeachment managers is even on board with impeachment — and court-packing, for that matter. This could give the issue a little more gravity among Democrats.

During an interview on PBS, Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) one of the impeachment managers who also previously served as the Orlando police chief, seemed ready to go all in.

“The ability to move forward with whatever strategy, whether that’s impeachment, whether it’s after Vice President [Joe] Biden and Senator [Kamala] Harris win, they look at expanding the number of justices on the court, those are decisions that will be made by leadership,” Demings said.

No. 5: Who needs a crime?

The Constitution is indeed broad about the House’s power to impeach. Treason and bribery are clear enough, but the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” leaves plenty to the imagination. Still, by tradition, both Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached for alleged violations of the law. Richard Nixon would have been impeached for alleged violations of the law. Further, all eight federal judges removed by the Senate were impeached by the House for alleged violations of the law.

Using the tool of impeachment to stall a judicial confirmation in the Senate would be unprecedented. However, the 2019 Trump impeachment already burst through the long-established tradition of impeachment only for a defined statutory violation of the law.

Recall, Democrats pushing Trump’s impeachment over the Ukraine phone call first tried to sell it as a “quid pro quo” until focus groups were unimpressed. So Democrats tried for a time to push bribery or extortion — both were tough sells. Finally, House Democrats settled on “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress,” neither of which are crimes but sound really bad. The charges were broad enough not to have to define but easy enough to understand.

If Democrats impeached Trump — or someone else — the charge wouldn’t be for nominating a Supreme Court justice. They would find another reason, legal or not. The precedent was already set in the House that a violation of the law isn’t required to impeach someone.

Share
Categories
burn it down Civil War court reform division Donald Trump election Elizabeth Warren escalation Headline News IMPEACHMENT Intelwars left vs. right paradigm lie looting Mitch McConnell Nancy Pelosi promises Rioting Ruth Bader Ginsburg social media warnings this is war Threats Violence vows

Democrats Promise Violence: “This Is WAR!”

The death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg has prompted President Donald Trump to act quickly to secure a replacement before the election. That decision has upset the left and they are promising violence in increasingly concerning statements such as “this is war!”

We may not be able to escape a civil war in this country. There’s simply too much division. Even though Donald Trump has vowed to replace Ginsburg with another female justice, those on the left feel that it should be put off until after the election.

The fight over the 2017 Kavanaugh nomination already looked tame by comparison Sunday as Democrats geared up to block whomever President Trump picks to fill the seat left by the death of Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, according to the Washinton Times. 

Calls of “burn it down” and “this is war” raged on social media as activists held weekend protests outside Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell’s homes in Louisville, Kentucky, and Washington, D.C., and a rally outside the Supreme Court featuring Massachusetts Sen. Elizabeth Warren. “Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s body isn’t even cold and Mitch McConnell is dancing on her grave. This is war. Dems have powerful weapons. Now is the time to use them,” tweeted progressive Hollywood director and actor Rob Reiner.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Sunday warned that another impeachment attempt of Trump is on the table. They have also suggested making big changes and expanding the government, which is never a good idea for the public.

“If in fact, they are successful in placing a justice on the court, I think that what Democrats have to do, assuming that Biden is president and there is a Senate majority in for the Democrats, we need to think about court reform,” said former Attorney General Eric H. Holder Jr. on MSNBC. “And at a minimum, as part of that reform package, I think additional justices needed to be placed on the Supreme Court.”

The election has already been promised to be one of complete horror.

Brace For The Worst Election In U.S. History

Systematic Collapse of Society: Manufactured Election Crisis & FAMINE

Now is the time to ensure you have adequate protection. Violence appears inevitable and if we can trust anything, it’s that violence and looting and rioting will all be on the table this year no matter what. Brace yourselves, it will get uglier.

The post Democrats Promise Violence: “This Is WAR!” first appeared on SHTF Plan – When It Hits The Fan, Don't Say We Didn't Warn You.

Share
Categories
Donald trump interview Fox and Friends Fox News IMPEACHMENT Intelwars President Donald Trump Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme court nomination

Trump suggests Democrats? made up Justice Ginsburg’s reported dying wish about her replacement

President Donald Trump on Monday questioned the late Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s reported dying wish that her replacement on the Supreme Court not be nominated by Trump, wondering aloud if her alleged statement was “written by Adam Schiff, Schumer, or Pelosi.”

Ginsburg, 87, died Friday evening of complications from a long battle with pancreatic cancer. According to NPR, days before her death, she dictated a statement to her granddaughter Clara Spera, saying, “My most fervent wish is that I will not be replaced until a new president is installed.”

As Democrats are threatening to impeach President Donald Trump should he move forward with a Supreme Court nomination before the election, the president questioned whether those words were said by Ginsburg or, he suggested, written by Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of House Intelligence Committee and leader of the drive to impeach the president earlier this year, Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.), or Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.)

“I don’t know that she said that, or was that written out by Adam Schiff and Schumer and Pelosi?” Trump said during an interview on “Fox & Friends.”

“I would be more inclined to the second. That came out of the wind. It sounds so beautiful, but that sounds like a Schumer deal or maybe Pelosi or shifty Schiff … maybe she did and maybe she didn’t,” the president continued.

There is no evidence that the Democrats fabricated Ginsburg’s statement.

“Look, the bottom line is we won the election,” Trump said, adding, “We have an obligation to do what’s right and act as quickly as possible.”

The president on Monday declared his intention to nominate a judge to the Supreme Court on either Friday or Saturday, after funeral proceedings for Justice Ginsburg have concluded.

Democrats have threatened to restart impeachment proceedings against the president if he moves forward with a nominee. Asked by reporters Sunday evening whether impeachment was under consideration, Senate Minority Leader Schumer nodded in agreement as Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez said, “We must consider, again, all of the tools available to our disposal, and that all of these options should be entertained and on the table.”

Speaker Pelosi also suggested retaliatory impeachment is among Democrats’ “options.”

“We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now,” Pelosi said.

Trump predicts that any impeachment action taken by Democrats will help him win the election.

“I heard if I [nominate], they’re going to impeach me,” Trump said. “So they’re impeaching me for doing what constitutionally I have to do.”

“If they do that, we win all elections,” he said.

Share
Categories
Alexandria ocasio-cortez Chuck Schumer Donald Trump IMPEACHMENT Intelwars Supreme Court William Barr

Democrats threaten possible second Trump impeachment over GOP filling SCOTUS vacancy as Constitution allows

Powerful Democrats are floating impeachment — both of President Donald Trump and Attorney General William Barr — as one possible option to stop Trump from fulling his constitutional duty to nominate a judge to fill the Supreme Court vacancy or as a measure of retaliation if he proceeds with the nomination process.

What are Democrats saying?

Freshman Rep. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez (D-N.Y.), one of the most influential progressive lawmakers, confirmed Sunday that Democrats may consider impeachment against Trump and Barr.

During a press conference in New York Sunday evening, a reporter asked Ocasio-Cortez, “Congresswoman, you mentioned being open to all ideas to buy time. Would you be in support of potentially renewing talks of impeachment hearings either against the attorney general or the president?”

Ocasio-Cortez responded:

Well, you know, I believe that certainly there has been an enormous amount of law-breaking in the Trump administration. I believe that Attorney General Barr is unfit for office and that he has pursued potentially law-breaking behavior.

That being said, these are procedures and decisions that are largely up to House Democratic leadership. But I believe that also we must consider, again, all of the tools available to our disposal, and that all of these options should be entertained and on the table.

Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer (D-N.Y.), who was standing next to Ocasio-Cortez, nodded in agreement when she said impeachment should be on the table.

Anything else?

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi also admitted Sunday that retaliatory impeachment is on the table if Trump fills the Supreme Court vacancy prior to the election.

“Well, we have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now,” Pelosi said.

Pelosi’s comments, as well as those made by Ocasio-Cortez, only came after media members asked them whether Democrats would consider impeachment as a response to Trump.

Not only are Democrats considering impeachment, but many are advocating that, once Democrats regain control of the White House and Senate, they expand the number of Supreme Court justices and pack the court with ideological liberals.

How did Ginsburg feel?

As TheBlaze reported, Ruth Bader Ginsburg did not support court-packing or expanding the court.

“I have heard that there are some people on the Democratic side who would like to increase the number of judges. I think that was a bad idea when President Franklin Delano Roosevelt tried to pack the court,” Ginsburg said in an interview with NPR last July.

“You mention before the quote of appearing partisan. Well, if anything would make the court appear partisan then it would be that, one side saying, ‘When we’re in power we’re going to enlarge the number of judges so we’ll have more people who will vote the way we want them to,'” she added.

Share
Categories
ABC News Donald Trump George Stephanopoulos IMPEACHMENT Intelwars Mainstream media Media Bias Nancy Pelosi Ruth Bader Ginsburg Supreme Court

Pelosi admits retaliatory impeachment on table if Trump fills SCOTUS vacancy: ‘We have our options’

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi revealed Sunday that impeaching President Donald Trump is one option of retaliation Democrats are considering if the president fills the Supreme Court vacancy left by Ruth Bader Ginsburg’s death.

During an interview on ABC “This Week,” show host George Stephanopoulos — who served as a senior adviser to former President Bill Clinton in the mid-1990s — floated the possibility that Democrats respond to Trump filling the vacancy during an election year by once again pursuing his impeachment.

Stephanopoulos said, “Some have mentioned the possibility, if they try to push through a nominee in a lame duck session, that you and the House could move to impeach President Trump or Attorney General Barr as a way of stalling and preventing the Senate from acting on this nomination.”

Pelosi responded by refusing to rule out impeachment as a retaliatory measure.

“Well, we have our options. We have arrows in our quiver that I’m not about to discuss right now,” she told Stephanopoulos.

The ABC News host then followed up, “But to clear, you’re not taking any arrows out of your quiver, you’re not ruling anything out?”

Pelosi responded:

Good morning. Sunday morning. We have a responsibility, we take an oath to protect and defend the Constitution of the United States. We have a responsibility to meet the needs of the American people, uh, that, uh, is, uh, when the we weigh the equities of protecting our democracy requires us to use every arrow in our quiver.

House Democrats, who hold a majority in the lower chamber, voted to impeach Trump last December. However, the effort, widely seen as driven by partisan politics, ultimately failed once it reached the Senate.

The Senate officially acquitted Trump in February.

What else are Democrats threatening?

Aware that Trump has the possibility to nominate his third Supreme Court justice, altering the ideological composition of the Supreme Court for a generation, Democrats are furiously fighting back against a nomination prior to Election Day.

However, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has already said the Senate will vote on Trump’s nominee prior to the election, and the president has said that Republicans will act “without delay” to fulfill their constitutional duty by filling the vacancy.

In response, Democrats are threatening to expand the Supreme Court — and the federal judiciary — and pack the courts with liberal justices.

“If he holds a vote in 2020, we pack the court in 2021. It’s that simple,” Rep. Joe Kennedy (D-Mass.) said Saturday.


‘We have our options’ if GOP push a SCOTUS nomination before election: Speaker Pelosi | ABC News

www.youtube.com

Share
Categories
adam schiff Alexander vindman IMPEACHMENT Intelwars

Commentary: Turns out ‘never-Trumper’ Lt. Col. Vindman’s problem with elected governance is what set impeachment in motion

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, who likely set impeachment in motion, recently declared himself a “never-Trumper” in an interview with NBC News — though he claims it’s a newfound faith, and with some irony is blasting the White House for a leak.

Readers of “Abuse of Power: Inside The Three-Year Campaign to Impeach Donald Trump” will find the Army officer and National Security Council official was almost certainly the source to the anonymous whistleblower (named in the book). Further, the book details how Vindman also had trouble with the notion that a duly elected president sets foreign policy.

“I think it is appropriate to question his role. You don’t question his service. We thank him for his service to the nation and his service in uniform,” Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.) said in an interview for the book released last month. “But it is appropriate to question his testimony and his participation in this. We have finished this entire thing, and no one knows yet who is the whistleblower.”

Indeed, during his House Intelligence Committee testimony, Rep. Devin Nunes (R-Calif.) asked, “Lt. Colonel Vindman, did you discuss the July 25 phone call with anyone outside the White House on July 25 or the 26, and if so, with whom?”

Vindman answered: “I spoke to two individuals with regards to providing some sort of readout of the call.”

Nunes asked the obvious follow-up question, and Vindman responded, “Department of State, Deputy Assistant Secretary George Kent, who is responsible for the portfolio of Eastern Europe, including Ukraine and an individual in the intelligence community.”

Nunes, the committee’s ranking Republican, asked for the intelligence agency before committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) cut him off. “I want to make sure there is no effort to out the whistleblower,” Schiff said.

The oddity was that Schiff and Vindman professed they did not know who the whistleblower was. Yet, Schiff feared Vindman would reveal the identity of someone the lieutenant colonel didn’t know.

“When you watched the testimony in the House, it was interesting to see how Adam Schiff tried to block Alexander Vindman from answering questions,” Blackburn said to me. “He admitted that he had talked to people outside of the White House. And, then Schiff would not allow him to answer who those individuals were.”

Based on Vindman’s testimony, it was fairly clear the whistleblower either got the information from Vindman or someone who talked to Vindman about the July 25, 2019, call between Trump and Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

Odd twist

So it’s an odd twist that during his NBC News interview, Vindman accused the White House of leaking information to congressional Republicans about the Ukrainian government offering him a job as the country’s defense minister.

During the same interview aired Monday, Vindman said of the Trump-Zelensky conversation, “I suspected, as soon as I heard the call, that if this became public that the president would be impeached.” What a coincidence that it became public after Vindman talked to someone in the intelligence community who happens to be as anonymous as the whistleblower.

Vindman added to NBC, “It seemed wrong, it seemed corrupt, and frankly I suspect that it could have been criminal.” Even this was a departure from his House testimony, where he declined to say the call constituted bribery. This came as Democrats tried to use bribery in rhetoric before realizing they had too weak a case when it wasn’t clear if Trump was supposedly bribing Zelensky or Zelensky was supposedly bribing Trump.

Before Vindman’s public testimony where he nearly admitted to informing the whistleblower, it was Vindman’s secret testimony in the SCIF that Rep. Thomas Massie, a Kentucky Republican and certainly no Trump loyalist, said “crystalized” the impeachment debate for him.

“I couldn’t look away” from the Vindman SCIF testimony, Massie recalled in an interview for “Abuse of Power.”

“Lt. Col. Vindman could never allow the elected government to get in the way of his policy goals,” Massie recalled. “He was agitated that the president didn’t follow his talking points.”

Vindman told the three House committees behind closed doors he began to get uncomfortable when Trump veered from talking points.

“I started to get, I guess — this was not in the preparational material that I had offered,” Vindman said.

Vindman went on to say, according to the transcript of the SCIF testimony, “he’s the president of the United States, he can sets [sic] the policy — but I kind of saw increasing risk as we moved on.”

Massie said he heard Vindman say, “kind of sets the policy,” not “can sets the policy.” That makes a big difference to a constitutionalist like Massie, who added, “I was certain I heard ‘kind of.’ They could have screwed it up. I’m not certain they didn’t change it deliberately.” Either way, Massie’s memory would be grammatically correct.

Vindman’s transparent focus on talking points were ultimately telling of what only the third presidential impeachment in American history really boiled down to — a policy disagreement.

“This is why the whole thing is a policy difference. He was upset with the president, that the president had twice chosen to not follow his talking points,” Blackburn said of Vindman. “This is something that upset him. And the commander-in-chief has the ability to set foreign policy.”

Share