27 TAKEAWAYS FROM THE MUELLER HEARING

Re: 27 TAKEAWAYS FROM THE MUELLER HEARING

Postby thelivyjr » Sat Aug 10, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 9, 2019 at 7:00 pm

Paul Plante says:

And talk about an intentionally convoluted mess being thrown in our faces by the Democrats in a bid to confuse us and distract us and mislead us as we head into the 2020 presidential election season, where according to an article in The Daily Beast entitled “A Majority of House Democrats Now Back Trump Impeachment Inquiry” by Julia Arciga on 1 August 2019, and this despite having no evidence to support Articles of Impeachment, or even having Articles of Impeachment to consider, notwithstanding all of that, which is a BAD SIGN for our Constitutional rights should any of them actually become president, the issue of impeaching Donald Trump has gained steam among Senate Democrats with 12 of the chamber’s 47 Democrats publicly backing the effort and with nearly half of the dozen supporters being unsurprisingly the 2020 Democrat contenders Elizabeth Warren (D-MA), Bernie Sanders (I-VT), Amy Klobuchar (D-MN), Cory Booker (D-N.J.), and Kirsten Gillibrand (D-N.Y.), in order to hand the 2020 presidential election to a Democrat by smearing and slandering and libeling Trump, who right now is a helpless spectator to the process, which in turn makes a mockery of the uniquely American Constitutional concept of DUE PROCESS of law coupled with the right to face one’s accusers, we now have the CNN article “Nadler presses ahead with impeachment probe as Pelosi keeps door open” by Manu Raju and Jeremy Herb on 8 August 2019 to consider, as the Democrats go high-speed here in an effort to bury us under such a mountain of bull**** we will never see the sun again, to wit:

The House Judiciary Committee is now engaged in a full-blown investigation and legal fight with the goal of deciding whether to recommend articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump by the end of the year, according to Democratic officials involved in the effort.

end quotes

So, what is up with this now?

How many more “full-blown” investigations will we need before we have even a small clue as to whether or not Trump is going to be impeached?

And what purpose have any of these other multitude of investigations served, starting with the Mueller investigation, which according to Mueller himself on 24 July 2019, was intended to investigate Trump, himself, to wit:

NADLER: I will now introduce today’s witness.

Robert Mueller served as director of the FBI from 2001 to 2013, and he most recently served as special counsel in the Department of Justice, overseeing the investigation into Russian interference in the 2016 special election.

Now, if you would please rise, I will begin by swearing you in.

Would you raise your right hand, please?

Left hand.

Do you swear or affirm under penalty of perjury that the testimony you are about to give is true and correct to the best of your knowledge, information and belief, so help you God?

Let the record show the witness answered in the affirmative.

Thank you, and please be seated.

MUELLER: Good morning, Chairman Nadler, the — and Ranking Member Collins, and the members of the committee.

As you know, in May 2017, the acting attorney general asked me to serve as special counsel.

The order appointing me as special counsel directed our office to investigate Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

This included investigating any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign.

end quotes

Later, Mr. Mueller made it very clear that anything that did not relate to dirt on Trump was not going to be discussed, to wit:

For example, I am unable to address questions about the initial opening of the FBI’s Russia investigation which occurred months before my appointment or matters related to the so-called Steele dossier.

end quotes

The Steele dossier, which has subsequently been discredited, is an important piece of evidence here, because it is what started all these investigations into Trump in the first place, as we can clearly see by going back to 20 March 2017, when the smarmy and unctuous Democrat congressman from Hollywood, California Adam Schiff was making a speech to Jimmy Comey during that hearing where Comey was supposed to be the witness, as follows:

And I also want to thank Director Comey and Admiral Rogers for appearing before us today as the committee holds its first open hearing into the interference campaign waged against our 2016 presidential election.

Last summer at the height of a bitterly contested and hugely consequential presidential campaign, a foreign adversarial power intervened in an effort to weaken our democracy and to influence the outcome for one candidate and against the other.

That foreign adversary was of course Russia and it activated through its intelligence agencies and upon the direct instructions of its autocratic ruler Vladimir Putin, in order to help Donald J. Trump become the 45th president of the United States.

We will never know whether the Russian intervention was determinative in such a close election.

Indeed, it is unknowable in a campaign to which so many small changes could have dictated a different result.

More importantly, and for the purposes of our investigation, it simply does not matter.

What does matter is this, the Russians successfully meddled in our democracy and our intelligence agencies have concluded they will do so again.

What is striking here is the degree to which the Russians were willing to undertake such an audacious and risky action against the most powerful nation on Earth.

We know a lot about the Russian operation, about the way they amplified the damage their hacking and dumping of stolen documents was causing through the use of slick propaganda like R.T., the Kremlin’s media arm.

But there is a lot we don’t know.

Most important, we do not yet know whether the Russians have the help of U.S. citizens including people associated with the Trump campaign.

Many of the Trump’s campaign personnel, including the president himself, have ties to Russia and Russian interests.

This is of course no crime.

On the other hand, if the Trump campaign or anyone associated with it aided or abetted the Russians, it would not only be a serious crime, it would also represent one of the most shocking betrayals of democracy in history.

Today, most of my Democratic colleagues will be exploring with the witnesses the potential involvement of U.S. persons in the Russian attack on our democracy.

It is not that we feel the other issues are less important; they are very important, but rather because this issue is least understood by the public.

We realize of course that the witnesses may not be able to answer many of the questions in open session.

They may or may not be willing to disclose even whether there is an investigation.

But we hope to present to you directors and the public why we believe this is a matter of such gravity that it demands a thorough investigation not only by us as we intend to do but by the FBI as well.

Let me give you a short preview of what I expect you’ll be asked by our members.

Whether the Russian active measures campaign began as nothing more than an attempt to gather intelligence or was always intended to be more than that, we do not know and is one of the questions we hope to answer.

But we do know this; the months of July and August 2016 appear to have been pivotal.

It was at this time the Russians began using the information they had stolen to help Donald Trump and harm Hillary Clinton.

And so the question is, why?

What was happening in July, August of last year and were U.S. persons involved?

Here are some of the matters drawn from public sources alone since that is all we can discuss in this setting that concern us and we believe should concern all Americans.

In early July, Carter Page, someone candidate Trump identified as one of his national security advisors, travels to Moscow on a trip approved by the Trump campaign.

While in Moscow, he gives a speech critical of the United States and other western countries for what he believes is a hypocritical focus on democratization and efforts to fight corruption.

According to Christopher Steele, a British — a former British intelligence officer, who is reportedly held in high regard by U.S. intelligence, Russian sources tell him that Page has also had a secret meeting with Igor Sechin, CEO of the Russian gas giant, Rosneft.

Sechin is reported to be a former KGB agent and close friend of Putin’s.

According to Steele’s Russian sources, Page is offered brokerage fees by such an on a deal involving a 19 percent share of the company.

According to Reuters, the sale of a 19.5 percent share of Rosneft later takes place with unknown purchasers and unknown brokerage fees.

Also, according to Steele’s Russian sources, the campaign has offered documents damaging to Hillary Clinton which the Russians would publish through an outlet that gives them deniability like WikiLeaks.

end quotes

The Steele dossier also came up in questioning of Comey on 20 March 2017 by Joaquin Castro, born September 16, 1974, who is a Harvard law school grad and an American Democratic politician who has served in the United States House of Representatives for Texas’s 20th congressional district since 2013, to wit:

CASTRO: Thank you.

And thank you gentlemen for your service to the nation and for your testimony today.

I wanna take a moment to turn the Christopher Steele dossier, which was first mentioned in the media just before the election and published in full by media outlets in January.

My focus today is to explore how many claims within Steele’s dossier are looking more and more likely, as though they are accurate.

First, let me ask you, can you describe who Christopher Steele is?

COMEY: No, I’m not gonna comment on that.

CASTRO: Are you investigating the claims made in the dossier?

COMEY: I’m not gonna comment on that, Mr. Castro.

CASTRO: OK.

Well, the reputation of the author, Christopher Steele is a former accomplished British intelligence officer with a career built on following Russia is important.

This is not someone who doesn’t know how to run a source and not someone without contacts.

The allegations it raises about President Trump’s campaign aids connections to Russians, when overlaid with known established facts and timelines from the 2016 campaign are very revealing.

end quotes

And it came up again in the questioning of Comey on 20 March 2017 by Democrat André D. Carson, born October 16, 1974, the U.S. Representative for Indiana’s 7th congressional district, as follows:

In fact, the dossier written by former MI6 agent, Christopher Steele alleges that Trump agreed to sideline Russian intervention in Ukraine as a campaign issue, which is effectively a priority for Vladimir Putin.

There’s a lot in the dossier that is yet to be proven, but increasingly as we’ll hear throughout the day, allegations are checking out.

And this one seems to be as accurate as they come.

end quotes

Yeah, right, Andre!

So the Steele dossier was in fact a huge component that set this whole show in motion, but since it has been discredited, we can no longer talk about it!

So, getting back to Bob Mueller, and the pending impeachment of Donald Trump for beating Hillary Clinton in 2016, in his own words, in May of 2017, fifty-eight (58) days after Jimmy Comey testified before the House Intelligence Committee where the Steele dossier was an item of discussion by the Democrats as evidence of alleged wrong-doing by Trump, Rod Rosenstein of the Department of Justice asked Bob Mueller to specifically investigate any links or coordination between the Russian government and individuals associated with the Trump campaign, and in his own words on 24 July 2019, this is what Bob Mueller had to say on that subject, to wit:

Certain of the charges we brought remain pending today.

And for those matters I stress that the indictments contain allegations and every defendant is presumed innocent unless and until proven guilty.

end quotes

Ah, well, except for Trump, of course – nobody really likes Trump, so he shouldn’t get treated like other people who are nice – Trump, in the words of the Democrats, is presumed guilty because he is Trump.

Getting back to Bob Mueller on 24 July 2019:

As you know, I made a few limited remarks — limited remarks about our report when we closed the special counsel’s office in May of this year.

There are certain points that bear emphasis.

First, our investigation found that the Russian government interfered in our election in sweeping and systematic fashion.

Second, the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities.

We did not address collusion, which is not a legal term; rather we focused on whether the evidence was sufficient to charge any member of the campaign with taking part in a criminal conspiracy, and there was not.

end quotes

So, for the umpteenth time here, folks, NOTHING HAPPENED!

Whatever word you want to use, there was NO conspiracy between team Trump and the Russians, nor was there collusion, so there were no “crimes” for Trump to cover up, which takes us back to Bob Mueller’s sworn testimony on 24 July 2019, to wit:

Third, our investigation of efforts to obstruct the investigation and lie to investigators was of critical importance.

Obstruction of justice strikes at the core of the government’s effort to find the truth and to hold wrongdoers accountable.

end quotes

And here, it must be considered that the government’s efforts to find the truth led to the truth that there was NO COLLUSION between Trump and the Russians, which then takes us back to Bob Mueller on 24 July 2019, as follows:

Finally, as described in Volume 2 of our report, we investigated a series of actions by the president towards the investigation.

Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a decision as to whether the president committed a crime.

That was our decision then and it remains our decision today.

end quotes

Ah. yes, “principles of FAIRNESS,” people, where “fairness” is the quality of making judgments that are free from discrimination.

And there is where this whole charade goes south in a hurry – where Trump is already guilty in the minds of the Democrats who are hurrying this impeachment train along with all of their multitude of hearings, which so far haven’t produced any evidence to support actually impeaching Trump as opposed to simply vilifying him, the concept of “fairness” is out the window, and that people, is about as UN-AMERICAN as this charade can get.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-164960
thelivyjr
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14675
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: 27 TAKEAWAYS FROM THE MUELLER HEARING

Postby thelivyjr » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 11, 2019 at 7:19 pm

Paul Plante says:

And before the Democrats take us any further into this FARCE they are trying to con and gull us with, as if we were all totally brain-dead, and would therefore believe anything a Democrat told us without question, in their bid to totally discredit Trump as a criminal and Russian dupe, while portraying themselves as our only remaining hope to keep Putin and his pack of Russians from totally crushing our democracy, let’s cut right to the chase and get to this existential question confronting us as a nation and as a people, to wit: did Trump obstruct justice?

And to get that answer, let’s simply drop back in time as we can do in here thanks to the goodness of the heart of Al Gore, who gifted we, the American people with the internet, to 24 July 2019, and the sworn testimony of special prosecutor Bob Mueller before the Judiciary Committee of Democrat Jerrold Nadler, and let’s start with the cross-examination of Mr. Mueller by Democrat Susan Ellen “Zoe” Lofgren, born December 21, 1947, who is an American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for California’s 19th congressional district, a Bay Area resident who attended Gunn High School (1966) in Palo Alto, and while in high school, was a member of the Junior State of America, a student-run political debate, activism, and student governance organization, earning her B.A. degree at Stanford University (1970) and a Juris Doctor degree at Santa Clara University School of Law (1975), who after graduating from Stanford worked as a House Judiciary Committee staffer for Congressman Don Edwards when the committee prepared articles of impeachment against President Richard Nixon, as follows:

LOFGREN: Well, Mr. Mueller, I appreciate your being here and your report.

From your testimony and the report, I think the American people have learned several things.

First, the Russians wanted Trump to win.

The Russians hacked the DNC and they got the Democratic game plan for the election.

Russian (sic) campaign chairmen met with Russian agents and repeatedly gave them internal data, polling and messaging in the battleground states.

So while the Russians were buying ads and creating propaganda to influence the outcome of the election, they were armed with inside information that they had stolen through hacking from the DNC and that they had been given by the Trump campaign chairman, Mr. Manafort.

My colleagues will probe the efforts undertaken to keep this information from becoming public, but I think it’s important for the American people to understand the gravity of the underlying problem that your report uncovered.

end quotes

Now, I am as much one of the “American people” as is Zoe Lofgren, and the gravity of the underlying problem Bob Mueller’s report uncovered to me is that we are being snookered by this whole process, which is nothing more than meddling in our 2020 presidential election and interfering in our 2020 presidential election by the Democrats to throw the election their way, which is the gravest threat to our democracy that I can see facing us as a nation and as a people, which takes us to this colloquy on 24 July 2019 between hot-shot Democrat lawyer Jerrold Nadler, and Bob Mueller, as follows:

NADLER: Director Mueller, the president has repeatedly claimed that your report found there was no obstruction and that it completely and totally exonerated him, but that is not what your report said, is it?

MUELLER: Correct.

That is not what the report said.

NADLER: Now, reading from page 2 of Volume 2 of your report that’s on the screen, you wrote, quote, “If we had confidence after a thorough investigation of the facts that the president clearly did not commit obstruction of justice, we would so state.”

“Based on the facts and the applicable legal standards, however, we are unable to reach that judgment,” close quote.

Now does that say there was no obstruction?

MUELLER: No.

NADLER: In fact, you were actually unable to conclude the president did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?

MUELLER: Well, we at the outset determined that we — when it came to the president’s culpability, we needed to — we needed — we needed to go forward only after taking into account the OLC opinion that indicated that a president — sitting president cannot be indicted.

NADLER: So the report did not conclude that he did not commit obstruction of justice, is that correct?

MUELLER: That is correct.

NADLER: And what about total exoneration?

Did you actually totally exonerate the president?

MUELLER: No.

NADLER: Now, in fact, your report expressly states that it does not exonerate the president.

MUELLER: It does.

NADLER: And your investigation actually found, quote, “multiple acts by the president that were capable of exerting undue influence over law enforcement investigations, including the Russian interference and obstruction investigations.”

Is that correct?

MUELLER: Correct.

NADLER: Now, Director Mueller, can you explain in plain terms what that finding means so the American people can understand it?

MUELLER: Well, the finding indicates that the president was not — that the president was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed.

end quotes

And pardon me here, people, but are they intentionally playing games with us here and pulling our legs to see if we are asleep at the switch, or are they intentionally treating us as if we are stupid and can’t tell the difference, because that is gibberish what Bob Mueller is saying there about Trump was not exculpated for the acts that he allegedly committed, where “exculpate” means “to clear from alleged fault or guilt,” with “exculpate” being similar in meaning to exonerate.

When you exonerate someone, you clear a person of an accusation and any suspicion that goes along with it.

Exculpate usually refers more directly to clearing the charges against someone.

So Bob Mueller is saying to We, The American people, that he is not going to say that Trump is innocent of the criminal charge of obstruction of justice, which leaves a huge cloud hanging over the head of Trump going into the 2020 presidential election, as intended, which takes us back to the 24 July 2019 cross-examination of Bob Mueller by Democrat Jerrold Nadler, as follows:

NADLER: In fact, you were talking about incidents, quote, “in which the president sought to use his official power outside of usual channels,” unquote, to exert undo influence over your investigations, is that right?

MUELLER: That’s correct.

NADLER: Now, am I correct that on page 7 of Volume 2 of your report, you wrote, quote, “The president became aware that his own conduct was being investigated in an obstruction of justice inquiry.”

“At that point, the president engaged in a second phase of conduct, involving public attacks on the investigation, non-public efforts to control it, and efforts in both public and private to encourage witnesses not to cooperate with the investigation,” close quote.

So President Trump’s efforts to exert undo influence over your investigation intensified after the president became aware that he personally was being investigated?

MUELLER: I stick with the language that you have in front of you, which comes from page 7, Volume 2.

NADLER: Now, is it correct that if you concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today?

MUELLER: Can you repeat the question, sir?

NADLER: Is it correct that if you had concluded that the president committed the crime of obstruction, you could not publicly state that in your report or here today?

MUELLER: Well, I would say you could — the statement would be to — that you would not indict, and you would not indict because under the OLC opinion a sitting president — excuse me — cannot be indicted.

It would be unconstitutional.

NADLER: So you could not state that because of the OLC opinion, if that would have been your conclusion.

MUELLER: OLC opinion was some guide, yes.

end quotes

What a charade, people, with Democrat Jerrold Nadler shamelessly trying to stuff words down Bob Mueller’s throat on national TV that was probably being watched in Russia by a gleeful Vlad Putin, and Mueller spitting them right back out again, which takes us back to Jerrold Nadler, as follows with this ridiculous question, to wit:

NADLER: But under DOJ — under Department of Justice policy, the president could be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, correct?

MUELLER: True.

NADLER: Thank you.

end quotes

Under our system of RULE OF LAW, Trump could indeed be prosecuted for obstruction of justice crimes after he leaves office, IF AND ONLY IF he were to be indicted by a federal grand jury, which takes us to the Federal Grand Jury Handbook, which you would think a real hot-shot lawyer like Jerrold Nadler of the House Judiciary Committee would be aware of, along with the concept of due process of law. as follows:

The grand jury normally hears only that evidence presented by an attorney for the government which tends to show the commission of a crime.

The grand jury must determine from this evidence, and usually without hearing evidence for the defense, whether a person should be tried for a serious federal crime, referred to in the Bill of Rights as an “infamous crime.”

An infamous crime is one which may be punished by imprisonment for more than one year.

As a general rule, no one can be prosecuted for a serious crime unless the grand jury decides that the evidence it has heard so requires.

In this way, the grand jury operates both as a “sword,” authorizing the government’s prosecution of suspected criminals, and also as a “shield,” protecting citizens from unwarranted or inappropriate prosecutions.

Furthermore, a federal grand jury is not authorized to investigate situations involving the conduct of individuals, public officials, agencies or institutions that the grand jury believes is subject to mere criticism rather than a violation of federal criminal statutes.

Its concern must be devoted solely to ascertaining whether there is probable cause to believe that a federal crime has been committed and to report accordingly to the court.

end quotes

So, yes, assuming a grand jury composed of American citizens just like us, as opposed to biased political hacks like Jerrold Nadler, were to be presented with actual evidence that crimes had been committed by Trump, indeed he could be indicted and prosecuted, which has exactly nothing to do with what that 24 July 2019 Mueller Hearing was supposedly about, which in turn takes us to FEDERALIST No. 69, The Real Character of the Executive, from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York by Alexander Hamilton on Friday, March 14, 1788, as follows:

The President of the United States would be liable to be impeached, tried, and, upon conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, removed from office; and would afterwards be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.

end quotes

Whether Trump might or might not be indicted for anything once he leaves office is totally immaterial to anything confronting us today, because Trump has not been impeached or indicted by the House of Representatives, which takes us to FEDERALIST No. 65, The Powers of the Senate Continued, from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York by Alexander Hamilton on Friday, March 7, 1788, to wit, concerning impeachment and trail upon leaving office:

The awful discretion which a court of impeachments must necessarily have, to doom to honor or to infamy the most confidential and the most distinguished characters of the community, forbids the commitment of the trust to a small number of persons.

These considerations seem alone sufficient to authorize a conclusion, that the Supreme Court would have been an improper substitute for the Senate, as a court of impeachments.

There remains a further consideration, which will not a little strengthen this conclusion.

It is this: The punishment which may be the consequence of conviction upon impeachment, is not to terminate the chastisement of the offender.

After having been sentenced to a perpetual ostracism from the esteem and confidence, and honors and emoluments of his country, he will still be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.

end quotes

So, If Jerrold Nadler and the Democrats want to see Trump indicted and prosecuted as a criminal after he leaves office, they have no choice under our system of RULE OF LAW than to file Articles of Impeachment against Trump and then see him convicted in the Senate, which takes us back to 24 July 2019 and Jerrold Nadler on the subject of obstruction of justice by Trump, as follows:

Did any senior White House official refuse or request to be interviewed by you and your team?

MUELLER: I don’t believe so.

NADLER: The president…

MUELLER: Well, I take — let me take that back.

I would have to look at it, but I’m not certain that that was the case.

NADLER: And did you also ask him to provide written answers to questions on the 10 possible episodes of obstruction of justice crimes involving him?

MUELLER: Yes.

NADLER: Did he provide any answers to a single question about whether he engaged in obstruction of justice crimes?

MUELLER: I would have to check on that.

I’m not certain.

NADLER: Director Mueller, we are grateful that you are here to explain your investigation and findings.

Having reviewed your work, I believe anyone else who’d engage in the conduct described in your report would have been criminally prosecuted.

Your work is vitally important to this committee and the American people because no one is above the law.

end quotes

Which is not true – Hillary Clinton is above the law, as is Jimmy Comey, but since this only peripherally about them at this point, let us go to Congressman Christopher Carl Collins, born May 20, 1950, an American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for New York’s 27th congressional district since 2013, as follows:

COLLINS: At any time in the investigation, was your investigation curtailed or stopped or hindered?

MUELLER: No.

COLLINS: Thank you.

Is it true, the evidence gathered during your investigation — given the questions that you’ve just answered, is it true the evidence gathered during your investigation did not establish that the president was involved in the underlying crime related to Russian election interference as stated in Volume 1, page 7?

MUELLER: We found insufficient evidence of the president’s culpability.

end quotes

Straight from the horse’s mouth, people – Mueller’s investigation was not curtailed or stopped or hindered, nor was there evidence that Trump committed any crimes, so if this crap came to us sitting as a federal grand jury, what other choice would we have by to return a NO-BILL, which means we declined to indict Trump because there was nothing to indict Trump on?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-165683
thelivyjr
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14675
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: 27 TAKEAWAYS FROM THE MUELLER HEARING

Postby thelivyjr » Tue Aug 13, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 13, 2019 at 6:43 pm

Paul Plante says :

And as we continue to watch the wheels coming off this slow-motion train wreck known variously by many names now, with the preferred one being the penultimate impeachment inquiry, which is the impeachment inquiry to determine if there should be an actual impeachment inquiry, this all dependent, of course, on how well the Democrats can convince us that Trump needs to be impeached, this being a democracy, afterall, where majority rules, so that if and when the majority want Trump impeached, so it will be – charges will be concocted on the moment, and Trump will be gone – to understand the confusion that now reigns in this saga, which is greatly benefitting Putin in Russia as he watches the Democrats in this country dismantle our democracy by interfering with and meddling in our 2020 presidential election in order to ensure a Democrat victory, God help the nation, let’s go to the FOX News article entitled “Impeachment chaos: Pols can’t agree on whether or not they’ve launched process to oust Trump” by Ronn Blitzer on 12 August 2019, where we have the following to consider, to wit:

House Democrats have used the phrase “constitutional crisis” to describe Donald Trump’s presidency — but it turns out they may be creating one of their own.

The House Judiciary Committee leadership is currently at odds over the essential question of whether or not an impeachment investigation is underway.

end quotes

In other words, people, they don’t have a ******* clue as to what they are on about, and they are running out of bull**** to tell us to lead us along by the nose as this stupid drama about the Russians controlling our minds in 2016, so that we put Trump in the White House instead of Hillary Clinton, which is still the narrative of the Democrats today, and it will be for the rest of time, and after the 24 July Mueller Hearing, which has exposed the Democrats as being just plain stupid, the Democrats are now running scared, and so they should be based on this colloquy between Democrat Sheila Jackson Lee, born January 12, 1950, an American politician with a B.A. in political science from Yale University in 1972, followed by a J.D. from the University of Virginia School of Law in 1975, who is currently the U.S. Representative for Texas’s 18th congressional district, currently serving in her 13th term in the House, and Bob Mueller, to wit:

JACKSON LEE: OK.

Does a conviction of obstruction of justice result potentially in a lot of years of — a lot of years of time in jail?

MUELLER: Yes.

Well, again, can you repeat the — the question just to make certain I have it accurate?

JACKSON LEE: Does obstruction of justice warrant a lot of time in — in jail if you were convicted?

MUELLER: Yes.

end quotes

There we have it, people – the Democrats have taken their best shot, and there it is, right in front of us – if you happened to be convicted of obstruction of justice, that would warrant a lot of time in jail, and who knew that before Democrat Congresswoman Jackson-Lee came along to enlighten us, which takes us back to the Fox News article as follows:

Republicans are pointing to precedent and congressional rules in arguing that traditionally first the House should approve such a move — which has not yet happened.

Yet some Democrats claim the Constitution says otherwise in arguing they’ve already launched the impeachment process.

end quotes

Except the Constitution is silent concerning the actual process by which Articles of Impeachment are prepared, so those Democrats making that claim are talking through their hats, and why would we be surprised by that?

Getting back to the Fox News article, which pretty much sums up where the Democrats have gotten themselves to today as they continue to hoist themselves up on to their own petard, we have this existential question to consider, to wit:

So have they or haven’t they?

There is no clear answer.

The confusion underscores the division inside Congress over every aspect of this explosive political step, which Speaker Nancy Pelosi had urged against for months.

Yet despite Pelosi’s repeated warnings, Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, D-N.Y., told CNN last week that “formal impeachment proceedings” are underway.

Not so, said Rep. Doug Collins of Georgia, the committee’s ranking Republican.

“House precedent requires the full House approve a resolution authorizing the Judiciary Committee to begin an impeachment inquiry,” he wrote in a Sunday op-ed for the Los Angeles Times.

“Otherwise, any Judiciary chairman could charge into an impeachment inquiry with only limited, partisan support.”

The confusion over what is actually happening is not limited to partisan squabbles, as Democrats appear to be at odds as well.

When Nadler filed a petition in D.C. federal court in late July seeking the disclosure of secret grand jury materials from former Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation, some Democrats indicated this marked the beginning of an actual impeachment investigation.

“We are crossing the threshold,” Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, said at the time.

“When you think about the mode we were operating under before, it was an oversight function.”

“This is now crossing the threshold with this filing, and officially entering into an examination into whether or not to recommend articles of impeachment — I just want to make that point clear.”

Rep. Eric Swalwell, D-Calif., also said this was “the first time” the committee was sending a “telegraph to the court that one of the remedies we have is impeachment.”

“This is an impeachment investigation, on whether we should introduce articles of impeachment to Congress,” he said.

That same day, however, Pelosi said, “We will proceed when we have what we need to proceed — not one day sooner.”

Pelosi has opposed impeaching Trump, as it could end up backfiring against Democrats heading into the 2020 elections.

Collins cited the impeachment investigations of Presidents Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, as well as congressional rules, to support his argument that only a vote from the full House can permit the Judiciary Committee to begin an impeachment investigation.

But University of Texas Law Professor Steve Vladeck said that the House’s formal approval of an impeachment investigation is not the only way to go about it.

“The Constitution does not require formal ‘approval’ of an impeachment investigation before the House (or a committee thereof) is allowed to conduct one,” Vladeck told Fox News.

“Thus, although the House formally approved such an investigation for President Clinton, there are plenty of other examples of impeachment investigations that were initiated after nothing more than the introduction of an impeachment resolution by a single member, and referral of that resolution to the House Judiciary Committee.”

Escobar, along with Reps. Mary Gay Scanlon, D-Penn., David Cicilline, D-R.I., and Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., argued in a piece for The Atlantic on the day Nadler filed his petition that neither method of initiating impeachment proceedings was required.

Not only did they say that an impeachment investigation is already underway, they claimed they did not need approval by a House vote to do it.

“While many people believe that beginning an impeachment investigation can begin only with a vote of the full House of Representatives, this is not true,” they wrote.

“Article I authorizes the House Judiciary Committee to begin this process.”

Article I of the Constitution is the source of the House’s impeachment power, but it does not go into detail regarding the process.

Rep. Ted Deutsch, D-Fla., confused things further, indicating in an Aug. 1 piece for the South Florida Sun-Sentinel that an impeachment inquiry has been going on since March 4.

He cited committee powers – not the Constitution – as support for why it is permitted.

“In the past, a resolution directing the Judiciary Committee to consider impeachment was needed to grant the committee additional subpoena authority and financial resources,” Deutsch wrote.

“But times have changed.”

“In 2015, Republican leaders gave committee chairs broad subpoena powers.”

“… No vote to authorize an impeachment inquiry is necessary.”

The next day, however, the office of Rep. Salud Carbajal, D-Calif., issued a press release stating that he “calls for” an impeachment inquiry, implying that one did not already exist.

He was among numerous Democrats to back calls for an impeachment inquiry in the wake of Mueller’s testimony — something more than half of House Democrats now support, making the definition of what constitutes such an inquiry all the more important.

end quotes

But in the wake of Mueller’s testimony, which now exists in transcript form for all to see and read in our leisure to make sure we haven’t missed something, what we do know is that there is nothing to impeach Trump for.

So where will the Democrats take this drama next?

All I can say is stay tuned, and we will be the first to find out!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-166288
thelivyjr
Site Admin
 
Posts: 14675
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Previous

Return to POLITICAL COMMENTARY

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron