27 TAKEAWAYS FROM THE MUELLER HEARING

27 TAKEAWAYS FROM THE MUELLER HEARING

Postby thelivyjr » Sun Jul 28, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR JULY 28, 2019

OP-Ed: 27 Takeaways from Mueller’s Big Day


Opinion by Paul Plante

The first takeaway, of course, at least for me as an older American, is just how disgusting this whole “process,” if it can be called that, has been since the Democrats started screeching in 2016 about the Russians interfering in our “democracy” because their queen Hillary Clinton lost to Trump, which was never supposed to happen according to all the pundits and all the polls.

The last time I remember something like this taking place in the TEN MILES SQUARE was back when “Tailgunner Joe” McCarthy was in the U.S. Senate conducting his famous hearings into how far the Communists had managed to infiltrate the Democrat party in this country, which makes it ironic for the Democrats to be accusing Trump of being a Russian agent, which is the second of many takeaways from the Mueller Hearing on 24 July 2019, a day that will go down in infamy in American history as the day a sitting United States president was stripped of due process of law and was literally lynched, something I find quite reprehensible as an American citizen dedicated to RULE OF LAW, which clearly did not exist in that hearing on 24 July 2019.

Which takes us back to February 6, 2018, a bit less than a year AFTER Jimmy Comey gave his famous testimony to the Democrats on 20 March 2017 about Trump and the Russians, to a book by Lanny J. Davis entitled “The Unmaking of the President 2016: How FBI Director James Comey Cost Hillary Clinton the Presidency Hardcover,” which review on Amazon states thusly:

During the week of October 24, 2016, Hillary Clinton was decisively ahead of Donald Trump in many polls and, more importantly, in the battleground states of Wisconsin, Michigan, and Pennsylvania.

Then FBI Director James Comey sent his infamous letter to Congress on October 28, saying the bureau was investigating additional emails that may have been relevant to the Hillary Clinton email case.

In The Unmaking of the President 2016, attorney Lanny J. Davis shows how Comey’s misguided announcement — just eleven days before the election — swung a significant number of voters away from Clinton, winning Trump an Electoral College victory — and the presidency.

Davis traces Clinton’s email controversy and Comey’s July 2016 appearance before Congress, in which he said the Clinton email matter was effectively closed.

From that moment until Comey’s late October letter to Congress, Davis says, Clinton was destined to be elected president by substantial popular and electoral vote margins.

But the decision to send his October 28 letter, so near to the election, not only violated long-standing justice department policies but also contained no new facts of improper emails at all — just pure speculation.

Davis shows state by state, using polling data before October 28, and on election day, how voter support for Hillary Clinton eroded quickly.

He proves that had the election been held on October 27, Hillary Clinton would have won the presidency by a substantial margin.

Despite so many other issues in the closing days of the campaign — Trump’s behavior, the Russian hacking, reports of Clinton momentum in marginal states such as Georgia, Arizona, even Texas — after the October 28 Comey letter, everything changed.

References to “Clinton emails” and “new criminal investigation” dominated media coverage virtually round-the-clock through election day November 8.

Now Davis proves with raw, indisputable data how Comey’s October surprise cost Hillary Clinton the presidency and changed American history in the blink of an eye.

end quotes

However POOF!

Forget all of that, because the narrative has changed!

It’s now Trump and the Russians who caused Hillary to lose.

Which brings us to an op-ed by Lanny Davis on 24 July 2019, entitled “Advice to House Democrats: Mueller is right to stick to the facts – don’t ask him to imitate Starr and Comey,” as follows:

There are three reasons why House Democrats during Wednesday’s public hearings should support, not criticize, former special counsel Robert Mueller’s decision to stick to the facts and evidence and to refuse to offer his own opinions on the evidence of Trump’s apparent attempts to obstruct justice.

First and foremost is the Due Process clause of the U.S. Constitution.

Prosecutors violate it by offering any opinions at all without a published indictment and a trial with due process rights to the accused.

Second, the U.S. Justice Department’s long-standing rules and policies under Democratic and Republican administrations forbid a prosecutor publicly expressing his opinion on the evidence – again, based on due process principles.

And third, by following these two principles, Mr. Mueller avoided the historic ignominy of being compared to Ken Starr and James Comey, who ignored both of them.

Lest we forget, Starr’s public comments on Whitewater and his report to Congress on impeachment were improperly filled with opinion and innuendo of guilt.

James Comey thought it was OK to offer his negative opinion of the evidence regarding Hillary Clinton’s email practices — yet then said she had committed no prosecutable crime.

The DOJ’s independent inspector general harshly criticized Comey for this and other misconduct.

end quotes

And then, Mueller and the Democrats did exactly that – violating Trump’s right to due process by having Mueller offer opinions without a published indictment and a trial with due process rights to the accused, which violates the U.S. Justice Department’s long-standing rules and policies under Democratic and Republican administrations which forbid a prosecutor from publicly expressing his opinion on the evidence – again, based on due process principles.

But really, people, and truly, who gives a damn?

We’re talking about Trump, and everybody in America knows now that Trump is a reprehensible racist and criminal who is a dupe of Putin and the Kremlin, so why should Trump be entitled to any kind of due process of law?

Which brings us to the third takeaway, which is that the Russians are going to interfere in the 2020 presidential election to keep their dupe Trump in the White House, so that if we want to beat the Russians at their own game, then we need to elect anybody but Trump in 2020, which means VOTE DEMOCRAT IF YOU LOVE AMERICA AND HATE PUTIN!

And what a victory for Putin that would be, which is the fourth takeaway here in rapid-fire order, with a whole passel of takeaways waiting in the queue for their chance to see the light of day, which takes us to the fifth takeaway, and that is how canny Robert Mueller was in hiding the origins of just how it was that he came to be appointed by Rod Rosenstein back in 2017, fifty-eight (58) days AFTER the 20 March 2017 Congressional Hearing where FBI Director Jimmy Comey gave testimony along with evasive answers about Team Trump and the Russians before the 2016 presidential election.

And before we go further, and incidentally, there are twenty-seven takeaways in here because reviewing everybody else’s numbers, with Fox News having five “big” takeaways, and NBC having six, and CNN having ten, I thought it appropriate to have a bigger number than any of them, and 27 seemed just about right, although in the end, even 27 might be far too small a number, indeed, let’s go back to where this all began with a WALL STREET JOURNAL article entitled “Mueller concludes Russia probe, delivers report to the attorney general” by Aruna Viswanatha and Sadie Gurman published Mar 22, 2019, where we had as follows, to wit:

Special counsel Robert Mueller presented his long-awaited report to the Justice Department on Friday, ending his nearly two-year investigation that has roiled the Trump presidency and likely setting up a battle with Congress over what he has found.

No details from the report on the investigation, which examined Trump campaign connections to Russian election interference and whether the president himself tried to obstruct justice, were immediately made public.

Attorney General William Barr said in a letter to Congress that he may advise lawmakers of any conclusions from the report “as soon as this weekend.”

Barr has previously said he would bring as much transparency as possible to Mueller’s findings but stressed that Justice Department policy prevents officials from disclosing much about investigations that didn’t yield criminal charges.

That means a swath of Mueller’s probe—especially as it relates to President Trump—may not be revealed any time soon.

end quotes

Just days before that, REUTERS had an article entitled “Trump says he doesn’t mind if public sees Mueller’s Russia probe report” on 20 March 2019, which informed us as follows, to wit:

WASHINGTON — U.S. President Donald Trump said on Wednesday he does not mind if the public is allowed to see the report that Special Counsel Robert Mueller is preparing about his investigation of Russian meddling in the 2016 presidential election and any possible links to the Trump campaign.

Trump has denied collusion and obstruction.

Russia has denied interfering in the election.

The U.S. House of Representatives voted 420-0 last week on a nonbinding resolution calling for Mueller’s report to be released both to Congress and to the public, but it is not clear how the measure will fare in the Senate.

Answering questions from journalists at the White House, Trump said he had no idea when the report would be released, adding, “no collusion, no collusion” and “we’ll see if it’s fair.”

Asked if the public should be allowed to see the report, Trump said: “I don’t mind.”

“Let it come out, let people see it, that’s up to the attorney general … and we’ll see what happens,” he added.

end quotes

Prophetic words, those, and here we are, four months later, and we are indeed seeing what happened, which is that Trump just got lynched.

What I heard when I listened to that hearing was Mueller answering in the affirmative in a setting where Donald Trump was not present to present a defense a question posed to him as to whether Trump was engaged in “criminal activity,” a very serious allegation, and that is very dirty pool, indeed, as well as being a reversal of Mueller’s original reason for not charging Trump with a crime.

So color it anyway you wish, but Trump got slimed and smeared big time in that hearing by the Democrats and to his shame, Robert Mueller was a part of the game, which takes us to a POLITICO article entitled “Pelosi tells Dems she’ll reject highly classified briefing on Mueller findings” by Andrew Desiderio, Heather Caygle and Kyle Cheney on 23 March 2019, where we have the following background, to wit:

Speaker Nancy Pelosi told Democrats on Saturday she’ll rebuff any efforts by the Justice Department to reveal details of special counsel Robert Mueller’s findings in a highly classified setting — a tactic she warned could be employed to shield the report’s conclusions from the public.

Two sources who participated in a conference call among House Democrats said Pelosi (D-Calif.) told lawmakers she worried the Justice Department would seek to disclose Mueller’s conclusions to the so-called Gang of Eight — the top Democrats and Republicans in the House and Senate — which handles the nation’s most sensitive secrets.

The substance of Gang of Eight briefings are heavily guarded.

“Everyone pounded the transparency drum continuously,” said a source who was on the Saturday afternoon call.

Pelosi said it was her belief that the findings of the report should be unclassified, a consistent theme from Democrats who said they wanted Attorney General William Barr to share virtually every scrap of paper connected to the Mueller report with Congress.

Democrats repeatedly compared their demands for transparency to Republican efforts to obtain intricate details of the FBI’s handling of the investigation of Hillary Clinton’s private email server.

GOP lawmakers succeeded in obtaining thousands of FBI officials’ text messages connected to the Clinton probe, as well as agent notes, internal emails and thousands of files.

House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and House Oversight Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings (D-Md.) both cited the Clinton precedent as evidence to support their calls for complete transparency.

Democrats conferred as they awaited a high-level summary of Mueller’s findings from the Justice Department, which top Democrats said they expected to be delivered to Congress on Sunday or Monday.

House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.), who is likely to get the first indication from Barr when a summary is being delivered, said he would notify colleagues immediately.

Without details of Mueller’s conclusions about Russian contacts with associates of President Donald Trump in 2016, the lawmakers leaned heavily into calls for the release of the full report.

During an earlier conference call with Judiciary Committee Democrats, Nadler said the committee would ask the Justice Department to preserve all documents from the special counsel’s investigation, according to a source familiar with the call.

end quotes

And from there we go to another POLITICO article, this one entitled “Schiff: There is still ‘significant evidence of collusion’” by Quint Forgey on 03/24/2019, to wit:

Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.), the chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, defended his assessment Sunday that there exists “significant evidence of collusion” between President Donald Trump’s 2016 campaign and the Kremlin — despite word from the Justice Department that special counsel Robert Mueller will not be recommending any further indictments in his investigation into Russian election interference.

“There’s a difference between compelling evidence of collusion and whether the special counsel concludes that he can prove beyond a reasonable doubt the criminal charge of conspiracy,” Schiff told host George Stephanopoulos on ABC’s “This Week.”

“I leave that decision to Bob Mueller, and I have full confidence in him,” Schiff continued, adding that Americans owe Mueller “a debt of gratitude” for conducting his 22-month-long probe “as professionally as he has.”

“I trust in his prosecutorial judgment,” Schiff said.

“But that doesn’t mean, of course, that there isn’t compelling and incriminating evidence that should be shared with the American people.”

end quotes

And I am going to pause here to let all of that background sink in, and especially that last sentence by Adam Schiff above here, where he stated, “But that doesn’t mean, of course, that there isn’t compelling and incriminating evidence that should be shared with the American people.”

Think about that, people, if anyone out there can actually decipher that statement to figure out just what it means, but what it seems to mean is that if Mueller did not uncover the dirt on Trump Schiff wanted him to uncover, then Schiff would come up with it on his own, because that is the name of the game being played here by the Democrats as we head into the 2020 presidential election – GET TRUMP AT ANY COST TO GET A DEMOCRAT INTO THE OVAL OFFICE!

And after hearing what went on at the Mueller hearing, they might just have succeeded.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... s-big-day/
thelivyjr
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15901
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: 27 TAKEAWAYS FROM THE MUELLER HEARING

Postby thelivyjr » Tue Jul 30, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 28, 2019 at 7:47 pm

Paul Plante says:

Another key takeaway here is that thanks to “Jumping Jerry” Nadler, the smarmy and unctuous Adam Schiff, the Democrat party, Robert Mueller III, and the vindictive and spiteful Jimmy Comey, the 2020 presidential election has now been fatally compromised, along with our democracy in this country, tainted as it now is because of interference and meddling by the Democrats with their unsubstantiated charges of criminality against Trump, so that now, the stink of corruption is firmly attached to it, before the fact, that stink of corruption as a result of the Democrats accusing Trump of being a criminal who is in thrall to Mother Russia and Putin, which is the refrain that we will be hearing from here on out as the myriad of Democrats running for president keep repeating that mantra over and over, as has already happened if anyone happened to be watching “AMJoy” on MSNBC on Saturday morning, 27 July 2019, which show featured some obstreperous, overly-emotional and seemingly hysterical woman shouting at other people about how the Russians are going to use the 2020 presidential election to put Trump back in power so they can take over our democracy, which takes us to the takeaway of just how weak and rotten our democracy has become if the Russians can take it over so easily as they are right now, at least according to Bob Mueller on 24 July 2019, as was reported by NBC News in the article “Six takeaways from Mueller’s day before Congress” by Chuck Todd, Mark Murray and Carrie Dann on July 25, 2019, as follows:

“Over the course of my career, I’ve seen a number of challenges to our democracy,” he said.

“The Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election is among the most serious.”

“As I said on May 29, this deserves the attention of every American.”

end quotes

And since I am every bit as much an American as is Bob Mueller, I have been diligently looking for any signs of the alleged “Russian government’s effort to interfere in our election,” and have yet to find any, and as to the number of challenges to our democracy that I have seen in my lifetime, which is just about as long as Bob Mueller’s lifetime, this Mueller Hearing on 24 July 2019 is definitely among the most serious, if not fatal, which takes us the Bob Mueller’s statement that this was no “witch hunt,” which is entirely correct – Mueller and the Democrats were not searching for witches; they were intentionally creating the witches out of whole cloth for partisan political purposes so they can take over all three branches of our federal government in 2020, by tainting the 2020 election in favor of the Democrats.

And the harm they have done to our nation as a result is irreparable.

As to that harm, what they have done with that hearing is to make it clear to not just the citizens of the United States of America, but to the candid world and Russia and Putin, as well, which is a huge victory for him won by the House Democrats under Nadler and Schiff, that in the United States of America today, rule of law is now done, finished, kaput, which now makes us nothing more than just another third-world ****hole nation where kangaroo courts and false charges are the norm, which is a very sad day for OUR America, indeed.

And here, by way of necessary background, I would like to go back to this nation’s beginnings to FEDERALIST No. 69, The Real Character of the Executive, to the People of the State of New York from the New York Packet by Alexander Hamilton on Friday, March 14, 1788, where was stated in clear and unambiguous language 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

Which makes it incandescently clear that IF the Democrats really had evidence that Trump had violated the law, they could simply charge him themselves through articles of impeachment and be done with it, except they have no such evidence, and so they are stuck, which takes us back to that NBC News article, as follows:

But if the idea of yesterday was to galvanize Democrats to impeach Trump, it didn’t do the trick.

It’s hard to disagree with the Washington Post’s Dan Balz: “If Democrats hope to end the Trump presidency, they will have to do so by defeating him at the ballot box in November 2020.”

end quotes

Which in turn brings us to a Washington Examiner article entitled “Mueller probably thinks Trump obstructed justice but refuses to be Democrats’ impeachment fall guy” by Tiana Lowe on July 24, 2019, to wit:

Of all the questions raised by former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation into Russia’s interference in our 2016 elections, none has proven more mystifying and aggravating as to why Robert Mueller ultimately punted the question of whether President Trump committed obstruction of justice to Attorney General William Barr.

Mueller clearly deliberated and decided that not enough evidence existed to charge Trump with any conspiracy charges, yet he explicitly refused to come to a conclusion on the obstruction question.

Of all the material benefit to the public brought by Mueller’s hearings with the House Judiciary and Intelligence Committees, the only real question that matters to the public is why.

Mueller went through great lengths to obfuscate his intentions and understandably so.

As special counsel, Mueller was assigned to make a legal decision, not a political one.

Following the precedent set by the Office of Legal Counsel, Mueller has consistently maintained that even if he found enough evidence to charge Trump with acts of obstruction, he wouldn’t charge a sitting president.

But he refused to decide that “even if” question.

His words today further indicate that he did believe Trump should have been brought up on obstruction charges otherwise, and his actions point towards his refusal to make a political decision by proxy and give Democrats the green light to initiate impeachment proceedings.

“Based on Justice Department policy and principles of fairness, we decided we would not make a determination as to whether the president committed a crime,” Mueller states in his prepared remarks.

The phrasing here is key.

The Justice Department policy directed Mueller not to bring up charges, but it certainly doesn’t say that Mueller couldn’t or shouldn’t make a verdict on whether Trump ought to be brought up on charges once he’s out of office.

No, that he blames on the intentionally vague “principles of fairness” doctrine.

What does it mean?

Likely that Mueller believes that he shouldn’t be responsible for instigating political trials, only criminal ones.

Every equivocation indicated that Mueller personally believes Trump should face obstruction charges.

When Rep. Ted Lieu, D-California, got Mueller to confirm that he believed Trump committed all three legal elements required to constitute obstruction of justice, Mueller attempted to halt the correlation by noting that he doesn’t endorse the conclusion of what Lieu “was saying.”

But to both Lieu and Hakeem Jeffries of New York, Mueller concurred that Volume II of the report indicates that Trump committed all three elements of obstruction.

If Democrats genuinely believe they have the goods to impeach Trump on obstruction charges, they’ll need to initiate proceedings without having Mueller’s explicit approval.

The former special counsel made abundantly clear he refuses to make that decision for them, and although he should have answered the obstruction question as a matter of legal principle, it makes sense why he wouldn’t as a moral one.

Democrats won’t get Mueller as a scapegoat.

If they go forward with impeachment, they’ll have to prove to an overwhelmingly unapproving public why they have the political points to do so.

end quotes

Which takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 71, The Duration in Office of the Executive, by Alexander Hamilton to the People of the State of New York from the New York Packet on Tuesday, March 18, 1788, as follows:

There are some who would be inclined to regard the servile pliancy of the Executive to a prevailing current, either in the community or in the legislature, as its best recommendation.

But such men entertain very crude notions, as well of the purposes for which government was instituted, as of the true means by which the public happiness may be promoted.

end quotes

And there, of course, he is talking about “Jumping Jerry” Nadler, the smarmy and unctuous Adam Schiff, and the House Democrats, which takes us back to Alexander Hamilton, as follows:

But however inclined we might be to insist upon an unbounded complaisance in the Executive to the inclinations of the people, we can with no propriety contend for a like complaisance to the humors of the legislature.

end quotes

And there is exactly what we are seeing going on in America right now – the Democrats are demanding that Trump as president have an unbounded complaisance (disposition to please or comply) to the humors of the Democrats in the legislature, and not getting that complaisance from Trump, they are now seeking to totally pervert our democracy by meddling and interfering in our 2020 presidential election to keep Trump out of office for a second term, which takes us back to Federalist No. 71, as follows:

The latter may sometimes stand in opposition to the former, and at other times the people may be entirely neutral.

In either supposition, it is certainly desirable that the Executive should be in a situation to dare to act his own opinion with vigor and decision.

The same rule which teaches the propriety of a partition between the various branches of power, teaches us likewise that this partition ought to be so contrived as to render the one independent of the other.

To what purpose separate the executive or the judiciary from the legislative, if both the executive and the judiciary are so constituted as to be at the absolute devotion of the legislative?

end quotes

And people, regardless of your political affiliation, or like in my case, your lack of a political affiliation to either the Democrats or the Republicans, there is an existential question from our past that is now ours as citizens to answer: do we want a president in this country today who will serve at the absolute devotion of the Democrats in the House of representatives?

And if so, what on earth type of third-world ****hole government would that give us?

And why on earth would we want it, which takes us back to Alexander Hamilton and Federalist No. 71, as follows:

It is one thing to be subordinate to the laws, and another to be dependent on the legislative body.

The first comports with, the last violates, the fundamental principles of good government; and, whatever may be the forms of the Constitution, unites all power in the same hands.

The tendency of the legislative authority to absorb every other, has been fully displayed and illustrated by examples in some preceding numbers.

end quotes

And once again, people we are seeing it happen right before our eyes today as the Democrats in the House of Representatives try to absorb the executive branch and put it under their authority, which again takes us back to Alexander Hamilton, as follows:

The representatives of the people, in a popular assembly, seem sometimes to fancy that they are the people themselves, and betray strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from any other quarter; as if the exercise of its rights, by either the executive or judiciary, were a breach of their privilege and an outrage to their dignity.

They often appear disposed to exert an imperious control over the other departments; and as they commonly have the people on their side, they always act with such momentum as to make it very difficult for the other members of the government to maintain the balance of the Constitution.

end quotes

And there is where we are right now in this country, with the Democrat representatives of the people in the popular assembly which is the House of Representatives, or “People’s House,” as Nancy Pelosi and Ilhan Omar call it, fancying that they are the people themselves, and are they ever betraying strong symptoms of impatience and disgust at the least sign of opposition from the office of the executive, as if the exercise of its rights by the executive were a breach of their privilege and an outrage to their dignity, and they very much appear disposed to exert an imperious control over the office of the executive, and as they have some of the people on their side, and are futilely trying to get the rest of us to come over to the dark side where they are, they are acting with such momentum as to make it very difficult for the other members of the government to maintain the balance of the Constitution.

Is that a good thing for America, people?

Do we want our nation under the imperious control of the Democrats in the House of Representatives?

And while you all ponder those questions, I am going to pause for station identification so I can go vomit, so toxic disgusting our federal government in Washington, D.C. has become.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-161923
thelivyjr
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15901
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: 27 TAKEAWAYS FROM THE MUELLER HEARING

Postby thelivyjr » Tue Jul 30, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 29, 2019 at 7:01 pm

Paul Plante says:

And while we are wheeling through the multitude of takeaways coming out of Bob Mueller’s BIG DAY before the Democrats in the House of Representatives, which farce is said to have Hillary Clinton, the woman scorned and the face that launched a raft of bull**** in America, and Putin in Russia both ecstatic and jumping for joy as the Trump presidency is being destroyed, and the electoral college is being cast into suspicion and disrespect for having foisted Trump off on us, when the American people really wanted Hillary instead, before we go forward to a Washington Post article entitled “Top Democrat on House Judiciary Committee says Trump ‘richly deserves impeachment’” by Karoun Demirjian on 28 July 2019, where was stated “(T)he chairman of the House Judiciary Committee said Sunday that he believes President Trump ‘richly deserves impeachment,’ an explosive statement from the lawmaker whose committee has the power to launch proceedings to remove the president from office,” along with “Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), appearing on CNN’s ‘State of the Union,’ said Trump ‘has done many impeachable offenses, he’s violated the law six ways from Sunday,’” which is horse**** and a right load of codswallop, to boot, by way of necessary background, let’s go back to March 14, 1788, and FEDERALIST No. 69, The Real Character of the Executive, to the People of the State of New York from the New York Packet by Alexander Hamilton where in clear and unambiguous language it was stated that if today, “Hop, Skip & Jump Jerry” Nadler, so-named in his native New York for his uncanny ability to hop, skip and jump all around the truth while never coming anywhere close to it, a necessary characteristic of a national-league Democrat politician in America today, actually had EVIDENCE that Trump “richly deserves impeachment,” and that Trump “has done many impeachable offenses, he’s violated the law six ways from Sunday,” then “Hop, Skip & Jump Jerry” Nadler is OBLIGATED to WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE to stop flapping his gums and running his mouth and fixing to get with it and get the show of impeachment on the road by filing ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, to wit:

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

Which means all this DRAMA with the Mueller Hearing is a distraction, because the Democrats do not need Mueller or his Report to file Articles of Impeachment against Trump when they are already in possession of enough evidence to hang Trump on, at least according to “Hop, Skip & Jump Jerry” Nadler in the Washington Post, which brings us to what ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT really are, which is as follows, to wit:

Articles of Impeachment Law and Legal Definition

Articles of Impeachment is a formal document filed to impeach a public official.

The articles of impeachment state the charges against the official and the reasons why the official should be removed from office.

In the U.S the articles of impeachment against President, Vice President and Federal Judges, are prepared and voted upon by the House of Representatives.

The article of impeachment performs the same purpose as an indictment in a common criminal case.

However these articles usually do not follow the strict form and accuracy of an indictment.

Answer to articles of impeachment is also exempted from observing great strictness of form.

It may contain arguments as well as facts.

Usual procedure is to give a full and particular answer to each article of the accusation.

end quotes

So why hasn’t that been done?

For that answer, we merely have to return to the Washington Post, where we have the following dose of hog**** from Jerry, to wit:

“But that’s not the question,” Nadler continued.

“The question is, can we develop enough evidence to put before the American people?”

end quotes

And that is hog**** because WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE have absolutely nothing to do with that process,

It is not up to us to review criminal charges against Trump that are in ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT.

Jerry Nadler does not need our permission to impeach Trump, so why is he pretending he needs to seek it?

The Constitution gives WE, THE AMERICAN PEOPLE no role to play in impeaching a president, so why is Jerry Nadler pretending it does?

Is he stupid?

Or is he playing games with our minds here in a bid to confuse us?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-161923
thelivyjr
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15901
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: 27 TAKEAWAYS FROM THE MUELLER HEARING

Postby thelivyjr » Wed Jul 31, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR July 31, 2019 at 4:34 pm

Paul Plante says:

Now, despite this disgusting STUPID SHOW these desperate Democrats have been staging in their effort to take over complete control of our national government, which would be a huge win for Putin in Russia, by whipping up a mob frenzy for the impeachment of Donald Trump, which is called by the despicable Democrats leading this effort, “direct democracy,” as they had in Athens in the time of Solon and the rise of the tyranny of Pisistratus, and ostracism, the “democratic” process by which any citizen, including political leaders, could be expelled from the city-state for 10 years, where like today here in the United States of America, thanks to Nancy Pelosi and her pack of Democrats, once a year, ancient Athenian citizens would nominate people they felt threatened democracy because of political differences or just general dislike, as is the case today with the visceral hatred and enmity the Democrats bear towards Trump, who in their eyes stole the 2016 presidential election from Hillary Clinton, with the help of Putin in Russia, who they say hated Hillary Clinton’s guts, because she was so much superior a human being in every way than Putin, the impeachment of an American president was never intended to be the ridiculous, demeaning and totally stupid and slapdash (done too carelessly; i.e. “the Democrats gave a slapdash performance on 24 July 2019” with such appropriate synonyms as slipshod, disorganized, haphazard, and thoughtless) political drama we are being fed by the Democrats today, as can clearly be seen by review of FEDERALIST No. 65, The Powers of the Senate Continued, by Alexander Hamilton from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 7, 1788, wherein was clearly stated, “(A) well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective,” and, “(T)he subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust,” and FEDERALIST No. 66, Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered, by Alexander Hamilton from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Tuesday, March 11, 1788, where was stated “(T)he division of them between the two branches of the legislature, assigning to one the right of accusing, to the other the right of judging, avoids the inconvenience of making the same persons both accusers and judges; and guards against the danger of persecution, from the prevalency of a factious spirit in either of those branches.”

And in fact, much is written on the process of impeachment in an intelligent manner the Democrats of today lack the mental capacity to understand or comprehend in those two Federalist papers, but before we go there, to see just how blatantly stupid and ignorant of OUR Constitution and laws these Democrats of today really are concerning impeachment, let us stop by FOX News for an article entitled “Pelosi warns Dems: Don’t trash colleagues who won’t back impeachment” by Brooke Singman on 25 July 2019, where we have as follows:

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on Thursday warned congressional Democrats who support impeachment proceedings against President Trump not to “disparage” colleagues who don’t, a source familiar with the conversation told Fox News.

The stern guidance came during a morning meeting on Capitol Hill, on the heels of Robert Mueller’s testimony, which left pro-impeachment Democrats with little new material to pursue their case.

end quotes

And that is an important statement here, people, about these “pro-impeachment” Democrats, which include the ignorant and foul-mouthed Democratic Socialist Rashida Tlaib, who was the star of a VOX article entitled “New Congress member creates stir by saying of Trump: ‘We’re going to impeach this motherfucker!’ – Rashida Tlaib went there — right away” by Aaron Rupar @atrupar on Jan 4, 2019 coming away from this bogus Mueller Hearing on 24 July 2019 with no evidence to support their cause, because their cause is based on nothing but hot air, bull**** and partisan politics, not law or fact, especially in the case of Democratic Socialist Rashida Tlaib, who as a Democratic Socialist, is for the overthrow of our existing frame of government based on Republican principles in order to replace it with the “radical democracy” espoused by the Democratic Socialists in their party manifesto, as follows:

DSA believes that the fight for democratic socialism is one and the same as the fight for radical democracy, which we understand as the freedom of all people to determine all aspects of their lives to the greatest extent possible.

Our vision entails nothing less than the radical democratization of all areas of life, not least of which is the economy.

Solidarity among all working people who are ensnared in the capitalist system may be a prerequisite for a strong socialist movement, but socialism as radical democracy is much more than the emancipation of a single economic class.

The democratic socialist project also entails addressing a wide range of oppressions in law, culture and society that limit people’s capacity for self-determination.

end quotes

Bringing discredit onto the Electoral College by impeaching Trump based on bogus charges is one way to achieve that goal, as we see by returning to VOX, as follows:

While Tlaib’s profane language caused a stir, it wasn’t even the first time on Thursday that she called for Trump’s impeachment.

Earlier in the day, the Detroit Free Press published an op-ed she co-authored titled, “Now is the time to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump.”

“President Donald Trump is a direct and serious threat to our country,” she wrote.

“On an almost daily basis, he attacks our Constitution, our democracy, the rule of law and the people who are in this country.”

“His conduct has created a constitutional crisis that we must confront now.”

end quotes

So, Rashida, it is now 31 July 2019 by my calendar, so, where’s the beef, Rashida?

Where is there any proof of a constitutional crisis here in America, besides the one you are inventing?

Do you think we are all stupid, Rashida, just because whomever put you in office were?

Getting back to that article, which really sets the stage for everything the froth-at-the-mouth Democrats have thrown at us since, which chain of events has brought us right to this moment we are in now, we have:

Newly empowered House Democrats aren’t just making arguments to impeach Trump. Rep. Brad Sherman (D-CA) has already announced he plans to introduce articles of impeachment as soon as possible.

Sherman was one of three Democrats — along with Reps. Al Green (D-TX) and Steve Cohen (D-TN) — who introduced resolutions to impeach Trump during the last Congress.

But it’s a whole new ballgame now that Democrats have control of the House.

end quotes

And there is another important statement, people, before we go to the pertinent Federalist Papers on impeachment, about it being a “whole new ballgame” for the Democrats, with their gaining control of OUR House of Representatives, so they could turn it into a political tool with which their faction could destroy the functioning of our national government, which they have done, in order to take control of all three branches of our national government, which takes us back to VOX, as follows:

As Vox’s Andrew Prokop explained, Democratic leaders in the House are reluctant to make open calls for impeachment so far, but that could change — quickly.

Yet this measured approach could change very quickly if new and damning information about Trump were to emerge from one of the many investigations into him or his inner circle: special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia probe, investigations into Trump’s campaign hush money and inauguration, and the new probes that will soon be launched by Democratic House committee chairs.

end quotes

And here we are, some six months later, the Mueller hearing, which turned out to be a DUD, is now over, and the Democrats, who thought they had this one in the bag, are left holding a great big sack of pure nothing with which to proceed, which is causing great turmoil in the ranks of the disorganized and distraught Democrats today, as we clearly see by returning to the FOX article, to wit:

The source told Fox News that Pelosi told lawmakers they are still allowed talk about impeachment if it’s politically important for their home districts, but urged them not to malign members who aren’t in the same camp.

“She said, ‘Do what you have to do for your districts, but don’t disparage those who are not for it,’” the source said, recalling Pelosi’s remarks.

“She said not to make it a thing about their patriotism or lack thereof if they are not for it.”

The source added that Pelosi even warned them not to “make it a thing” that members in support of impeachment proceedings are “following the Constitution” because it “implies that those of us who don’t support it are not following the Constitution.”

end quotes

And there we see the predicament such rabid Democrats as Rashida Tlaib have maneuvered the Democrats into today, where they are fighting among themselves as to what the United States Constitution and OUR laws mean and which Democrats are really for the Constitution, versus which Democrats are against the Constitution, which brings us back to VOX, as follows:

Impeachment is much more likely now for a very simple reason: It only takes a majority vote in the House to impeach a president, and Democrats now have a majority.

Tlaib is clearly tapping into a simmering grassroots appetite for impeachment.

But, as Prokop explained, while Democrats could impeach Trump with a party-line vote in the House, it will be extremely difficult to remove him from office in the Republican-controlled Senate.

For that to happen, 20 or more Republican senators will need to vote in favor of Trump’s removal from office to hit the two-thirds threshold.

As of now there’s no indication that anywhere near that number would do so.

end quotes

And there is another key factor here – the continuing claim by the Democrats that they can’t impeach Trump because Trump owns the senate, which is yet more horse**** served on a moldy hardroll, because if the Democrats really had evidence of criminal or unconstitutional conduct by Trump, and they prepared an INDICTMENT of Trump known as Articles of Impeachment, the senate could not just toss that indictment aside as these Democrats playing mind games with us allege, and that takes us back again to VOX, as follows:

Tlaib’s comments were a hot topic of discussion on Friday morning’s cable news shows.

On CNN, Rep. Jerry Nadler (D-NY), chair of the House Judiciary Committee, distanced himself both from Tlaib’s sentiment and the way she expressed it.

“I don’t really like that kind of language.”

“But more to the point, I disagree with what she said,” Nadler said.

“It is too early to talk about that intelligently.”

“We have to follow the facts.”

“We have to get the facts.”

“That’s why it’s important to protect the Mueller investigation.”

“That’s why it’s important to do our own inquiry.”

“We have to get the facts, and we’ll see where the facts lead — and maybe that’ll lead to impeachment, maybe it won’t.”

end quotes

And once again, with that said, it is now common knowledge all over the world, including in Putin’s Russia that Mueller has finished his testimony, such as it was, with David Axelrod, a former top Obama White House strategist while Mr. Mueller was still serving as F.B.I. director, writing on Twitter, “(T)his is delicate to say, but Mueller, whom I deeply respect, has not publicly testified before Congress in at least six years and he does not appear as sharp as he was then,” while the New York Times in the article “Mueller’s Labored Performance Was a Departure From His Once-Fabled Stamina” by Sharon LaFraniere, Michael S. Schmidt, Noah Weiland and Adam Goldman on 25 July 2019 reported “(H)ad Mr. Mueller delivered a commanding performance — even if he said little — he might have cemented that impression; instead, he may have ignited a whole new set of questions about whether he was too old for the job he took on, whether he delegated too many decisions to his top deputies, and whether he was reluctant to testify because he was not up to it,” and FOX News in the article “Robert Mueller hearings: 5 big takeaways” by Vandana Rambaran on 25 July 2019 reported “Democrats hoping to see a smooth, career lawman in command of facts and skilled at parrying with GOP House members had to be sorely disappointed,” and “Mueller was described afterward by various pundits as ‘dazed,’ ‘doddering’ and ‘confused,” while The Federalist’s Mollie Hemingway told Fox News’ “Special Report” Wednesday night, “What I don’t think anybody expected was Mueller would present himself as doddering, as lacking command of anything to do with the election and thereby raising a whole host of questions about who actually was in charge of this Mueller investigation,” and clearly, the Democrats have nothing to base an impeachment on.

So when is it that they will finally realize this?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-162467
thelivyjr
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15901
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: 27 TAKEAWAYS FROM THE MUELLER HEARING

Postby thelivyjr » Fri Aug 02, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 1, 2019 at 6:43 pm

Paul Plante says:

And staying with the subject of impeachment, since that is where we are now headed as a result of the 24 July Mueller Hearing, where Bob Mueller stated in no uncertain terms in response to a question from Congressman William Ballard Hurd, born August 19, 1977, an American politician and former CIA officer serving as the U.S. representative for Texas’s 23rd congressional district since 2015, “(D)id you think that this was a single attempt by the Russians to get involved in our election or did you find evidence to suggest they’ll try to do this again?”, “It wasn’t a single attempt, they’re doing it as we sit here,” I would like to go back to the VOX article entitled “New Congress member creates stir by saying of Trump: ‘We’re going to impeach this motherfucker!’ – Rashida Tlaib went there — right away” by Aaron Rupar @atrupar on Jan 4, 2019, but before I do, I would like to make note of the fact that that language by Mueller on 24 July 2019, “they’re (the Russians) doing it as we sit here,” means to me, an American citizen concerned about what has been going on here since 20 March 2017, when then-FBI Director Jimmy Comey appeared before the same Democrats holding the Mueller Hearing on 24 July 2019 to announce what seems to be an OFF-THE-BOOKS FBI surveillance operation of the Trump campaign in the summer of 2016, when Hussein Obama was in charge of the Justice Department and FBI, is that he was making a direct reference to the fact that the 24 July 2019 Mueller Hearing was a benefit to the efforts of Putin and Russia to interfere in our 2020 presidential election by the slimy trick of using the Mueller hearing to totally discredit Trump as a candidate, thus throwing the election to the Democrats.

With that said, in early-January of this year, some six months before this farce on 24 July 2019, and right after she was sworn into office, the foul-mouthed Democratic Socialist Congresswoman Rashida Tlaib had an op-ed published in the Detroit Free Press titled, “Now is the time to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump” wherein Rashida stated as follows:

“President Donald Trump is a direct and serious threat to our country,” she wrote.

“On an almost daily basis, he attacks our Constitution, our democracy, the rule of law and the people who are in this country.”

“His conduct has created a constitutional crisis that we must confront now.”

end quotes

And from there, she went on as follows, which is what is relevant to this story today, as we head towards impeachment, to wit:

But in her op-ed, Tlaib addresses concerns like the one Nadler expressed about pursuing impeachment before Mueller’s work is completed.

“It is not Mueller’s role to determine whether the president has committed impeachable offenses.”

“That is the responsibility of the US Congress,” she wrote.

“Those who say we must wait for Special Counsel Mueller to complete his criminal investigation before Congress can start any impeachment proceedings ignore this crucial distinction.”

“There is no requirement whatsoever that a president be charged with or be convicted of a crime before Congress can impeach him.”

“They also ignore the fact that many of the impeachable offenses committed by this president are beyond the scope of the special counsel’s investigation.”

end quotes

Now, it turns out from a review of the Federalist papers that Rashida Tlaib is dead on the money when she says in January of this year “It is not Mueller’s role to determine whether the president has committed impeachable offenses; that is the responsibility of the US Congress!”

So why, six months later, did the Democrats have to put poor Bob Mueller on the witness stand in a bogus hearing to essentially embarrass him while showing all the world just how weak a nation we are and how scared of Putin and Russia we are as a nation, which is a grave insult to each and every American citizen?

Why the need for the sick show when as Rashida Tlaib, a lawyer, made clear six months ago in January of 2019 that it was up to Congress, not Mueller, to bring charges against Trump?

And how much of our tax dollars have the Democrats now expended on these hearings since the witch hunt began in earnest back in 2016?

And how exactly was that money appropriated?

And by whom?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-162820
thelivyjr
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15901
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: 27 TAKEAWAYS FROM THE MUELLER HEARING

Postby thelivyjr » Sun Aug 04, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 2, 2019 at 5:32 pm

Paul Plante says:

So what is impeachment, people?

What does it really mean when the Democrats and Democratic Socialists like the foul-mouthed Rashida Tlaib say they are going to impeach Trump?

As to impeachment as applied to Trump as president, in FEDERALIST No. 69, The Real Character of the Executive, from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 14, 1788, Alexander Hamilton stated thusly, to wit:.

I PROCEED now to trace the real characters of the proposed Executive, as they are marked out in the plan of the convention.

This will serve to place in a strong light the unfairness of the representations which have been made in regard to it.

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

So, from that, we can see that impeachment is a process that is intended to protect We, the American people, from another tyrant in the mold of George III of England, whose tyranny was still very fresh in the minds of those who gave us the United States Constitution; but at the same time, it is also intended to protect the executive from the machinations of factions in the House of Representatives who are demagogues appealing to the base passions of the people at large in their bid to usurp the power of the executive to make it their own.

So in this case, if Rashida Tlaib, said to be a lawyer whose intellectual capacity far exceeds that of a John Marshall or Dershowitz and Tribe, has evidence that Trump has committed treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, then what she does as a member of the House is to prepare Articles of Impeachment, listing therein each separate charge of treason, bribery, or other high crimes or misdemeanors, and the specifications of each separate charge, to include who, what, when, and where, and then she has those charges, or that indictment, served on Trump, and the impeachment process begins.

So, does Rashida have evidence?

According to the VOX article from January of this year, she says she does, to wit:

With regard to which impeachable offenses Tlaib thinks Trump has already committed, she specifically cites “obstructing justice; violating the emoluments clause; abusing the pardon power; directing or seeking to direct law enforcement to prosecute political adversaries for improper purposes; advocating illegal violence and undermining equal protection of the laws; ordering the cruel and unconstitutional imprisonment of children and their families at the southern border; and conspiring to illegally influence the 2016 election through a series of hush money payments.”

end quotes

That, people, was in January, and those are indeed quite serious charges which if true would likely result in Trump being removed from office and being liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law, just as Alexander Hamilton told us would be the case in Federalist No. 69 – so why were there no Articles of Impeachment filed in January of this year by Rashida Tlaib, a highly skilled lawyer in her own right, to get the process going in order to protect us from a president she tells us is a direct and serious threat to our country who on an almost daily basis attacks our Constitution, our democracy, the rule of law and the people who are in this country, and whose conduct has created a constitutional crisis that we must confront now?

With things that serious, what on earth can she be waiting for, especially when she seems to have the goods on Trump, as she told us in January?

And that existential question takes us back to the FOX News article “Pelosi warns Dems: Don’t trash colleagues who won’t back impeachment” by Brooke Singman on 25 July 2019, where we have the following bizarre and surreal colloquy between Democrat Veronica Escobar, born September 15, 1969, who is an American politician serving as the U.S. Representative for Texas’s 16th congressional district, based in El Paso, and Bob Mueller, as follows:

But the impeachment question threatens to further divide the caucus after Mueller’s testimony left the future of that push as unclear as ever.

Pelosi, for her part, has resisted impeachment pressure from the start.

Mueller stood by his team’s findings at the hearings before both the House Judiciary and House Intelligence Committees — reiterating that the special counsel’s office had found no evidence of a criminal conspiracy between Trump associates and Russia, while also stating that the president was not exonerated on allegations of obstruction of justice despite his assertions to the contrary.

But in doing so, Mueller repeatedly refused to drift beyond the bounds of his report.

He also declined to go down the road of the impeachment topic, under questioning from both Republicans and Democrats.

Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, of the Judiciary Committee, directly questioned Mueller on whether he was suggesting that Congress impeach Trump.

“You explained [in May] … that the Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing,” Escobar said, quoting Mueller’s remarks during his press conference in May.

“That process other than the criminal justice system to accuse a sitting president of wrongdoing — is that impeachment?”

“I’m not going to comment on that,” Mueller said, as she continued to press the issue, citing a footnote in the report.

“What are other constitutional processes?” she said.

Mueller replied: “I think I heard you mention at least one.”

“Impeachment, correct?” she pressed.

“I’m not going to comment,” he said.

end quotes

If Bob Mueller was going to comment on that bizarre line of questioning, it would have been along the lines of how does someone as ignorant of OUR Constitution as Rep. Veronica Escobar, D-Texas, manage to become a congressperson in the first place, and then, more importantly how on earth did she end up getting placed on the Judiciary Committee, when she knows nothing of OUR laws and Constitution, but Bob Mueller was too polite and politically correct on 24 July 2019, six (6) months AFTER Rashida Tlaib laid out the process and grounds for impeaching Trump on a host of charges, for that exchange to happen, so he stayed silent, instead, to our detriment as a nation and as a people.

And that takes us to Alexander Hamilton in FEDERALIST No. 65, The Powers of the Senate Continued, from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 7, 1788, on the subject of impeachment of Trump, as follows:

We will, therefore, conclude this head with a view of the judicial character of the Senate.

A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective.

The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust.

end quotes

So, for the impeachment process to work as it should to protect us from a president Democratic Socialist firebrand and Trump hater Rashida Tlaib tells us us is a direct and serious threat to our country who on an almost daily basis attacks our Constitution, our democracy, the rule of law and the people who are in this country, and whose conduct has created a constitutional crisis that we must confront now, she would prepare an indictment against Trump known as Articles of Impeachment demonstrating therein to the Senate the misconduct of Trump that is an abuse or violation of some public trust, and the game would be on.

So why isn’t it?

Getting back to Hamilton and Federalist No. 65:

They (alleged abuses or violations of some public trust) are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

end quotes

So, has Trump done injuries to society itself?

Or hasn’t he?

And when is it the Democrats will finally let us know?

And in the meantime, what can they be waiting for?

Is this just a game with them, as it appears to be?

And again, that thought takes us back to Federalist No. 65, as follows:

The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused.

end quotes

Did Alexander Hamilton have prescient (having or showing knowledge of events before they take place) vision when he wrote those words on March 7, 1788?

Getting back to Federalist No. 65:

In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.

end quotes

Which again raises the question of prescient vision, because that is where we are right now in this country, especially as on 28 July 2019, Democrat Congressman Denny Heck (WA-10) of the Judiciary Committee announced his support for impeachment of Trump, as follows:

“For many months multiple committees of the House have been engaged in investigations both of potentially illegal acts by President Trump related to Russia’s ‘sweeping and systematic’ interference in the 2016 election and of the President’s response to investigations into that interference.”

“As a member of the House Intelligence Committee, I’ve been deeply involved in that effort.”

“I’ve sat through hundreds of hours of closed and open testimony, read and reread the findings of the Office of the Special Counsel (the Mueller Report), and spoken with and listened to the people of the Tenth Congressional District.”

“In last week’s hearings, I also had the opportunity to hear directly from Special Counsel Mueller and, along with my colleagues, to personally engage him in questions.”

“After considerable reflection and prayerful consideration, I’ve reached some conclusions.

“First, there is no question that the President encouraged, welcomed and benefited from the interference of a foreign adversary in our 2016 election.”

“Furthermore, he has both refused to fully acknowledge it occurred and even suggested he might welcome such interference again.”

“The White House has also opposed Congressional measures to enhance election security going forward.”

“This strikes at the very core of our democracy and democratic values.”

“America’s elections are for Americans.”

“Period.”

“Support of free, fair and open elections is not negotiable.

“The President has also engaged in an aggressive and active cover-up of the effort to reveal all the facts.”

“This is particularly true of the many ways in which potential financial conflicts or motivations may have guided the Trump campaign or several of its high-ranking officials.”

“This was the essence of my exchange with Special Counsel Mueller during the hearing last week.”

“Americans deserve to know the full extent of the facts.”

“Officially initiating an impeachment inquiry substantially strengthens the legal hand of the House to discover all information.”

“I am familiar with the political arguments against initiating an impeachment inquiry based on the findings to date.”

“For example, some suggest that the Senate is highly unlikely to convict the President should the House impeach him and that his chances of reelection will therefore be enhanced.”

“That may be true.”

“What is truer is that nothing less than the rule of law is at stake.

“Accordingly, I support initiation of an impeachment inquiry by the House Judiciary Committee and will support measures to accomplish this when Congress returns to Washington, D.C.”

end quotes

And with that, I will pause before getting back to the Federalist Papers, but don’t go away, because this sick saga sure isn’t going to – the Democrats are too far in now to get back out gracefully, so will they now double down on their efforts to disgrace Trump before the 2020 presidential election?

Stay tuned to this same channel and we will find out together as it happens.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-163141
thelivyjr
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15901
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: 27 TAKEAWAYS FROM THE MUELLER HEARING

Postby thelivyjr » Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 4, 2019 at 10:23 pm

Paul Plante says:

So, people, according to The Daily Beast, this bizarre and seemingly unending drama now known as the Democrat party impeachment train is now gathering steam and actually very much appears as if it even might be somewhat ready to leave the station, as we see in the story entitled “A Majority of House Democrats Now Back Trump Impeachment Inquiry” by Julia Arciga on 1 August 2019, as follows:

The majority of the House Democratic caucus now supports an impeachment inquiry against President Trump, with Rep. Ted Deutch (D-FL) becoming the 118th Democrat in the chamber to support moving to such proceedings.

“[President Trump] seems to think that Mueller’s performance wasn’t enough to trigger an impeachment inquiry,” the congressman wrote in an op-ed in the South Florida Sun Sentinel.

“Sorry, Mr. President, the question is no longer whether the House should vote to proceed with a formal impeachment inquiry.”

“The inquiry has already begun.”

end quotes

So there we are, people, after spending some $32 million on the Mueller investigation, which according to the CNBC article “Robert Mueller’s Russia probe cost nearly $32 million in total, Justice Department says” by Kevin Breuninger on 2 August 2019 involved 19 lawyers supported by 40 FBI agents, along with intelligence analysts, forensic accountants and other staff, we still do not know enough to actually impeach Trump by preparing in the House an INDICTMENT in the form of Articles of Impeachment, so we need to spend more money on yet more investigations to learn what it is that we don’t actually yet know, as a result of the Mueller investigation, which sounds ridiculous, but there we are folks – it is what it is when it is, even if and when it makes no sense at all, like this Democrat “impeachment inquiry,” which is a way for the Democrats to keep flogging this dead horse and making scurrilous accusations against Trump without actually ever having to prove them in a forum where Trump is not allowed to mount a defense, right on up to November 2020 and the upcoming presidential election, which the Democrats are now meddling in and interfering with by talking about impeaching Trump for all these alleged crimes without actually impeaching him, in fact, which is as low as politics can get in this country, and that’s a fact, which takes us to a CNBC article entitlled “Trump’s nominee for intelligence chief accused Mueller of violating ‘sacred traditions'” by Kevin Breuninger on 29 July 2019, where we have as follows:

President Donald Trump’s just-announced nominee to replace Dan Coats as director of national intelligence had already drawn national attention earlier this week, when he delivered an aggressive diatribe against former special counsel Robert Mueller.

Rep. John Ratcliffe, a Texas Republican and a member of the House Judiciary Committee, had zeroed in on one of the key lines from Mueller’s report on Russian election interference, possible coordination between Trump’s campaign and the Kremlin, and possible obstruction of justice by Trump himself.

Mueller’s 448-page report found insufficient evidence to prove coordination, and declined to make a determination on obstruction despite detailing numerous examples of potential obstruction by Trump.

But the report notes: “While this report does not conclude that the president committed a crime, it also does not exonerate him.”

During Mueller’s first hearing before the Judiciary Committee on Wednesday, Ratcliffe said he agreed with Mueller’s conclusions that Russia’s efforts to meddle in the 2016 presidential election were “sweeping and systematic.”

But he tore into Mueller for including the asterisk in his report that explicitly said Trump was not exonerated.

“Can you give me an example other than Donald Trump where the Justice Department determined that an investigated person was not exonerated because their innocence was not conclusively determined?” Ratcliffe asked Mueller.

The former special counsel responded, “I cannot, but this is a unique situation.”

Ratcliffe shot back: “You can’t find it, because – I’ll tell you why – it doesn’t exist.”

“It was not the special counsel’s job to conclusively determine Donald Trump’s innocence or to exonerate him because the bedrock principle of our justice system is a presumption of innocence.”

“It exists for everyone, everyone is entitled to it, including sitting presidents,” Ratcliffe said in the hearing.

“You managed to violate every principle and the most sacred of traditions about prosecutors not offering extra prosecutorial analysis.”

Trump shouldn’t be above the law, Ratcliffe added, “but he damn sure shouldn’t be below the law, which is where volume two of this report puts him.”

end quotes

But the Democrats heading into the 2020 need the American people to believe that Trump really is below the law, not entitled to due process, and so he now is, according to the Democrats, which takes us back to The Daily Beast article “A Majority of House Democrats Now Back Trump Impeachment Inquiry” by Julia Arciga on 1 August 2019, as follows:

A spokesperson for Deutch confirmed to Politico that he would vote for an impeachment inquiry if such a vote was requested.

end quotes

Ah, yes, Ted, I think I’m seeing it all a bit more clearly now – even though above you said the impeachment inquiry had already begun, what you really meant was that it hasn’t begun at all, which is why you are telling us you would support it, if requested, which again takes us back to The Daily Beast, as follows:.

“The American people want, and deserve, the truth.”

“Mr. Mueller’s testimony provided ample evidence that the president committed obstruction of justice, and I believe the House must pursue a formal impeachment inquiry,” House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel (D-NY) wrote in a statement Tuesday announcing his support for impeachment.

end quotes

You see, people, there it is right there in black and white – the American people want, and deserve, the truth.

So when the hell are we finally going to get it?

And that answer is never, because the truth is something the Democrats haven’t got, and never will, or this thread would not need to be running in the first place, talking about the games the Democrats are now trying to play with our minds as they continue to whip up visceral hate against Trump heading into 2020, which again takes us to The Daily Beast, to wit:

“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.”

“Article I authorizes the House Judiciary Committee to begin this process,” members of the committee wrote in an Atlantic piece.

end quotes

And actually, Article I says no such thing about the House Judiciary Committee, but that would never trouble a Democrat, who can merely make this **** up out of thin air, as they go.

Section 4 of Article II of OUR Constitution states in clear and unequivocal language, as follows:

Section 4. Impeachment

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

end quotes

Note the key words, “impeachment for AND conviction of.”

According to the annotations, few provisions of the Constitution were adopted from English practice to the degree the section on impeachment was.

In England, impeachment was a device to remove from office one who abused his office or misbehaved but who was protected by the Crown.

It was a device that figured in the plans proposed to the Convention from the first, and the arguments went to such questions as what body was to try impeachments and what grounds were to be stated as warranting impeachment, and the attention of the Framers was for the most part fixed on the President and his removal, and the results of this narrow frame of reference are reflected in the questions unresolved by the language of the Constitution.

As to the grounds for impeachment, the Constitutional Convention came to its choice of words describing the grounds for impeachment after much deliberation, but the phrasing derived directly from the English practice.

The framers early adopted, on June 2, a provision that the Executive should be removable by impeachment and conviction ”of mal-practice or neglect of duty.”

The Committee of Detail reported as grounds ”Treason (or) Bribery or Corruption.”

And the Committee of Eleven reduced the phrase to ”Treason, or bribery.”

On September 8, Mason objected to this limitation, observing that the term did not encompass all the conduct which should be grounds for removal; he therefore proposed to add ”or maladministration” following ”bribery.”

Upon Madison’s objection that ”(s)o vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate,” Mason suggested ”other high crimes and misdemeanors,” which was adopted without further recorded debate.

The phrase in the context of impeachments has an ancient English history, first turning up in the impeachment of the Earl of Suffolk in 1388.

Treason is defined in the Constitution; bribery is not, but it had a clear common-law meaning and is now well covered by statute.

High crimes and misdemeanors, however, is an undefined and indefinite phrase, which, in England, had comprehended conduct not constituting indictable offenses.

In an unrelated action, the Convention had seemed to understand the term ”high misdemeanor” to be quite limited in meaning, but debate prior to adoption of the phrase and comments thereafter in the ratifying conventions were to the effect that the President at least, and all the debate was in terms of the President, should be removable by impeachment for commissions or omissions in office which were not criminally cognizable.

Practice over the years, however, insofar as the Senate deems itself bound by the actions of previous Senates, would appear to limit the grounds of conviction to indictable criminal offenses for all officers, with the possible exception of judges.

end quotes

So there is what should be happening if in fact Trump is really guilty of all these indictable offenses, as the Democrats have been telling us since January of this year.

So why aren’t they then?

What’s the deal?

Oh, right, the Democrats are simply playing mind games with us in an effort to throw the 2020 presidential election to the Democrats, which would be a big win for Putin in Russia were that to happen.

And now, we pause for station identification to let that message sink in, and right after a word from our sponsors we will be right back!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-163683
thelivyjr
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15901
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: 27 TAKEAWAYS FROM THE MUELLER HEARING

Postby thelivyjr » Mon Aug 05, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 5, 2019 at 7:04 pm

Paul Plante says:

And before we go any further into the dense clouds of obfuscation and misdirection being thrown in our faces by the Congressional Democrats as we try to navigate this murky morass and outright slime storm the Democrats in the House of Representatives have created as they meddle in the 2020 presidential election in order to insure that a Democrat is our next president, let us for a moment go back to The Daily Beast story “A Majority of House Democrats Now Back Trump Impeachment Inquiry” by Julia Arciga on 1 August 2019, where we have the following from House Democrat Commander-in-Chief Nancy Pelosi on the subject of impeachment, as follows:

Pelosi supported the committee’s effort, but has repeatedly spoke against sparking the impeachment process.

“We will proceed when we have what we need to proceed,” she said at a press conference.

“Not a day sooner.”

end quotes

And by my calculations, employing the same political calculus I believe a canny, old-school machine Democrat like Nancy Pelosi would employ here, the Articles of Impeachment will be served on Trump on 15 October 2020, right before the November 2020 presidential elections, in the hopes that that would stall any momentum Trump might have going into 2020 and tip the election to the Democrats, which takes us back to that Daily Beast article, as follows, to wit:

The House Speaker also argued that Trump was “taunting” and “goading” Democrats into handing him a win — under the assumption that the effort would fail in the GOP-controlled Senate.

end quotes

And what an absolutely stupid, ridiculous, childish and totally ignorant statement that really is, Nancy!

The Democrats in the House of Representatives would file Articles of Impeachment against Trump because he “taunted” and “goaded” them?

Are we talking about functioning adults here?

Or are we talking about juveniles, and to me, it certainly sounds the latter, given that the Constitution does not make taunting and goading Democrats in the House of Representatives an impeachable offence without more, and it is the “more” part of that equation that the Democrats are sorely lacking, which takes us to FEDERALIST No. 65, The Powers of the Senate Continued, from the New York Packet by Alexander Hamilton to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 7, 1788, where we have the following as to why these Articles of Impeachment would be tried in the Senate, as opposed to Nancy Pelosi’s very partisan House of Representatives, as follows:

The delicacy and magnitude of a trust which so deeply concerns the political reputation and existence of every man engaged in the administration of public affairs, speak for themselves.

end quotes

And it is there that our present CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS with the Democrats under Nancy Pelosi meddling with and interfering in our 2020 presidential election begins – because with this continual litany of alleged criminal violations by the Democrats against Trump, without there ever being a trial or a chance for the accused, in this case, Trump, to confront the witnesses against him, which is very un-American, and is something you would expect in Putin’s Russia, the House Democrats are making a mockery of that statement by making a continual mockery of Trump himself, which is the purpose of all of these hearings, which takes us back to Federalist No. 65, for the following words of wisdom on the subject from Alexander Hamilton, to wit:

The difficulty of placing it rightly, in a government resting entirely on the basis of periodical elections, will as readily be perceived, when it is considered that the most conspicuous characters in it will, from that circumstance, be too often the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction, and on this account, can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny.

end quotes

And amen to that, Alexander Hamilton!

And when he talks about the leaders or the tools of the most cunning or the most numerous faction who can hardly be expected to possess the requisite neutrality towards those whose conduct may be the subject of scrutiny, he is talking about Nancy Pelosi, Jerry Nadler, the smarmy and unctuous Democrat Hollywood, California Congressman Adam Schiff, and a virtual swarm of other Democrats in the House, including Democratic Socialist firebrand AOC and the foul-mouthed and ignorant Rashida Tlaib, which again takes us back to Federalist No. 65, to wit:.

The convention, it appears, thought the Senate the most fit depositary of this important trust.

Those who can best discern the intrinsic difficulty of the thing, will be least hasty in condemning that opinion, and will be most inclined to allow due weight to the arguments which may be supposed to have produced it.

What, it may be asked, is the true spirit of the institution itself?

Is it not designed as a method of NATIONAL INQUEST into the conduct of public men?

If this be the design of it, who can so properly be the inquisitors for the nation as the representatives of the nation themselves?

It is not disputed that the power of originating the inquiry, or, in other words, of preferring the impeachment, ought to be lodged in the hands of one branch of the legislative body.

Will not the reasons which indicate the propriety of this arrangement strongly plead for an admission of the other branch of that body to a share of the inquiry?

The model from which the idea of this institution has been borrowed, pointed out that course to the convention.

In Great Britain it is the province of the House of Commons to prefer the impeachment, and of the House of Lords to decide upon it.

Several of the State constitutions have followed the example.

As well the latter, as the former, seem to have regarded the practice of impeachments as a bridle in the hands of the legislative body upon the executive servants of the government.

Is not this the true light in which it ought to be regarded?

Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent?

What other body would be likely to feel CONFIDENCE ENOUGH IN ITS OWN SITUATION, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an INDIVIDUAL accused,and the REPRESENTATIVES OF THE PEOPLE, HIS ACCUSERS?

end quotes

And there, people, is what the Democrats in the House of Representatives are so upset about – the fact that unlike the House, the Democrats in the Senate do not have the numbers to pervert the impeachment process as the House Democrats under the canny, machine politician Nancy Pelosi are doing!

And before we go back to Alexander Hamilton and Federalist No. 65, we will pause for station identification to give you a chance to head for the kitchen for some sustenance to sustain you as we penetrate further into the fog of Democrat obfuscation here in a bid to save our democracy and the soul of our nation from this blatant assault the Democrats are making on them, and pray we are successful, so that come 2020, it is not Putin who wins our 2020 presidential election.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-163856
thelivyjr
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15901
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: 27 TAKEAWAYS FROM THE MUELLER HEARING

Postby thelivyjr » Tue Aug 06, 2019 1:40 p

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

Paul Plante says:

And while we are on the subject of RULE OF LAW and DUE PROCESS OF LAW and PRESUMED INNOCENT UNTIL PROVEN GUILTY and CONSTITUTIONAL BALANCE and SEPARATION OF POWERS all going out the window thanks to Nancy Pelosi and her pack of House Democrats who are totally perverting Article I of OUR Constitution and our laws in order to smear and slander and heap slime on a president of the opposite party in a bid to get a Democrat into the oval office come November 2020, before we go back to Alexander Hamilton and Federalist No. 65, The Hill just came out with an article entitled “Nadler: Judiciary panel could reach impeachment decision by late fall” by Olivia Beavers on 5 August, where we get this update on what the Democrats are thinking, and how they are proceeding, as follows:

House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) on Monday said that his committee could decide whether to move forward with articles of impeachment against President Trump by late fall of this year but cautioned that such a decision requires certain conditions.

“If we decide to report articles of impeachment, we could get to that in the late fall perhaps – in the latter part of the year,” Nadler said in an appearance on MSNBC.

end quotes

So, are they getting with it, then?

Or are they fixin’ to get with it?

A huge mystery to which the pundits so far have no answers, other than that maybe something will happen by fall, but then again, maybe nothing will happen, which will leave us in suspense and on the edge of our seats all winter, and hey, that may well be the plan here, because we are dealing with some very canny Democrats here, and these investigations of Trump are a fundraising bonanza for the Democrats, so this show is not going to end so long as the campaign contributions keep rolling in, which takes us back to The Hill, as follows:

“The calendar is whatever it is,” Nadler said.

“We can’t let the election calendar dictate.”

“We will have hearings in September and October, who are witnesses not dependent on the court proceedings and we will do it through the fall.”

Nadler also noted that three key ingredients must exist before moving forward with articles of impeachment: The committee must be able to prove the president committed impeachable offenses, answer whether they reach the threshold of serious impeachable offenses, and have the support of the American people.

Polls currently indicate that a majority of U.S. citizens do not favor impeachment, but Nadler thinks his committee’s work will likely change their minds.

“We will hold these hearings.”

“We will get the support of the American people or we won’t.”

“I suspect we will,” Nadler said.

But even if House ultimately decided to introduce articles of impeachment against Trump, Democrats would face a far more difficult time seeking to convince the GOP-controlled Senate of removing Trump from office.

Democrats say it is their duty to conduct oversight.

Late last month, Nadler and others heralded the testimony of Mueller as a resounding success, despite Democrats privately saying the high-profile hearing in many ways failed to match their hope and expectations.

Still, Nadler, who jabbed the press for initially acting like “theater critics” over the Mueller’s testimony, called it an “inflection point.”

While the former FBI chief did not present any new evidence during the hearings – and often times gave basic or one-worded answers – he did confirm on camera that his investigation did not exonerate the president of obstruction of justice.

Mueller’s investigation ultimately did not find sufficient evidence that members of the Trump campaign coordinated with Russia.

But Democrats say it is now in the hands of Congress to make that determination, and they will continue to collect evidence in order to do so.

“The Mueller report was the summary of the evidence, we don’t have the evidence,” Nadler said on MSNBC.

“We will get the evidence in public hearings in front of the American people and then we will see about the conclusions.”

end quotes

So from that, it very much sounds like Jerrold Nadler is not accepting the Mueller Report as either conclusive or final, and he is going to have his committee redo the Mueller Investigation so that they can have it come up with some different conclusions more beneficial to the Democrats going into the 2020 elections, which takes us back to July 24, 2019, and the HOUSE JUDICIARY COMMITTEE HEARING ON OVERSIGHT OF THE REPORT ON THE INVESTIGATION INTO RUSSIAN INTERFERENCE IN THE 2016 PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION: FORMER SPECIAL COUNSEL ROBERT S. MUELLER, III, REP. JERROLD NADLER, D-N.Y., and his opening statement wherein he essentially indicts Trump, as follows:

CHAIRMAN: I will now recognize myself for a brief opening statement.

Director Mueller, thank you for being here.

I want to say just a few words about our themes today: responsibility, integrity and accountability.

end quotes

And so do I, actually, which takes us to a MARKETWATCH story entitled “Justice Department won’t charge Comey over Trump memos” by Associated Press published Aug. 1, 2019, where we have what appears to be a case of Jimmy Comey, like Hillary Clinton, being above the law, and thus not responsible or accountable, as follows:

WASHINGTON — The Justice Department has declined to prosecute former FBI Director James Comey over his handling of a series of memos he wrote that documented personal interactions with President Donald Trump, a person familiar with the matter said Thursday.

The memos, some of which Justice Department officials later determined contained classified information, were written in the weeks and months before Comey’s firing by Trump in May 2017.

A week after he was fired, Comey authorized a friend to describe the contents of one of the memos to the news media.

He has said his hope in having one of the memos become public was to spur the appointment of a special counsel to run the Justice Department’s investigation into possible ties between Russia and the Trump campaign.

end quotes

So, okay, admitted, he did have to break the law to make that happen, but since the goal is to hang Trump, and Jimmy was loyal to Hillary, so he shouldn’t have to take a fall for helping to take down Trump, that kind of law-breaking can be overlooked as politics.

Getting back to that article:

FBI agents collected four memos from Comey’s house one month after he was fired, according to court documents made public this week as part of a lawsuit by the organization Judicial Watch.

In court documents arguing against the public release of the memos, the FBI has contended that the memos include “highly sensitive information” about the Russia probe as well as certain classified details, including the code name and true identity of a source and details of foreign intelligence information.

Comey has said he took pains to document other information in an unclassified manner so that it could be made public and discussed out in the open.

That includes his February 2017 conversation about Flynn, the topic of the first memo described to the media.

“So my thinking was, if I write it in such a way that I don’t include anything that would trigger a classification, that’ll make it easier for us to discuss, within the FBI and the government, and to — to hold on to it in a way that makes it accessible to us,” Comey said at a June 2017 hearing.

The memos, some of which Comey described in a book released last year, were also pieces of evidence in special counsel Robert Mueller’s Russia investigation.

The person who confirmed the Justice Department’s decision was not authorized to discuss it by name and spoke on condition of anonymity to The Associated Press.

A lawyer for Comey declined to comment.

John Lavinsky, a spokesman for the Justice Department’s inspector general, which had been investigating, said he could not confirm or deny the existence of an investigation.

end quotes

So, nothing to see here, people, let’s go, clear the streets, everybody go back home and you will be just fine, because nothing happened in the first place to worry about, and now, we’ll pause to take a station break for a word from our sponsors, before returning to Alexander Hamilton, who will speak prophetically as follows, to wit:

The necessity of a numerous court for the trial of impeachments, is equally dictated by the nature of the proceeding.

This can never be tied down by such strict rules, either in the delineation of the offense by the prosecutors, or in the construction of it by the judges, as in common cases serve to limit the discretion of courts in favor of personal security.

There will be no jury to stand between the judges who are to pronounce the sentence of the law, and the party who is to receive or suffer it.

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.

Would it be proper that the persons who had disposed of his fame, and his most valuable rights as a citizen in one trial, should, in another trial, for the same offense, be also the disposers of his life and his fortune?

Would there not be the greatest reason to apprehend, that error, in the first sentence, would be the parent of error in the second sentence?

That the strong bias of one decision would be apt to overrule the influence of any new lights which might be brought to vary the complexion of another decision?

Those who know anything of human nature, will not hesitate to answer these questions in the affirmative; and will be at no loss to perceive, that by making the same persons judges in both cases, those who might happen to be the objects of prosecution would, in a great measure, be deprived of the double security intended them by a double trial.

The loss of life and estate would often be virtually included in a sentence which, in its terms, imported nothing more than dismission from a present, and disqualification for a future, office.

It may be said, that the intervention of a jury, in the second instance, would obviate the danger.

But juries are frequently influenced by the opinions of judges.

They are sometimes induced to find special verdicts, which refer the main question to the decision of the court.

Who would be willing to stake his life and his estate upon the verdict of a jury acting under the auspices of judges who had predetermined his guilt?

end quotes

Who, indeed, Alexander – an existential question for our times!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-164104
thelivyjr
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15901
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: 27 TAKEAWAYS FROM THE MUELLER HEARING

Postby thelivyjr » Fri Aug 09, 2019 1:40 p

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR August 7, 2019 at 5:40 pm

Paul Plante says :

And as we continue to try to follow this convoluted mess being thrown at us by the House Democrats as they continue to play the impeachment game here, we have these words to consider, to wit:

Director Mueller, we have a responsibility to address the evidence that you have uncovered.

You recognize as much when you said, quote, “The Constitution requires a process other than the criminal justice system to formally accuse a sitting president of wrong doing,” close quote.

That process begins with the work of this committee.

We will follow your example, Director Mueller.

We will act with integrity.

We will follow the facts where they lead.

We will consider all appropriate remedies.

We will make our recommendation to the House when our work concludes.

We will do this work because there must be accountability for the conduct described in your report especially as it relates to the president.

Thank you again, Director Mueller.

We look forward to your testimony.

end quotes

And that, people, was Democrat House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) speaking to special prosecutor Bob Mueller and We, The American People, as well, on 24 July 2019 during the Mueller Hearing, him being the same Jerrold Nadler who then came back twelve (12) days later on 5 August 2019 to tell us in the article in The Hill entitled “Nadler: Judiciary panel could reach impeachment decision by late fall” by Olivia Beavers as follows:

House Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) on Monday said that his committee could decide whether to move forward with articles of impeachment against President Trump by late fall of this year but cautioned that such a decision requires certain conditions.

“If we decide to report articles of impeachment, we could get to that in the late fall perhaps – in the latter part of the year,” Nadler said in an appearance on MSNBC.

end quotes

And that brings us to the NBC News article “Majority of House Democrats now support Trump impeachment inquiry” by Alex Moe and Kyle Stewart on 2 August 2019, as follows:

Rep. Salud Carbajal, of California, put the Democrats over the halfway mark on Friday, saying in a statement that Trump “evaded truth, encouraged his staff to lie repeatedly to investigators and engaged in obstruction,” adding “that’s criminal.”

With Carbajal’s announcement, 118 out of 235 House Democrats have publicly called for opening an inquiry.

end quotes

And there is the bull**** nature of this Democrat effort to mislead us while they continue to meddle in the 2020 presidential election by calling Trump a criminal while never actually getting the process going whereby Trump would be afforded an opportunity to defend himself, which used to be a bedrock right here in the United States of America before the Democrats took over things in this country and changed the rules.

If Democrat Salud Ortiz Carbajal, born November 18, 1964 in Moroleón, Mexico, an American politician who is the current United States Representative from California’s 24th congressional district has actual evidence that Trump acted in a “criminal” manner, then why is he sitting on his hands and not doing anything about it, other than running his mouth to NBC News as part of their hate campaign against Trump?

Why has he filed no Articles of Impeachment?

Why is he not speaking out that with these charges hanging against Trump, it is imperative that Articles of Impeachment be filed now, for the sake of our Republic and our future as a nation?

Which thought then takes us back a little over two years ago to 20 March 2017, and the closing statement of then-Intelligence Committee Chair Devin Nunes at the Comey hearing before the Intelligence Committee which then led in an unbroken chain of events to Rod Rosenstein announcing fifty-eight (58) days later in May of 2017 that he had a major-league conflict of interest that required him to turn over the Russia investigation to Bob Mueller and a bunch of lawyers connected to Hillary Clinton, which action then led to the Mueller Report, and then the 24 July 2019 Mueller Hearing, where Jerrold Nadler spoke the opening words above here, to wit:

NUNES: Mr. Comey, this is my final list of questions here.

I just want to make sure we get this on the record.

Do you have any evidence that any current Trump White House or administration official coordinated with the Russian intelligence services?

COMEY: Not a question I can answer.

NUNES: I figured you were going to say that, but I just wanted to make sure we got it on the record.

But here’s the challenge.

Is that you’ve announced that you have this big investigation, but now you’ve got people that are involved in our government that are — the Secretary of State, for example — these are important players.

And the longer this hangs out here, the bigger the cloud is.

And I know that you’re not going to tell me whether or not you have any evidence, but I can tell you that we don’t have any evidence.

And we’re conducting our own investigation here, and if you have some — if you have evidence I’d — especially as it relates to people in the White House that are working in the White House or the administration, I mean, that would be something that we really should know about and we should know about quickly.

And so if you can’t give it to the entire committee, I hope you can at least give it myself and Mr. Schiff because you know, there is a big gray cloud that you have put over people who have very important work to do to lead this country.

And so the faster you can get to the bottom of this, it’s going to be better for all Americans.

COMEY: I understand.

Thank you.

end quotes

And here we are, over two years later, and not only have we not gotten to the bottom of anything, but things are now murkier than ever, which takes us back to the NBC News article, as follows:

More than two dozen Democrats have now voiced support for moving ahead with the impeachment process since former special counsel Robert Mueller testified before the House Judiciary and Intelligence committees last week.

At the hearings, Mueller repeated his report’s findings that his investigation into Trump and Russia did not exonerate the president on the question of obstruction of justice and found that Russia worked to try to help his presidential campaign.

end quotes

And seriously, people, how many times have we now heard those same accusations?

Seems like several hundred to me, anyway, which takes us back to NBC News, as follows:

Eleven committee chairs, including two leading investigations into the Trump administration — House Financial Services Chairwoman Maxine Waters, D-Calif., and House Foreign Affairs Chairman Eliot Engel, D-N.Y. — have announced their support for impeachment.

But House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler, D-N.Y., whose committee has jurisdiction over impeachment, has publicly been more reserved about supporting the move.

“We may not do that, we may do that, but that’s a conclusion at the end of the process,” Nadler told reporters last week about his panel recommending articles of impeachment against Trump.

He added when pressed that his committee has “in effect” been conducting an impeachment inquiry into the president.

Sixteen of the 24 Democrats on his committee also back an inquiry.

“What’s going on is that I think too much has been made of the phrase ‘an impeachment inquiry,'” Nadler told reporters last Friday.

“We are doing what our court filing says we are doing, what I said we are doing, and that is to say we are using our full Article I powers to investigate the conduct of the president, and to consider what remedies there are.”

end quotes

Except Article I of OUR Constitution makes no mention whatsoever of Jerrold Nadler or the house judiciary committee, nor does Article I of OUR Constitution give either Jerrold Nadler or his committee any powers to investigate a sitting American president – that is something Jerrold is making up out of whole cloth to make himself sound important as the person who oversees the conduct of an American president, which would then make Jerrold Nadler, a mere congressman, more powerful than the president, which would then pervert OUR Constitution and make a mockery out of it, which takes us back to NBC News, as follows:

The vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus, Rep. Katherine Clark, D-Mass., even broke ranks with leadership last week to call for opening an impeachment inquiry.

“I deeply respect the committee work of House Democrats to hold the president accountable, including hearings, subpoenas and lawsuits,” the sixth-ranking House Democrat said in a statement the day after Mueller’s testimony.

“All of our efforts to put the facts before the American people, however, have been met with unprecedented stonewalling and obstruction.”

“That is why I believe we need to open an impeachment inquiry that will provide us a more formal way to fully uncover the facts.”

end quotes

And that last statement by vice chair of the House Democratic Caucus, Rep. Katherine Clark, D-Mass., that after all these other investigations and hearings that have expended tens of millions of OUR tax dollars, we now need to open an impeachment inquiry that will provide us a more formal way to fully uncover the facts goes to show just how ridiculous and asinine this whole sick show has now become.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-164350
thelivyjr
Site Admin
 
Posts: 15901
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Next

Return to POLITICAL COMMENTARY

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 0 guests

cron