THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 10, 2019 at 6:15 pm
Paul Plante says :
Here’s what I personally think right now:
*******************FLASH!!!!!*********************
*********HUGE BREAKING NEWS!!!!!!!!!************
*******EARTH-SHATTERING REVELATIONS ABOUND!!!!******
DEMOCRATS PELOSI AND “ENFORCER” ADAM SCHIFF ANNOUNCE THE MOST RIDICULOUS AND STUPID IMPEACHMENT CHARGES IN THE HISTORY OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA!
Sounding snockered again on the 12:00 noon news, as if she started hitting the sauce early this morning, San Francisco, California Congresswoman Nancy Pelosi, who now sees herself as the all-powerful QUEEN of America, a position created for her specially by the Democrats in the ALTERNATE CONSTITUTION they govern under, which Democrat constitution has the Democrats in the House of Representatives all-powerful, and has the president serving at the pleasure of the House Democrats, was quoted in The Guardian, as follows:
Pelosi on impeachment: This is not about elections, it’s about the constitution
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi is at an event in DC hosted by Politico, taking the first batch of questions from Politico reporter Anna Palmer on impeachment since the articles of impeachment were announced this morning.
end quotes
This of course was too rich of an occasion for Nancy to miss, snockered or not (and if she was in fact snockered, who in her adoring press gaggle would ever think of questioning her?), which brings us to this burst of horse**** that I heard Nancy slur her way through at noon, to wit:
“It’s a sad day actually, a solemn day.”
“It’s something that no one comes to Congress to do, to impeach a president.”
end quotes
Oh, get the **** out of here, Nancy, with that horse**** drivel, as if we were all as stupid and unquestioning as your media toadies – you people came into power on DAY ONE with your mouthpiece the foul-mouthed and ignorant Rashida Tlaib publicly proclaiming to the whole wide world that you and Adam Schiff and “Jumping Jerry” Nadler, so named for his ability to jump to a conclusion on the spur of the moment, and to then be able to arrange the evidence to support it, as he is doing here, with these STUPID IMPEACHMENT CHARGES, were going to impeach Trump, who your spokeswoman called a “MOTHER******” on your behalf, something you never bothered to deny, so don’t feed us that horse**** about it being a “sad day,” when we just the other day were reading about your pack of Democrats giving Adam Schiff a standing ovation for rigging some charges against Trump that you hope to wing by the American people as if we were all as STUPID as a Democrat, which takes us back to The Guardian, as follows:
Pelosi shrugged off a question of why the findings of the Mueller report weren’t included in the articles of impeachment.
end quotes
Oh, come on here, people – the findings of the Mueller Report cleared Trump of colluding with Russia!
Period!
That’s why Pelosi and her pack of Democrats couldn’t use the Mueller Report against Trump.
Getting back to Nancy’s drivel just a little bit ago, we have:
“I wish everyone just focused on what we are bringing forward because this is very serious violations of our constitution, undermining the national security of the United States, jeopardizing the integrity of our elections,” Pelosi said.
end quotes
Nancy, you are cracked!
You and Adam Schiff right now, who are the ones trying to RIG the 2020 presidential elections in the favor of the Democrats, and by extension, Putin in Russia, who is the sole beneficiary of the harm that you two are doing to OUR nation, are the BIGGEST DOMESTIC ENEMIES of OUR Constitution that we as a free people have ever been confronted with, as you try to replace our written Constitution with your Democrat version that is pulled when needed straight from out of the *** of Nancy Pelosi, as we are seeing in real time right here, to wit:
“Instead of talking about what isn’t, this is what is, and that’s how we’re moving forward.”
end quotes
AND WHAT IT IS, NANCY, IS A PATHETIC FARCE!
IT’S STUPID!
Which takes us back to The Guardian as follows:
Pelosi is emphasizing that the impeachment isn’t about the election, which the Republicans are arguing that it is, but instead it’s about the Constitution and Congress’ role in checks and balances.
“We are saying goodbye to a republic… and saying hello to a king”.
end quotes
Damn right we are, Nancy – and the KING is you!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-206114
CUT THE CRAP, ADAM SCHIFF
Re: CUT THE CRAP, ADAM SCHIFF
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 10, 2019 at 10:35 pm
Paul Plante says:
And boy oh boy, is the horse**** from these Democrats ever flowing fast and thick as we clearly see from a rambling and largely incoherent and patently untruthful speech from the smarmy and unctuous Hollywood, California Congressman Adam Schiff at a Democrat press conference earlier today to announce the formal impeachment of Trump on the most preposterous and imbecilic charges in the history of our nation, to wit:
“Some say why don’t you just wait.”
“Why don’t you just wait until you get the witnesses that the White House refuses to produce?”
“Why not just wait until you get the documents that the white house refuses to turn over, and people should understand what that argument really means.”
“It has taken us eight months to get a lower court ruling that Don McGahn has no right to defy Congress if it takes another eight months to get a second court or Supreme Court decision, that is not the end of the process.”
“It comes back to us, and we ask questions because he no longer has immunity and he claims something else that his answers are privileged and we have to go to court for another eight or 16 months.”
“The argument why don’t you just wait amounts to this: Why don’t you just let him cheat in one more election?”
“Why not let him cheat just one more time?”
“Why not let him have foreign help just one more time?”
“That is what that argument amounts to.”
end quotes
And that argument amounts to nothing more than a stinking pile of pure horse**** because Trump did not have foreign help a first time.
That is a DEBUNKED INSANE DEMOCRAT CONSPIRACY THEORY that rabid Democrats unable to think clearly like Adam Schiff just cannot let go of, as we see from a USA TODAY story entitled “FBI wiretap of Trump campaign aide was riddled with errors, but Russia probe was legally justified, IG report finds” by Kevin Johnson and Kristine Phillips on 10 December 2019, as follows:
Democrats on Capitol Hill said the report debunks conspiracy theories fanned by Trump and Republicans about how the Russia investigation began.
“Those discredited conspiracy theories were attempts to deflect from the President’s serious and ongoing misconduct, first urging Russia and now extorting Ukraine into interfering with our elections to benefit him personally and politically,” said Reps. Jerry Nadler and Carolyn Maloney, Democrats representing New York and chairs of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, respectively.
end quotes
Reading that horse****, one can only conclude that Democrats like Jerry Nadler, Carolyn Mahoney and the smarmy and unctuous Adam Schiff are pathological liars, which are individuals who chronically tell grandiose lies that may stretch or exceed the limits of believability, as we clearly see from this from that same article, to wit:
Mueller’s two-year investigation found a “sweeping and systematic” effort by the Russian government to intercede in the election to help Trump win, but concluded neither the president nor his campaign conspired with Russians, according to the special counsel’s report released in April.
end quotes
But that finding makes no difference to the pathological liars of the Democrat party who simply make things up as they go, no matter how stupid or outrageous and unfounded those charges are, which takes us to a Washington Post article entitled “House Democrats unveil two articles of impeachment against Trump” by Rachael Bade, Mike DeBonis, Elise Viebeck and Toluse Olorunnipa on 10 December 2019, as follows:
House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Trump on Tuesday, saying he had abused the power of his office and obstructed Congress in its investigation of his conduct regarding Ukraine.
“The evidence of the president’s misconduct is overwhelming and uncontested,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said as he outlined a case against Trump and argued that his conduct was too grave to let stand until next year’s election.
“The argument, ‘why don’t you just wait?’ comes down to this: Why don’t you just let him cheat in just one more election?” Schiff said, calling impeachment “a question of duty.”
end quotes
And from now to November of 2020, despite that being an outrageous lie debunked by the Mueller Rep[ort, these Democrats are going to keep on hammering those lies home as they try to RIG the 2020 presidential election in favor of the Democrats, and by extension, Putin in Russia, who is just loving it as his proxies in the Democrat party try to bring this country low, as we see in this from that same article, to wit:
Describing Trump as a “continuing risk to the country,” Nadler forcefully accused the president of using his office to pressure Ukraine to launch political investigations and then trying to block Congress from investigating him.
“President Trump put himself before country,” he said.
“The president welcomed foreign interference in our election in 2016, he demanded it in 2020, and then he got caught.”
end quotes
Except that is not true.
Getting back to that article, we have “Jumping Jerry” Nadler stating as follows:
“To the members of this committee, to the members of the House, and to my fellow citizens, I want to be absolutely clear: The integrity of our next election is at stake.”
“Nothing could be more urgent.”
end quotes
And people, he is right – the integrity of our next election is indeed at stake as the Democrats try to RIG it in their and Putin’s favor, which is why We, the American People need to stand up to this Democrat horse**** as the Democrats try with outrageous lies to bury Trump, who they hate with a passion because he had the temerity to beat Hillary Clinton, Hussein Obama’s chosen successor, so they can win power in the 2020 presidential election, which takes us to this Washington Examiner article entitled “Schiff defends impeachment rush: ‘Why don’t you just let him cheat in one more election?'” by Susan Ferrechio on December 10, 2019, to wit:
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said the House must move quickly to impeach President Trump to prevent him from cheating in the next election with “foreign help.”
Schiff, a California Democrat, strongly suggested in a press conference Tuesday that Trump colluded with the Russians to undermine the 2016 election and win the White House.
A two-year investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller did not charge Trump with collusion, but Democrats say there is evidence Trump welcomed Russia’s help.
end quotes
So, regardless of the facts, Adam Schiff and the Democrats are going to keep twisting the truth and facts to influence the 2020 presidential election, which takes us back to that article for this interesting comment from the smarmy and unctuous Adam Schiff, to wit:
Schiff said the evidence is clear Trump is trying to influence the 2020 election by seeking information from Ukraine regarding Democrats who may have sought the country’s help investigating Trump’s 2016 campaign.
end quotes
Now, talk about interesting revelations, alright – that sounds very much like an admission from Adam that indeed, the Democrats were seeking Ukraine’s help and foreign interference in our 2016 election by giving the Democrats dirt on Trump.
And the game goes on!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-206199
Paul Plante says:
And boy oh boy, is the horse**** from these Democrats ever flowing fast and thick as we clearly see from a rambling and largely incoherent and patently untruthful speech from the smarmy and unctuous Hollywood, California Congressman Adam Schiff at a Democrat press conference earlier today to announce the formal impeachment of Trump on the most preposterous and imbecilic charges in the history of our nation, to wit:
“Some say why don’t you just wait.”
“Why don’t you just wait until you get the witnesses that the White House refuses to produce?”
“Why not just wait until you get the documents that the white house refuses to turn over, and people should understand what that argument really means.”
“It has taken us eight months to get a lower court ruling that Don McGahn has no right to defy Congress if it takes another eight months to get a second court or Supreme Court decision, that is not the end of the process.”
“It comes back to us, and we ask questions because he no longer has immunity and he claims something else that his answers are privileged and we have to go to court for another eight or 16 months.”
“The argument why don’t you just wait amounts to this: Why don’t you just let him cheat in one more election?”
“Why not let him cheat just one more time?”
“Why not let him have foreign help just one more time?”
“That is what that argument amounts to.”
end quotes
And that argument amounts to nothing more than a stinking pile of pure horse**** because Trump did not have foreign help a first time.
That is a DEBUNKED INSANE DEMOCRAT CONSPIRACY THEORY that rabid Democrats unable to think clearly like Adam Schiff just cannot let go of, as we see from a USA TODAY story entitled “FBI wiretap of Trump campaign aide was riddled with errors, but Russia probe was legally justified, IG report finds” by Kevin Johnson and Kristine Phillips on 10 December 2019, as follows:
Democrats on Capitol Hill said the report debunks conspiracy theories fanned by Trump and Republicans about how the Russia investigation began.
“Those discredited conspiracy theories were attempts to deflect from the President’s serious and ongoing misconduct, first urging Russia and now extorting Ukraine into interfering with our elections to benefit him personally and politically,” said Reps. Jerry Nadler and Carolyn Maloney, Democrats representing New York and chairs of the House Judiciary and Oversight committees, respectively.
end quotes
Reading that horse****, one can only conclude that Democrats like Jerry Nadler, Carolyn Mahoney and the smarmy and unctuous Adam Schiff are pathological liars, which are individuals who chronically tell grandiose lies that may stretch or exceed the limits of believability, as we clearly see from this from that same article, to wit:
Mueller’s two-year investigation found a “sweeping and systematic” effort by the Russian government to intercede in the election to help Trump win, but concluded neither the president nor his campaign conspired with Russians, according to the special counsel’s report released in April.
end quotes
But that finding makes no difference to the pathological liars of the Democrat party who simply make things up as they go, no matter how stupid or outrageous and unfounded those charges are, which takes us to a Washington Post article entitled “House Democrats unveil two articles of impeachment against Trump” by Rachael Bade, Mike DeBonis, Elise Viebeck and Toluse Olorunnipa on 10 December 2019, as follows:
House Democrats unveiled two articles of impeachment against President Trump on Tuesday, saying he had abused the power of his office and obstructed Congress in its investigation of his conduct regarding Ukraine.
“The evidence of the president’s misconduct is overwhelming and uncontested,” House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff (D-Calif.) said as he outlined a case against Trump and argued that his conduct was too grave to let stand until next year’s election.
“The argument, ‘why don’t you just wait?’ comes down to this: Why don’t you just let him cheat in just one more election?” Schiff said, calling impeachment “a question of duty.”
end quotes
And from now to November of 2020, despite that being an outrageous lie debunked by the Mueller Rep[ort, these Democrats are going to keep on hammering those lies home as they try to RIG the 2020 presidential election in favor of the Democrats, and by extension, Putin in Russia, who is just loving it as his proxies in the Democrat party try to bring this country low, as we see in this from that same article, to wit:
Describing Trump as a “continuing risk to the country,” Nadler forcefully accused the president of using his office to pressure Ukraine to launch political investigations and then trying to block Congress from investigating him.
“President Trump put himself before country,” he said.
“The president welcomed foreign interference in our election in 2016, he demanded it in 2020, and then he got caught.”
end quotes
Except that is not true.
Getting back to that article, we have “Jumping Jerry” Nadler stating as follows:
“To the members of this committee, to the members of the House, and to my fellow citizens, I want to be absolutely clear: The integrity of our next election is at stake.”
“Nothing could be more urgent.”
end quotes
And people, he is right – the integrity of our next election is indeed at stake as the Democrats try to RIG it in their and Putin’s favor, which is why We, the American People need to stand up to this Democrat horse**** as the Democrats try with outrageous lies to bury Trump, who they hate with a passion because he had the temerity to beat Hillary Clinton, Hussein Obama’s chosen successor, so they can win power in the 2020 presidential election, which takes us to this Washington Examiner article entitled “Schiff defends impeachment rush: ‘Why don’t you just let him cheat in one more election?'” by Susan Ferrechio on December 10, 2019, to wit:
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said the House must move quickly to impeach President Trump to prevent him from cheating in the next election with “foreign help.”
Schiff, a California Democrat, strongly suggested in a press conference Tuesday that Trump colluded with the Russians to undermine the 2016 election and win the White House.
A two-year investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller did not charge Trump with collusion, but Democrats say there is evidence Trump welcomed Russia’s help.
end quotes
So, regardless of the facts, Adam Schiff and the Democrats are going to keep twisting the truth and facts to influence the 2020 presidential election, which takes us back to that article for this interesting comment from the smarmy and unctuous Adam Schiff, to wit:
Schiff said the evidence is clear Trump is trying to influence the 2020 election by seeking information from Ukraine regarding Democrats who may have sought the country’s help investigating Trump’s 2016 campaign.
end quotes
Now, talk about interesting revelations, alright – that sounds very much like an admission from Adam that indeed, the Democrats were seeking Ukraine’s help and foreign interference in our 2016 election by giving the Democrats dirt on Trump.
And the game goes on!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-206199
Re: CUT THE CRAP, ADAM SCHIFF
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 11, 2019 at 8:11 pm
Paul Plante says :
And what I think, A friend, is that we are in the midst of a real CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS the likes of which we as a nation have not seen since 1861, when the Democrats repudiated OUR Constitution and seceded from the United States of America to form their own country where they could have slaves to their heart’s content, that is what I think.
Except this time, instead of going to the trouble to secede, they are simply taking over OUR national government from within in an archetypical palace coup such as you would expect to see happening in some third-world banana republic, much like Ukraine, in fact, where the one dude was forced to run for his life to seek asylum in Russia, and the main stream media is content to let it happen.
That is what I think.
As to the huge pile of pure BULL**** being heaped on us by the hour it seems from out of the mouth of the smarmy and unctuous Democrat Congressman from Disneyland in California Adam Schiff, let’s go back to that Washington Examiner article entitled “Schiff defends impeachment rush: ‘Why don’t you just let him cheat in one more election?’” by Susan Ferrechio on December 10, 2019, to the following, to wit:
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said the House must move quickly to impeach President Trump to prevent him from cheating in the next election with “foreign help.”
Schiff, a California Democrat, strongly suggested in a press conference Tuesday that Trump colluded with the Russians to undermine the 2016 election and win the White House.
A two-year investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller did not charge Trump with collusion, but Democrats say there is evidence Trump welcomed Russia’s help.
end quotes
What I think is that that is a TEXTBOOK CASE of Adam Schiff DISCREDITING his own witness, Bob Mueller.
By “strongly suggesting” that Trump colluded with the Russians to undermine the 2016 election and win the White House after Mueller previously testified under oath on July 24, 2019 at 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, that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” Adam Schiff is strongly suggesting that Bob Mueller was incompetent as an investigator, and that Schiff knows Mueller’s investigation was seriously flawed, so that Schiff knows that Mueller was not being truthful with “Jumping Jerry” Nadler on 24 July 2019 when Bob Mueller told Nadler the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
That’s what I think.
But I also think Schiff is talking out his *** by suggesting that he is in possession of evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians to undermine the 2016 election and win the White House.
As to “obstruction of Congress,” Trump as president is being criminally charged by the House Democrats with violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505, Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees, which federal criminal statute states as follows:
Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress–
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331 ), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
end quotes
The Democrats don’t want to just humiliate Trump and remove him from office – they want him wearing prison garb while doing time in a federal lock-up for standing up to the House Democrats who are trying to usurp his Constitutional authority over foreign policy as president.
So, what I think is that this is serious business, indeed, the president of the United States of America being charged with CRIMINAL CONDUCT for living up to his presidential path to take care that the laws are faithfully enforced.
I think that that is unprecedented in the history of our nation, to be truthful, and I think that that should be a matter of concern to every single person in the United States of America who cares about OUR United States Constitution and OUR Republic, both of which are being subverted by the vindictive and spiteful and hate-filled Democrats in the House of Representatives.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-206494
Paul Plante says :
And what I think, A friend, is that we are in the midst of a real CONSTITUTIONAL CRISIS the likes of which we as a nation have not seen since 1861, when the Democrats repudiated OUR Constitution and seceded from the United States of America to form their own country where they could have slaves to their heart’s content, that is what I think.
Except this time, instead of going to the trouble to secede, they are simply taking over OUR national government from within in an archetypical palace coup such as you would expect to see happening in some third-world banana republic, much like Ukraine, in fact, where the one dude was forced to run for his life to seek asylum in Russia, and the main stream media is content to let it happen.
That is what I think.
As to the huge pile of pure BULL**** being heaped on us by the hour it seems from out of the mouth of the smarmy and unctuous Democrat Congressman from Disneyland in California Adam Schiff, let’s go back to that Washington Examiner article entitled “Schiff defends impeachment rush: ‘Why don’t you just let him cheat in one more election?’” by Susan Ferrechio on December 10, 2019, to the following, to wit:
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said the House must move quickly to impeach President Trump to prevent him from cheating in the next election with “foreign help.”
Schiff, a California Democrat, strongly suggested in a press conference Tuesday that Trump colluded with the Russians to undermine the 2016 election and win the White House.
A two-year investigation by special counsel Robert Mueller did not charge Trump with collusion, but Democrats say there is evidence Trump welcomed Russia’s help.
end quotes
What I think is that that is a TEXTBOOK CASE of Adam Schiff DISCREDITING his own witness, Bob Mueller.
By “strongly suggesting” that Trump colluded with the Russians to undermine the 2016 election and win the White House after Mueller previously testified under oath on July 24, 2019 at 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, that “the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities,” Adam Schiff is strongly suggesting that Bob Mueller was incompetent as an investigator, and that Schiff knows Mueller’s investigation was seriously flawed, so that Schiff knows that Mueller was not being truthful with “Jumping Jerry” Nadler on 24 July 2019 when Bob Mueller told Nadler the investigation did not establish that members of the Trump campaign conspired with the Russian government in its election interference activities.
That’s what I think.
But I also think Schiff is talking out his *** by suggesting that he is in possession of evidence that Trump colluded with the Russians to undermine the 2016 election and win the White House.
As to “obstruction of Congress,” Trump as president is being criminally charged by the House Democrats with violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505, Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees, which federal criminal statute states as follows:
Whoever, with intent to avoid, evade, prevent, or obstruct compliance, in whole or in part, with any civil investigative demand duly and properly made under the Antitrust Civil Process Act, willfully withholds, misrepresents, removes from any place, conceals, covers up, destroys, mutilates, alters, or by other means falsifies any documentary material, answers to written interrogatories, or oral testimony, which is the subject of such demand; or attempts to do so or solicits another to do so; or
Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress–
Shall be fined under this title, imprisoned not more than 5 years or, if the offense involves international or domestic terrorism (as defined in section 2331 ), imprisoned not more than 8 years, or both.
end quotes
The Democrats don’t want to just humiliate Trump and remove him from office – they want him wearing prison garb while doing time in a federal lock-up for standing up to the House Democrats who are trying to usurp his Constitutional authority over foreign policy as president.
So, what I think is that this is serious business, indeed, the president of the United States of America being charged with CRIMINAL CONDUCT for living up to his presidential path to take care that the laws are faithfully enforced.
I think that that is unprecedented in the history of our nation, to be truthful, and I think that that should be a matter of concern to every single person in the United States of America who cares about OUR United States Constitution and OUR Republic, both of which are being subverted by the vindictive and spiteful and hate-filled Democrats in the House of Representatives.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-206494
Re: CUT THE CRAP, ADAM SCHIFF
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 12, 2019 at 7:27 pm
Paul Plante says :
What I find interesting here as an American citizen with respect to due process of law and equal protection of law is that as president of the United States of America, he has less rights in the House of Representatives than does a dog in the state of New York suspected of being rabid.
And if Trump were a Democrat who was a criminal, and he was being accused of a crime like rape or robbery without those charges first being submitted to a grand jury to protect the rights of the accused, the Democrats would be screaming to high heaven about how unfair it was to the Democrat criminal, but at the same time, they have no problems whatsoever with accusing Trump of a criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505, Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees, without first submitting the facts to a citizen grand jury to determine if in fact a crime or crimes have been committed.
So the House Democrats are stripping Trump of the most basic rights that any Democrat criminal would be entitled to, which I find incredible as an American citizen, as well as an UNCONSTITUTIONAL ABUSE OF POWER by the House Democrats who have no constitutional authority whatsoever to strip and American citizen of his rights in a KANGAROO COURT in the legislative branch of the federal government, which is exactly what is going on here, and it is absurd to think that Trump will get due process of law in the Senate on criminal charges that by our Constitution should be going before a citizen jury in a true court of law, where Trump is actually presumed to be innocent, as opposed to in the House, where he has been proclaimed guilty of a crime without any trial, at all.
And when the Democrats in the House of Representatives can unilaterally strip one American of his rights to due process of law and equal protection of law, they are then free to do it to any of us, which is tyranny and despotism, which brings us to the United States Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 435 (1971), to wit:
“Where a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him, notice and an opportunity to be heard are essential.”
“Only when the whole proceedings leading to the pinning of an unsavory label on a person are aired can oppressive results be prevented.”
end quotes
Too bad there is no way to actually enforce OUR Constitution against gross and blatant violations of it by these ravening Democrats in the House of Representatives.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-207092
Paul Plante says :
What I find interesting here as an American citizen with respect to due process of law and equal protection of law is that as president of the United States of America, he has less rights in the House of Representatives than does a dog in the state of New York suspected of being rabid.
And if Trump were a Democrat who was a criminal, and he was being accused of a crime like rape or robbery without those charges first being submitted to a grand jury to protect the rights of the accused, the Democrats would be screaming to high heaven about how unfair it was to the Democrat criminal, but at the same time, they have no problems whatsoever with accusing Trump of a criminal violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1505, Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees, without first submitting the facts to a citizen grand jury to determine if in fact a crime or crimes have been committed.
So the House Democrats are stripping Trump of the most basic rights that any Democrat criminal would be entitled to, which I find incredible as an American citizen, as well as an UNCONSTITUTIONAL ABUSE OF POWER by the House Democrats who have no constitutional authority whatsoever to strip and American citizen of his rights in a KANGAROO COURT in the legislative branch of the federal government, which is exactly what is going on here, and it is absurd to think that Trump will get due process of law in the Senate on criminal charges that by our Constitution should be going before a citizen jury in a true court of law, where Trump is actually presumed to be innocent, as opposed to in the House, where he has been proclaimed guilty of a crime without any trial, at all.
And when the Democrats in the House of Representatives can unilaterally strip one American of his rights to due process of law and equal protection of law, they are then free to do it to any of us, which is tyranny and despotism, which brings us to the United States Supreme Court in Wisconsin v. Constantineau, 400 U.S. 433, 435 (1971), to wit:
“Where a person’s good name, reputation, honor, or integrity is at stake because of what the government is doing to him, notice and an opportunity to be heard are essential.”
“Only when the whole proceedings leading to the pinning of an unsavory label on a person are aired can oppressive results be prevented.”
end quotes
Too bad there is no way to actually enforce OUR Constitution against gross and blatant violations of it by these ravening Democrats in the House of Representatives.
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-207092
Re: CUT THE CRAP, ADAM SCHIFF
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 13, 2019 at 11:47 am
Paul Plante says :
DATE: 19 November 2019
PLACE: a meeting room somewhere in the bowels of the foetid, corrupt swamp known as Washington, D.C.
ACTION: Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, a uniformed member of the United States Army assigned to the White House as a flunky is being grilled intensely by the rabid Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives seeking any tiny piece of dirt they can finds in their effort to convince the American people that Donald Trump, the elected president of the United States of America should be removed from office.
As we tune into today’s episode of this STUPID POLITICAL FARCE, Lt. Col. Vindman is being grilled intensely by Democrat Congressman for Indiana’s 7th congressional district André D. Carson (born October 16, 1974), with a master of science degree in business management from Indiana Wesleyan University in Marion, Indiana, as follows:
CARSON: In — in this follow-on meeting, sir, Ambassador Sondland left, in your words, “no ambiguity” about what specific investigations he was requesting.
Ambassador Sondland made clear that he was requesting an investigation of Vice President Joe Biden’s son, isn’t that correct, sir?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
CARSON: Colonel, in your career, had you ever before witnessed an American official request that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen who is related to the president’s political opponent?
VINDMAN: I have not.
CARSON: Colonel Vindman, I agree that there is no question that Ambassador Sondland was proposing a transaction to Ukrainian officials trading White House meetings for specific investigations with the full awareness of the president’s chief of staff, White House attorneys and his national security advisor.
end quotes
And there we have it, people, conclusive proof that Trump abused the powers of HIS office as United States president and that he obstructed Congress, as well.
And if you believe that horse****, I have a used bridge connecting the island of Manhattan with the City of Brooklyn for sale at a very attractive price that you might be interested in, but better hurry, because the offers are coming in fast and furious!
Call BR- 549 right now to make the deal of a lifetime!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-207092
Paul Plante says :
DATE: 19 November 2019
PLACE: a meeting room somewhere in the bowels of the foetid, corrupt swamp known as Washington, D.C.
ACTION: Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, a uniformed member of the United States Army assigned to the White House as a flunky is being grilled intensely by the rabid Democrats in the U.S. House of Representatives seeking any tiny piece of dirt they can finds in their effort to convince the American people that Donald Trump, the elected president of the United States of America should be removed from office.
As we tune into today’s episode of this STUPID POLITICAL FARCE, Lt. Col. Vindman is being grilled intensely by Democrat Congressman for Indiana’s 7th congressional district André D. Carson (born October 16, 1974), with a master of science degree in business management from Indiana Wesleyan University in Marion, Indiana, as follows:
CARSON: In — in this follow-on meeting, sir, Ambassador Sondland left, in your words, “no ambiguity” about what specific investigations he was requesting.
Ambassador Sondland made clear that he was requesting an investigation of Vice President Joe Biden’s son, isn’t that correct, sir?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
CARSON: Colonel, in your career, had you ever before witnessed an American official request that a foreign government investigate a U.S. citizen who is related to the president’s political opponent?
VINDMAN: I have not.
CARSON: Colonel Vindman, I agree that there is no question that Ambassador Sondland was proposing a transaction to Ukrainian officials trading White House meetings for specific investigations with the full awareness of the president’s chief of staff, White House attorneys and his national security advisor.
end quotes
And there we have it, people, conclusive proof that Trump abused the powers of HIS office as United States president and that he obstructed Congress, as well.
And if you believe that horse****, I have a used bridge connecting the island of Manhattan with the City of Brooklyn for sale at a very attractive price that you might be interested in, but better hurry, because the offers are coming in fast and furious!
Call BR- 549 right now to make the deal of a lifetime!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-207092
Re: CUT THE CRAP, ADAM SCHIFF
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 15, 2019 at 11:45 pm
Paul Plante says :
And according to Axios, the Democrat screeching about Adam Schiff’s blatantly false charges that the Senate GOP is going to betray OUR country by letting Trump off as he attacks the United States has already begun, as follows:
Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) called on McConnell to recuse himself from the Senate proceedings, lambasting Republicans’ claims that the process has been a biased “kangaroo court,” per the Post.
end quotes
If I recall from the complete record, however, it most clearly is a kangaroo court, which is defined as an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanor.
Other Democrats who criticized McConnell’s comments on Friday did not go as far:
• “I think it was pretty bad for who is essentially the foreman of the jury to announce the verdict.”
“The idea that he is working like that is pretty shameful,” said Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.), who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, per the Post.
• “It is incumbent on every Senator to ensure that the impeachment trial not become a farce.”
“That depends on whether 4 Republicans will stand up against a ridiculously quick process.”
“Right now, you have head juror McConnell proudly promising that it will be over before it starts,” tweeted Rep. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii).
end quotes
It is incumbent on every Senator to ensure that the impeachment trial not become a farce?
Given that it has been a farce since Day One thanks to Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, “Jumping Jerry” Nadler, who jumped right to the conclusion that Trump is guilty and then started arranging the “evidence” to make it appear so, and the Democrats in the House of Representatives, it is a bit late to expect the Senate to undo the FARCICAL NATURE of the Schiff Show at this point in time.
• Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.): “I call on every person in this country to demand that their U.S. senator demands an actual trial with the facts on the table.”
“They can call the witnesses they want, but have a real trial and do not coordinate with the White House, because that’s a ridiculous idea.”
end quotes
Pramila, speaking as a rational American citizen who does not have his head in his *** as do you Democrats, THERE ARE NO FACTS SUPPORTING IMPEACHMENT!
There is nothing to have a trial about.
And for those of you who don’t know Pramila, she has been described by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as “a rising star in the Democratic caucus,” and in an Associated Press article entitled “Dem struggle over Pelosi bid, with no end game in sight” on 17 November 2018, Pramila was quoted as follows:
“I think chaos is good if it’s productive.”
“I think chaos is bad if it is too disruptive and it divides us too much,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, whose leaders were upbeat after meeting with Pelosi this week.
“We don’t have a lot of time,” Jayapal said.
“We need to put forward the vision of who we are as a party and what we’re fighting for and so that needs to happen very, very quickly.”
end quotes
And what we have here from the House Democrats is the very bad Democrat chaos which is far too disruptive as it divides us too much, but that is the vision of who the Democrats are as a party and what they’re fighting for, which is to destroy Donald Trump because he is president instead of Hillary Clinton.
In a Washington Post article entitled “Fight for House speaker explodes into national political campaign” by Elise Viebeck, Mike DeBonis and Erica Werner on 18 November 2018, Pramila was quoted thusly:
Supporters have cited the need for a speaker who can immediately stand up to Trump, spell out the Democrats’ agenda and score legislative wins for the party before the next campaign.
“We need somebody who’s really experienced, who’s not going to back down, who’s not going to have a learning curve,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who is likely to co-chair the House Progressive Caucus.
“We have very little time. . . .”
“It’s a six-month cycle to really get something done and then everything moves to 2020.”
end quotes
My goodness, yes, Pramila, everything is moving to 2020, which is what this Democrat FARCE is all about.
Showing her obvious animus towards Trump right from the get-go, in an Associated Press article entitled “Pelosi over his shoulder: Trump faces empowered Dems at SOTU” by Laurie Kellman on 4 February 2019, Pramila was quoted thusly:
“He just lies.”
“He lies all the time,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., said.
end quotes
And the Democrats don’t, Pramila?
And then we have the Associated Press article “Despite differences, Dems stick with Pelosi on impeachment” by Mary Clare Jalonick and Laurie Kellman on 12 March 2019, when the Democrats were against impeachment before they were for it, as follows:
WASHINGTON — Democrats are largely lining up behind House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her wait-and-see strategy on any impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.
Moderate and even some of the most liberal House Democrats said they were supportive of the speaker after she told The Washington Post that she’s not for impeachment, at least for now.
Impeaching Trump is “just not worth it,” Pelosi said, unless there’s overwhelming support.
While some in her caucus may disagree on certain points, the majority of Democrats endorsed Pelosi’s approach.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said a unilateral pursuit of impeachment by Democrats would be an “exercise doomed for failure.”
“I see little to be gained by putting the country through that kind of wrenching experience,” he said at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings said impeachment “has to be a bipartisan effort, and right now it’s not there.”
Cummings said his sense is that “this matter will only be resolved at the polls.”
Even one of the strongest proponents of impeachment, freshman Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, said Tuesday that she is “absolutely not” disappointed in Pelosi.
Tlaib stressed that she is going to continue to push for impeachment, but echoed Democratic leaders’ caution in first calling for a committee process that investigates Trump.
“That doesn’t mean we are voting on it, it means we are beginning the process to look at some of these alleged claims,” Tlaib said.
Democrats have launched multiple probes into Trump’s White House and personal businesses.
Those investigations, led by Schiff and other House committee chairmen, are intended to keep the focus on Trump’s business dealings and relationship with Russia, no matter what comes from the investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., a member of the House Judiciary Committee and a leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Pelosi’s comments are “probably a reaction to everybody wanting to go to the end of an investigation when we haven’t started.”
Pelosi’s approach could also provide cover to some of her members, including freshmen who were elected in November from “red-to-blue” districts where impeachment is politically fraught.
California Rep. Katie Hill, one of those freshmen, praised Pelosi’s approach.
“If it’s going to be a political disaster for us, then we’re not going to do it,” she said.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., noted that the majority of freshman members have not been outspoken on impeachment, and that the Senate remains controlled by Republicans.
“Nobody thinks there is going to be a conviction in the Senate, unless circumstances very substantially change.”
Pelosi has long resisted impeachment as a drastic step that should only be broached with “great care.”
end quotes
So much for “great care” with this absolute FARCE the Democrats have handed us just nine months later, which takes us to this inane set of comments from Rep. Jamie Raskin, (D-Md.), who told CNN: “The president is essentially a constitutional defendant, and he’s a defendant because we have voted to send an indictment, articles of Impeachment, to the Senate, because of the high crimes and misdemeanors he’s committed.”
And of course, that statement right there by Jamie Raskin that the House has actually indicted Trump because of the high crimes and misdemeanors he’s committed, as opposed to “alleged to have been committed,” is an admission by Jamie Raskin that the Democrats have engaged in the CONSTITUTIONALLY PROHIBITED or UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT of attainting Trump in clear violation of Section 9 of Article I of OUR written United States Constitution, as opposed to the Democrat version that Nancy Pelosi keeps secure for the Democrats in her alimentary tract that the Democrats are relying on to impeach Trump, as follows:
No Bill of Attainder …. shall be passed.
”Bills of attainder . . . are such special acts of the legislature, as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offences, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.”
“If an act inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bill of pains and penalties. . . .”
“In such cases, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs, when such proofs are within its reach, whether they are conformable to the rules of evidence, or not.”
“In short, in all such cases, the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, and what may be properly deemed an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely by what it deems political necessity or expediency, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears, or unfounded suspicions.”
The phrase ”bill of attainder,” as used in this clause and in clause 1 of Sec. 10, applies to bills of pains and penalties as well as to the traditional bills of attainder.
The prohibition embodied in this clause is not to be strictly and narrowly construed in the context of traditional forms but is to be interpreted in accordance with the designs of the framers so as to preclude trial by legislature, a violation of the separation of powers concept.
The clause thus prohibits all legislative acts, ”no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial. . . .”
end quotes
And that, of course, is the exact BULL**** going on in the House of Representatives right now – not only is Trump constantly being slandered and ridiculed by the House Democrats and their lackeys and lickspittles in the mainstream media, who print every Democrat slander and accusation of criminal conduct by Trump without question, but by adjudging Trump guilty of crimes, which they now have done many times over, they have violated the prohibition embodied in this clause of Article I that is to be interpreted in accordance with the designs of the framers so as to preclude trial by legislature, a violation of the separation of powers concept with the clause thus prohibiting all legislative acts of the kind we are seeing here, ”no matter what their form, that apply to named individuals in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial.”
And there, people, is the real question that the Senate should take up when this FARCE comes before them next month – the blatantly LAWLESS and UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS of the Democrats connected with this IMPEACHMENT FARCE!
That is what the real trial needs to be about – why did the Democrats fabricate ridiculous charges to force this impeachment trial in the first place?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/d ... ent-207952
Paul Plante says :
And according to Axios, the Democrat screeching about Adam Schiff’s blatantly false charges that the Senate GOP is going to betray OUR country by letting Trump off as he attacks the United States has already begun, as follows:
Rep. Val Demings (D-Fla.) called on McConnell to recuse himself from the Senate proceedings, lambasting Republicans’ claims that the process has been a biased “kangaroo court,” per the Post.
end quotes
If I recall from the complete record, however, it most clearly is a kangaroo court, which is defined as an unofficial court held by a group of people in order to try someone regarded, especially without good evidence, as guilty of a crime or misdemeanor.
Other Democrats who criticized McConnell’s comments on Friday did not go as far:
• “I think it was pretty bad for who is essentially the foreman of the jury to announce the verdict.”
“The idea that he is working like that is pretty shameful,” said Rep. Karen Bass (D-Calif.), who sits on the House Judiciary Committee, per the Post.
• “It is incumbent on every Senator to ensure that the impeachment trial not become a farce.”
“That depends on whether 4 Republicans will stand up against a ridiculously quick process.”
“Right now, you have head juror McConnell proudly promising that it will be over before it starts,” tweeted Rep. Brian Schatz (D-Hawaii).
end quotes
It is incumbent on every Senator to ensure that the impeachment trial not become a farce?
Given that it has been a farce since Day One thanks to Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, “Jumping Jerry” Nadler, who jumped right to the conclusion that Trump is guilty and then started arranging the “evidence” to make it appear so, and the Democrats in the House of Representatives, it is a bit late to expect the Senate to undo the FARCICAL NATURE of the Schiff Show at this point in time.
• Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.): “I call on every person in this country to demand that their U.S. senator demands an actual trial with the facts on the table.”
“They can call the witnesses they want, but have a real trial and do not coordinate with the White House, because that’s a ridiculous idea.”
end quotes
Pramila, speaking as a rational American citizen who does not have his head in his *** as do you Democrats, THERE ARE NO FACTS SUPPORTING IMPEACHMENT!
There is nothing to have a trial about.
And for those of you who don’t know Pramila, she has been described by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi as “a rising star in the Democratic caucus,” and in an Associated Press article entitled “Dem struggle over Pelosi bid, with no end game in sight” on 17 November 2018, Pramila was quoted as follows:
“I think chaos is good if it’s productive.”
“I think chaos is bad if it is too disruptive and it divides us too much,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., a co-chair of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, whose leaders were upbeat after meeting with Pelosi this week.
“We don’t have a lot of time,” Jayapal said.
“We need to put forward the vision of who we are as a party and what we’re fighting for and so that needs to happen very, very quickly.”
end quotes
And what we have here from the House Democrats is the very bad Democrat chaos which is far too disruptive as it divides us too much, but that is the vision of who the Democrats are as a party and what they’re fighting for, which is to destroy Donald Trump because he is president instead of Hillary Clinton.
In a Washington Post article entitled “Fight for House speaker explodes into national political campaign” by Elise Viebeck, Mike DeBonis and Erica Werner on 18 November 2018, Pramila was quoted thusly:
Supporters have cited the need for a speaker who can immediately stand up to Trump, spell out the Democrats’ agenda and score legislative wins for the party before the next campaign.
“We need somebody who’s really experienced, who’s not going to back down, who’s not going to have a learning curve,” said Rep. Pramila Jayapal (D-Wash.), who is likely to co-chair the House Progressive Caucus.
“We have very little time. . . .”
“It’s a six-month cycle to really get something done and then everything moves to 2020.”
end quotes
My goodness, yes, Pramila, everything is moving to 2020, which is what this Democrat FARCE is all about.
Showing her obvious animus towards Trump right from the get-go, in an Associated Press article entitled “Pelosi over his shoulder: Trump faces empowered Dems at SOTU” by Laurie Kellman on 4 February 2019, Pramila was quoted thusly:
“He just lies.”
“He lies all the time,” Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., said.
end quotes
And the Democrats don’t, Pramila?
And then we have the Associated Press article “Despite differences, Dems stick with Pelosi on impeachment” by Mary Clare Jalonick and Laurie Kellman on 12 March 2019, when the Democrats were against impeachment before they were for it, as follows:
WASHINGTON — Democrats are largely lining up behind House Speaker Nancy Pelosi and her wait-and-see strategy on any impeachment proceedings against President Donald Trump.
Moderate and even some of the most liberal House Democrats said they were supportive of the speaker after she told The Washington Post that she’s not for impeachment, at least for now.
Impeaching Trump is “just not worth it,” Pelosi said, unless there’s overwhelming support.
While some in her caucus may disagree on certain points, the majority of Democrats endorsed Pelosi’s approach.
House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff said a unilateral pursuit of impeachment by Democrats would be an “exercise doomed for failure.”
“I see little to be gained by putting the country through that kind of wrenching experience,” he said at a breakfast hosted by the Christian Science Monitor.
House Oversight and Reform Committee Chairman Elijah Cummings said impeachment “has to be a bipartisan effort, and right now it’s not there.”
Cummings said his sense is that “this matter will only be resolved at the polls.”
Even one of the strongest proponents of impeachment, freshman Rep. Rashida Tlaib of Michigan, said Tuesday that she is “absolutely not” disappointed in Pelosi.
Tlaib stressed that she is going to continue to push for impeachment, but echoed Democratic leaders’ caution in first calling for a committee process that investigates Trump.
“That doesn’t mean we are voting on it, it means we are beginning the process to look at some of these alleged claims,” Tlaib said.
Democrats have launched multiple probes into Trump’s White House and personal businesses.
Those investigations, led by Schiff and other House committee chairmen, are intended to keep the focus on Trump’s business dealings and relationship with Russia, no matter what comes from the investigation of special counsel Robert Mueller.
Rep. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash., a member of the House Judiciary Committee and a leader of the Congressional Progressive Caucus, said Pelosi’s comments are “probably a reaction to everybody wanting to go to the end of an investigation when we haven’t started.”
Pelosi’s approach could also provide cover to some of her members, including freshmen who were elected in November from “red-to-blue” districts where impeachment is politically fraught.
California Rep. Katie Hill, one of those freshmen, praised Pelosi’s approach.
“If it’s going to be a political disaster for us, then we’re not going to do it,” she said.
House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, D-Md., noted that the majority of freshman members have not been outspoken on impeachment, and that the Senate remains controlled by Republicans.
“Nobody thinks there is going to be a conviction in the Senate, unless circumstances very substantially change.”
Pelosi has long resisted impeachment as a drastic step that should only be broached with “great care.”
end quotes
So much for “great care” with this absolute FARCE the Democrats have handed us just nine months later, which takes us to this inane set of comments from Rep. Jamie Raskin, (D-Md.), who told CNN: “The president is essentially a constitutional defendant, and he’s a defendant because we have voted to send an indictment, articles of Impeachment, to the Senate, because of the high crimes and misdemeanors he’s committed.”
And of course, that statement right there by Jamie Raskin that the House has actually indicted Trump because of the high crimes and misdemeanors he’s committed, as opposed to “alleged to have been committed,” is an admission by Jamie Raskin that the Democrats have engaged in the CONSTITUTIONALLY PROHIBITED or UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACT of attainting Trump in clear violation of Section 9 of Article I of OUR written United States Constitution, as opposed to the Democrat version that Nancy Pelosi keeps secure for the Democrats in her alimentary tract that the Democrats are relying on to impeach Trump, as follows:
No Bill of Attainder …. shall be passed.
”Bills of attainder . . . are such special acts of the legislature, as inflict capital punishments upon persons supposed to be guilty of high offences, such as treason and felony, without any conviction in the ordinary course of judicial proceedings.”
“If an act inflicts a milder degree of punishment than death, it is called a bill of pains and penalties. . . .”
“In such cases, the legislature assumes judicial magistracy, pronouncing upon the guilt of the party without any of the common forms and guards of trial, and satisfying itself with proofs, when such proofs are within its reach, whether they are conformable to the rules of evidence, or not.”
“In short, in all such cases, the legislature exercises the highest power of sovereignty, and what may be properly deemed an irresponsible despotic discretion, being governed solely by what it deems political necessity or expediency, and too often under the influence of unreasonable fears, or unfounded suspicions.”
The phrase ”bill of attainder,” as used in this clause and in clause 1 of Sec. 10, applies to bills of pains and penalties as well as to the traditional bills of attainder.
The prohibition embodied in this clause is not to be strictly and narrowly construed in the context of traditional forms but is to be interpreted in accordance with the designs of the framers so as to preclude trial by legislature, a violation of the separation of powers concept.
The clause thus prohibits all legislative acts, ”no matter what their form, that apply either to named individuals or to easily ascertainable members of a group in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial. . . .”
end quotes
And that, of course, is the exact BULL**** going on in the House of Representatives right now – not only is Trump constantly being slandered and ridiculed by the House Democrats and their lackeys and lickspittles in the mainstream media, who print every Democrat slander and accusation of criminal conduct by Trump without question, but by adjudging Trump guilty of crimes, which they now have done many times over, they have violated the prohibition embodied in this clause of Article I that is to be interpreted in accordance with the designs of the framers so as to preclude trial by legislature, a violation of the separation of powers concept with the clause thus prohibiting all legislative acts of the kind we are seeing here, ”no matter what their form, that apply to named individuals in such a way as to inflict punishment on them without a judicial trial.”
And there, people, is the real question that the Senate should take up when this FARCE comes before them next month – the blatantly LAWLESS and UNCONSTITUTIONAL ACTS of the Democrats connected with this IMPEACHMENT FARCE!
That is what the real trial needs to be about – why did the Democrats fabricate ridiculous charges to force this impeachment trial in the first place?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/d ... ent-207952
Re: CUT THE CRAP, ADAM SCHIFF
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 16, 2019 at 7:24 pm
Paul Plante says:
And with the formal filing of CRIMINAL CHARGES of ABUSING HIS OFFICE by the House Democrats led by the smarmy and unctuous Hollywood, California Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff, We, the American People, who are the real jury here, given that according to Federalist No. 65, the AUTHORITY on the intentions of the founders with respect to when it is proper to use impeachment against a sitting American president as is the case now confronting us as citizens here in the United States of America, Alexander Hamilton, who knew a hell of a lot more about OUR Constitution than do Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler and Nancy Pelosi and the rest of her ilk, defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust,” are confronted with another instance of Democrat Adam Schiff discrediting one of his own key witnesses, that being Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, who Schiff is essentially calling a liar and accusing him of lying to Congress, which is a serious business indeed.
The alleged false testimony by Lt. Colonel Vindman subsequently controverted and repudiated by Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler with the formal filing of criminal charges against Trump by them occurred during the 19 November 2019 appearance of Vindman in front of Adam Schiff’s seemingly inappropriately-named “House Intelligence Committee,” where the Democrats exhibited hardly any intelligence, at all, which hearing preceded the subsequent Nadler Committee Hearing where formal criminal charges were actually preferred against Trump after a quick trial before Nadler with Adam Schiff as prosecuting attorney in this following colloquy where Vindman is being intensely grilled by Democrat Congresswoman Karen Lorraine Jacqueline Speier, born May 14, 1950, an American politician with a J.D. degree from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 1976, who currently serves as a U.S. Representative for California’s 14th congressional district which includes the northern two-thirds of San Mateo County and the southwest quarter of San Francisco who on August 16, 2017, advocated for the use of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to remove President Trump from office because of erratic behavior and mental instability “that place the country in great danger,” one of the Democrats failed opening shots at Trump, to wit:
SPEIER: Would it ever be U.S. policy in your experience to ask a foreign leader to open a political investigation?
VINDMAN: There are proper procedures in which to do that.
Certainly the president is well within his right to do that.
end quotes
And right there, of course, Schiff and Nadler and Nancy Pelosi have a real serious problem, because their own FACT WITNESS (an individual who has personal knowledge of events pertaining to the case can testify as to things they have personally observed or witnessed) brought in by Schiff to bolster Schiff’s impeachment case against Trump is making it incandescently clear that Trump DID NOT abuse his discretion when he asked the Ukrainian dude to investigate alleged corrupt acts by Joe Biden, which in turn were the subject of this cross-examination of Vindman during that same hearing by Congressman Christopher Douglas Stewart, an American politician who currently represents Utah’s 2nd congressional district in the United States House of Representatives, to wit:
There are, as I’ve stated previous, sitting here a couple days ago, there are dozens of corrupt nations in the world, hundreds of corrupt government officials.
Exactly one time did a vice president go to a nation and demand the specific firing of one individual and give a six-hour time limit and withhold or threaten to withhold $1 billion in aid if not.
It was the one individual who was investigating a company that was paying his son.
end quotes
So, based on the sworn testimony of Lt. Colonel Vindman, which was subsequently refuted by Adam Schiff, impeachment is clearly inappropriate here because for impeachment to be a valid exercise of the impeachment power of the House, it must be based on “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust,” which according to Vindman, never happened; hence, no public trust was abused or violated, which makes impeachment in this case UNLAWFUL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
And how Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler got around that impediment to their impeachment case is by discrediting the sworn testimony of Lt. Colonel Vindman, Schiff’s own star witness in this ridiculous impeachment drama which gets more ridiculous by the day, which brings us back to Alexander Hamilton, to wit:
“They (impeachment charges) 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
But according to the sworn testimony of Lt. Col. Vindman, there were no injuries done to society itself by Trump, so what is up then with Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler convicting Trump of abusing his office after an UNCONSTITUTIONAL TRIAL in the House Judiciary Committee of “Jumping Jerry” Nadler who jumped to the conclusion Trump had to be guilty of something, anything really, back in October of 1988 as we can clearly see from the CNN article “Key House Democrats outline Trump investigations if they take back House Majority” by Lauren Fox and Jeremy Herb on 15 October 2018, to wit:
Democrats in the US House of Representatives are beginning to quietly prepare to hold the Trump administration accountable if they win the majority in November.
In more than a dozen interviews, CNN has learned that Democrats on virtually every committee in the House of Representatives are carefully positioning themselves to be ready in the event that they find themselves in the majority after the midterms.
After nearly a decade in the minority and two years having limited power to pursue oversight in the Trump administration, Democrats need to be prepared.
One Democratic leadership aide told CNN that at this point, the key role of leaders is to help each of the committees coordinate their efforts so that investigations are targeted and yield results, not just rhetoric.
Schiff wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post published online Friday making the case that a Democratic House would provide a check on Trump through oversight, detailing his plans for his panel.
“In the Intelligence Committee, we will assess the work we have accomplished despite the Republican efforts at obstruction, along with what the Senate and special counsel Robert S. Mueller III have examined, and determine what else needs a full accounting,” Schiff wrote.
“There are serious and credible allegations the Russians may possess financial leverage over the president, including perhaps the laundering of Russian money through his businesses.”
“It would be negligent to our national security not to find out.”
But he’s not the only chairman who’s likely to probe matters involving Russia.
Rep. Jerry Nadler, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has pressed Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, to investigate possible Russian collusion, among other topics, rather than the GOP probe conducted into the FBI’s handling of the Russia investigation.
If Democrats have the majority, Nadler is likely to probe Russian meddling as part of a lengthy list of issues, from Michael Cohen’s payments to women to potential obstruction of justice to Trump’s finances.
Nadler, whose committee would be in charge of a potential impeachment process, has been careful to say he’s not planning to move forward on impeachment yet.
But all of the issues he’s signaled he wants to investigate would lay the groundwork for such a case should Democrats decide to press forward on it.
end quotes
But as we can clearly see from this sworn testimony of Lt. Colonel Vindman that Schiff and Nadler are trying to scrub from the record, the Democrats never had anything more than rhetoric and a desire to hurt Trump as bad as they possibly can, which is shameful and reprehensible, and exactly the kind of low conduct the Democrats have no trouble stooping to whatsoever!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-208377
Paul Plante says:
And with the formal filing of CRIMINAL CHARGES of ABUSING HIS OFFICE by the House Democrats led by the smarmy and unctuous Hollywood, California Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff, We, the American People, who are the real jury here, given that according to Federalist No. 65, the AUTHORITY on the intentions of the founders with respect to when it is proper to use impeachment against a sitting American president as is the case now confronting us as citizens here in the United States of America, Alexander Hamilton, who knew a hell of a lot more about OUR Constitution than do Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler and Nancy Pelosi and the rest of her ilk, defined impeachable offenses as “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust,” are confronted with another instance of Democrat Adam Schiff discrediting one of his own key witnesses, that being Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman, who Schiff is essentially calling a liar and accusing him of lying to Congress, which is a serious business indeed.
The alleged false testimony by Lt. Colonel Vindman subsequently controverted and repudiated by Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler with the formal filing of criminal charges against Trump by them occurred during the 19 November 2019 appearance of Vindman in front of Adam Schiff’s seemingly inappropriately-named “House Intelligence Committee,” where the Democrats exhibited hardly any intelligence, at all, which hearing preceded the subsequent Nadler Committee Hearing where formal criminal charges were actually preferred against Trump after a quick trial before Nadler with Adam Schiff as prosecuting attorney in this following colloquy where Vindman is being intensely grilled by Democrat Congresswoman Karen Lorraine Jacqueline Speier, born May 14, 1950, an American politician with a J.D. degree from the University of California, Hastings College of the Law in 1976, who currently serves as a U.S. Representative for California’s 14th congressional district which includes the northern two-thirds of San Mateo County and the southwest quarter of San Francisco who on August 16, 2017, advocated for the use of the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution to remove President Trump from office because of erratic behavior and mental instability “that place the country in great danger,” one of the Democrats failed opening shots at Trump, to wit:
SPEIER: Would it ever be U.S. policy in your experience to ask a foreign leader to open a political investigation?
VINDMAN: There are proper procedures in which to do that.
Certainly the president is well within his right to do that.
end quotes
And right there, of course, Schiff and Nadler and Nancy Pelosi have a real serious problem, because their own FACT WITNESS (an individual who has personal knowledge of events pertaining to the case can testify as to things they have personally observed or witnessed) brought in by Schiff to bolster Schiff’s impeachment case against Trump is making it incandescently clear that Trump DID NOT abuse his discretion when he asked the Ukrainian dude to investigate alleged corrupt acts by Joe Biden, which in turn were the subject of this cross-examination of Vindman during that same hearing by Congressman Christopher Douglas Stewart, an American politician who currently represents Utah’s 2nd congressional district in the United States House of Representatives, to wit:
There are, as I’ve stated previous, sitting here a couple days ago, there are dozens of corrupt nations in the world, hundreds of corrupt government officials.
Exactly one time did a vice president go to a nation and demand the specific firing of one individual and give a six-hour time limit and withhold or threaten to withhold $1 billion in aid if not.
It was the one individual who was investigating a company that was paying his son.
end quotes
So, based on the sworn testimony of Lt. Colonel Vindman, which was subsequently refuted by Adam Schiff, impeachment is clearly inappropriate here because for impeachment to be a valid exercise of the impeachment power of the House, it must be based on “those offences which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust,” which according to Vindman, never happened; hence, no public trust was abused or violated, which makes impeachment in this case UNLAWFUL and UNCONSTITUTIONAL.
And how Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler got around that impediment to their impeachment case is by discrediting the sworn testimony of Lt. Colonel Vindman, Schiff’s own star witness in this ridiculous impeachment drama which gets more ridiculous by the day, which brings us back to Alexander Hamilton, to wit:
“They (impeachment charges) 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
But according to the sworn testimony of Lt. Col. Vindman, there were no injuries done to society itself by Trump, so what is up then with Adam Schiff and Jerry Nadler convicting Trump of abusing his office after an UNCONSTITUTIONAL TRIAL in the House Judiciary Committee of “Jumping Jerry” Nadler who jumped to the conclusion Trump had to be guilty of something, anything really, back in October of 1988 as we can clearly see from the CNN article “Key House Democrats outline Trump investigations if they take back House Majority” by Lauren Fox and Jeremy Herb on 15 October 2018, to wit:
Democrats in the US House of Representatives are beginning to quietly prepare to hold the Trump administration accountable if they win the majority in November.
In more than a dozen interviews, CNN has learned that Democrats on virtually every committee in the House of Representatives are carefully positioning themselves to be ready in the event that they find themselves in the majority after the midterms.
After nearly a decade in the minority and two years having limited power to pursue oversight in the Trump administration, Democrats need to be prepared.
One Democratic leadership aide told CNN that at this point, the key role of leaders is to help each of the committees coordinate their efforts so that investigations are targeted and yield results, not just rhetoric.
Schiff wrote an op-ed in The Washington Post published online Friday making the case that a Democratic House would provide a check on Trump through oversight, detailing his plans for his panel.
“In the Intelligence Committee, we will assess the work we have accomplished despite the Republican efforts at obstruction, along with what the Senate and special counsel Robert S. Mueller III have examined, and determine what else needs a full accounting,” Schiff wrote.
“There are serious and credible allegations the Russians may possess financial leverage over the president, including perhaps the laundering of Russian money through his businesses.”
“It would be negligent to our national security not to find out.”
But he’s not the only chairman who’s likely to probe matters involving Russia.
Rep. Jerry Nadler, the top Democrat on the House Judiciary Committee, has pressed Judiciary Chairman Bob Goodlatte, a Virginia Republican, to investigate possible Russian collusion, among other topics, rather than the GOP probe conducted into the FBI’s handling of the Russia investigation.
If Democrats have the majority, Nadler is likely to probe Russian meddling as part of a lengthy list of issues, from Michael Cohen’s payments to women to potential obstruction of justice to Trump’s finances.
Nadler, whose committee would be in charge of a potential impeachment process, has been careful to say he’s not planning to move forward on impeachment yet.
But all of the issues he’s signaled he wants to investigate would lay the groundwork for such a case should Democrats decide to press forward on it.
end quotes
But as we can clearly see from this sworn testimony of Lt. Colonel Vindman that Schiff and Nadler are trying to scrub from the record, the Democrats never had anything more than rhetoric and a desire to hurt Trump as bad as they possibly can, which is shameful and reprehensible, and exactly the kind of low conduct the Democrats have no trouble stooping to whatsoever!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-208377
Re: CUT THE CRAP, ADAM SCHIFF
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 17, 2019 at 11:59 am
Paul Plante says :
I have read through the Federalist Papers many times now, and I haven’t really made an effort to discuss them in here, because talking to a fervent or rabid Democrat about anything that does not agree with or support what their feelings and emotions and passions are telling them to do, including jumping off a cliff because that is what all the other lemmings are doing, is simply a waste of time.
They have ears, but the only voice they hear, like that of the dog Nipper, is the voice of their master, Nancy Pelosi, who herself seems sunk far into dementia, and such it is.
As to this STUPID SHOW being over with the filing of this first set of CRIMINAL CHARGES against Trump, guess again, people, because according to a POLITICO article entitled “House vows to continue impeachment probes regardless of Senate outcome” by Andrew Desiderio and Kyle Cheney on 16 December 2019, this is only the prelude to ACT I of the “GREAT DEMOCRAT STUPID SHOW OF 2020,” to wit:
Lawyers for the House told a federal court on Monday that lawmakers will continue their impeachment investigation even after the House votes later this week to impeach President Donald Trump.
end quotes
Come November 2020, according to the Democrat plan of attack, Trump is going to have a “sheet” that will rival or surpass that of famous American criminals like John Dillinger or “Legs” Diamond, which the Democrats hope will convince the American people to hand ALL political power in America to the exclusive control of the Democrat party, who, of course, only have our best interests as a nation and as a people at heart.
Getting back to that revelatory Politico article, we have:
In a filing to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, House General Counsel Douglas Letter argued that the House’s demands for grand jury materials connected to former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation were still urgent because such evidence might become relevant to the Senate’s expected impeachment trial next month.
But Letter went further to note that even apart from the Senate trial, the House Judiciary Committee intends to continue its impeachment investigation arising from the Mueller probe on its own merit.
end quotes
So even after scouring over the Mueller Report and finding nothing to hang Trump with, they are going to scour over it another time, at our expense, of course, since this FARCE is being generously funded by We, the American People, as opposed to the coffers of the Democrat party, which is raking in political contributions based on a promise to destroy Trump.
Getting back to that article, which gives us the shape of things yet to come from these hateful and spite-filled Democrats, we have:
“The committee has continued and will continue [its impeachment] investigations consistent with its own prior statements respecting their importance and purposes,” Letter wrote in a filing Monday as part of the House’s bid to obtain Mueller’s grand-jury evidence.
The House is expected to vote Wednesday on two articles of impeachment — one charging Trump with abuse of power and another with obstruction of Congress.
The articles are focused primarily on Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals.
end quotes
But those articles are just plain STUPID, as we can clearly see from this colloquy on 19 November 2019 from the Schiff Committee hearing starring U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman as Schiff’s star witness, between Vindman and Democrat Michael Bruce Quigley, born October 17, 1958, the U.S. Representative for Illinois’s 5th congressional district including most of Chicago’s North Side, as well as several of the city’s western suburbs who attended the Loyola University Chicago School of Law, where he earned a Juris Doctor degree, to wit:
QUIGLEY: Did anyone to your understanding raise the legality of withholding this assistance?
VINDMAN: It was raised on several occasions.
QUIGLEY: And — and who raised those concerns?
VINDMAN: So following the July 18th sub-PCC, which is again what I coordinate or what I convene at my level.
There was a July 23rd PCC that would have been conducted by Mr. Morrison.
There were questions raised as to the legality of the hold.
Over the subsequent week the issue was analyzed and during the July 26th deputies — so the deputies from all the departments and agencies there was an opinion rendered that it was legal to put the hold.
QUIGLEY: It was — excuse me?
VINDMAN: There was an opinion legal — an opinion rendered that it was OK to — that the hold was legal.
QUIGLEY: On a purely legal point of view.
VINDMAN: Correct.
QUIGLEY: Very good.
I yield back to the Chairman.
end quotes
So, in the world of reality in which we who are not Democrat Kool-Aid drinkers live in, it was totally legal for Trump to do everything he did, according to the key witness the Democrats brought on board to hang Trump, so the Democrats simply take a wet sponge and expunge that exculpatory testimony from the FAKE RECORD they have cobbled together out of cobwebs and dust that they are basing these present, first articles of impeachment on, before they bring more articles based on more cobwebs and dust to convince us to vote Democrat in 2020.
Getting back to Politico:
Democrats had strongly considered charging Trump with obstruction of justice based on Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Monday’s filing indicates that Democrats are keeping that option available even after the House’s impeachment process concludes this week.
Letter’s suggestion that the Judiciary Committee’s impeachment investigation is ongoing cites a report released earlier Monday by the panel outlining the impeachment case against Trump.
In that report, Democrats argued that Trump committed criminal bribery and wire fraud when he pressured Ukraine’s president to investigate his political rivals.
end quotes
Yahoo, people, you know what I am saying – get out the way, folks, run for the hills, a lightning strike has spooked the cattle (the Democrats) and they are about to stampede!
And before this DEMOCRAT STUPID SHOW is finally over, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Trump charged by the Democrats with killing Jimmy Hoffa and JFK!
And now we pause for station identification and a word from our sponsors, so if you need some munchies to knosh on, best run to the frig and get them now!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/d ... ent-208739
Paul Plante says :
I have read through the Federalist Papers many times now, and I haven’t really made an effort to discuss them in here, because talking to a fervent or rabid Democrat about anything that does not agree with or support what their feelings and emotions and passions are telling them to do, including jumping off a cliff because that is what all the other lemmings are doing, is simply a waste of time.
They have ears, but the only voice they hear, like that of the dog Nipper, is the voice of their master, Nancy Pelosi, who herself seems sunk far into dementia, and such it is.
As to this STUPID SHOW being over with the filing of this first set of CRIMINAL CHARGES against Trump, guess again, people, because according to a POLITICO article entitled “House vows to continue impeachment probes regardless of Senate outcome” by Andrew Desiderio and Kyle Cheney on 16 December 2019, this is only the prelude to ACT I of the “GREAT DEMOCRAT STUPID SHOW OF 2020,” to wit:
Lawyers for the House told a federal court on Monday that lawmakers will continue their impeachment investigation even after the House votes later this week to impeach President Donald Trump.
end quotes
Come November 2020, according to the Democrat plan of attack, Trump is going to have a “sheet” that will rival or surpass that of famous American criminals like John Dillinger or “Legs” Diamond, which the Democrats hope will convince the American people to hand ALL political power in America to the exclusive control of the Democrat party, who, of course, only have our best interests as a nation and as a people at heart.
Getting back to that revelatory Politico article, we have:
In a filing to the D.C. Circuit Court of Appeals, House General Counsel Douglas Letter argued that the House’s demands for grand jury materials connected to former special counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation were still urgent because such evidence might become relevant to the Senate’s expected impeachment trial next month.
But Letter went further to note that even apart from the Senate trial, the House Judiciary Committee intends to continue its impeachment investigation arising from the Mueller probe on its own merit.
end quotes
So even after scouring over the Mueller Report and finding nothing to hang Trump with, they are going to scour over it another time, at our expense, of course, since this FARCE is being generously funded by We, the American People, as opposed to the coffers of the Democrat party, which is raking in political contributions based on a promise to destroy Trump.
Getting back to that article, which gives us the shape of things yet to come from these hateful and spite-filled Democrats, we have:
“The committee has continued and will continue [its impeachment] investigations consistent with its own prior statements respecting their importance and purposes,” Letter wrote in a filing Monday as part of the House’s bid to obtain Mueller’s grand-jury evidence.
The House is expected to vote Wednesday on two articles of impeachment — one charging Trump with abuse of power and another with obstruction of Congress.
The articles are focused primarily on Trump’s efforts to pressure Ukraine to investigate his political rivals.
end quotes
But those articles are just plain STUPID, as we can clearly see from this colloquy on 19 November 2019 from the Schiff Committee hearing starring U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman as Schiff’s star witness, between Vindman and Democrat Michael Bruce Quigley, born October 17, 1958, the U.S. Representative for Illinois’s 5th congressional district including most of Chicago’s North Side, as well as several of the city’s western suburbs who attended the Loyola University Chicago School of Law, where he earned a Juris Doctor degree, to wit:
QUIGLEY: Did anyone to your understanding raise the legality of withholding this assistance?
VINDMAN: It was raised on several occasions.
QUIGLEY: And — and who raised those concerns?
VINDMAN: So following the July 18th sub-PCC, which is again what I coordinate or what I convene at my level.
There was a July 23rd PCC that would have been conducted by Mr. Morrison.
There were questions raised as to the legality of the hold.
Over the subsequent week the issue was analyzed and during the July 26th deputies — so the deputies from all the departments and agencies there was an opinion rendered that it was legal to put the hold.
QUIGLEY: It was — excuse me?
VINDMAN: There was an opinion legal — an opinion rendered that it was OK to — that the hold was legal.
QUIGLEY: On a purely legal point of view.
VINDMAN: Correct.
QUIGLEY: Very good.
I yield back to the Chairman.
end quotes
So, in the world of reality in which we who are not Democrat Kool-Aid drinkers live in, it was totally legal for Trump to do everything he did, according to the key witness the Democrats brought on board to hang Trump, so the Democrats simply take a wet sponge and expunge that exculpatory testimony from the FAKE RECORD they have cobbled together out of cobwebs and dust that they are basing these present, first articles of impeachment on, before they bring more articles based on more cobwebs and dust to convince us to vote Democrat in 2020.
Getting back to Politico:
Democrats had strongly considered charging Trump with obstruction of justice based on Mueller’s report on Russian interference in the 2016 election.
Monday’s filing indicates that Democrats are keeping that option available even after the House’s impeachment process concludes this week.
Letter’s suggestion that the Judiciary Committee’s impeachment investigation is ongoing cites a report released earlier Monday by the panel outlining the impeachment case against Trump.
In that report, Democrats argued that Trump committed criminal bribery and wire fraud when he pressured Ukraine’s president to investigate his political rivals.
end quotes
Yahoo, people, you know what I am saying – get out the way, folks, run for the hills, a lightning strike has spooked the cattle (the Democrats) and they are about to stampede!
And before this DEMOCRAT STUPID SHOW is finally over, I wouldn’t be surprised to see Trump charged by the Democrats with killing Jimmy Hoffa and JFK!
And now we pause for station identification and a word from our sponsors, so if you need some munchies to knosh on, best run to the frig and get them now!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/d ... ent-208739
Re: CUT THE CRAP, ADAM SCHIFF
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR December 18, 2019 at 10:46 pm
Paul Plante says :
“We present you not just with high crimes and misdemeanors, but a constitutional crime in progress up to this very minute!”
That hysterical, incredible and patently ridiculous charge was made last night during a House Rules Committee meeting on the impeachment of Trump by Democrat Jamin Ben “Jamie” Raskin, born December 13, 1962, a politician with a J.D. from Harvard Law School, who serves as the U.S. Representative for Maryland’s 8th congressional district located in Montgomery County, an affluent suburban county northwest of Washington, D.C., extending through rural Frederick County to the Pennsylvania border who prior to his election to Congress, was a constitutional law professor at American University Washington College of Law as we were informed in the Roll Call article “On impeachment eve, House Rules provides preview of divisive floor debate” by Katherine Tully-McManus on 17 December 2019, where we were reminded as follows:
The Democrats’ case is centered on the allegation that Trump leveraged a White House meeting and military aid to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter while Ukraine faced continued military aggression from Russia.
end quotes
But that charge by Jamie Raskin of “a constitutional crime in progress up to this very minute” is patently stupid, as could be expected from a Democrat, precisely because based on the record developed by the Democrats themselves during the Schiff Committee hearing on 19 November 2019 starring the bemedaled U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman as the expert witness for the Democrats against Trump, Trump never violated his oath of office as the rabid and hate-filled Democrats are alleging today, nor was a “constitutional crime” ever committed, as we can clearly see in this colloquy between Lt. Col. Vindman and Congresswoman Elise Stefanik serving as the U.S. Representative for New York’s 21st congressional district, to wit:
STEFANIK: My question to both of you today will focus on the following, systemic corruption in Ukraine, two highlighting for the public that by law aid to Ukraine requires anti corruption efforts and three, who in our government has the decision-making authority when it comes to foreign policy and national security matters.
So on corruption in Ukraine, as Ambassador Yovanovitch testified, one of the key reasons why President Zelensky was overwhelmingly elected by the Ukrainian people was that they were finally standing up to rampant corruption in their country.
Would you both agree with the ambassador’s assessment?
VINDMAN: Yes.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
STEFANIK: And Ms. Williams, corruption was such a critical issue from your perspective that when you prepared the vice president for his congratulatory call with President Zelensky, you testified that the points you wanted to communicate on the call where the following quote, look forward to seeing President Zelensky really implement the agenda on which he had run related anticorruption reforms.
That is correct?
WILLIAMS: That is, yes.
STEFANIK: And Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, would you agree that this focus on anticorruption is a critical aspect of our policy towards Ukraine?
VINDMAN: I would.
end quotes
So much for Jamie Raskin’s stupid theory of not only “high crimes and misdemeanors, but a constitutional crime in progress up to this very minute,” because there were no “high” crimes, there were no misdemeanors, and the only constitutional crime in progress this very minute is this on-going effort by the Democrats to subvert OUR United States Constitution with this KANGAROO COURT they are running in the House of Representatives, which takes us back to that transcript excerpt, to wit:
STEFANIK: And Lieutenant Vindman, you are aware that in 2014 during the Obama Administration, the first anticorruption investigation partnered between the U.S., the U.K. and Ukraine was into the owner of the company, Burisma?
VINDMAN: I’m aware of it now.
STEFANIK: And Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, you testified that you were aware that Burisma had questionable business dealings.
That’s part of its track record?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
STEFANIK: You also testified that regarding Burisma, money laundering, tax evasion comports with your understanding of how business is done in Ukraine.
Is that correct?
VINDMAN: I’m not aware of specific incidents but my understanding is that it would not be out of the realm of the possible for Burisma.
STEFANIK: Well, that’s page 207 from your testimony but I’ll move on.
You are aware that Hunter Biden did sit on the board of Burisma at this time?
VINDMAN: I am.
STEFANIK: Well I know — I know that my constituents in New York 21 have many concerns about the fact that Hunter Biden, the son of the vice president, sat on the board of a corrupt company like Burisma.
The Obama Administration, state Department was also concerned and yet Adam Schiff refuses to allow this committee to call Hunter Biden despite our requests.
Every witness who has testified and has been asked this has answered yes.
Do you agree that Hunter Biden on the board of Burisma has the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest?
VINDMAN: Certainly the potential, yes.
STEFANIK: And Ms. Williams?
WILLIAMS: Yes.
STEFANIK: Now shifting to the legal requirements that our aid to Ukraine is conditioned on anticorruption.
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, you testified that you understood that Congress had passed under the Ukrainian Security Assistance Initiative, a legal obligation to certify that corruption is being addressed?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
STEFANIK: And you also testified that it is required by the National Defense Authorization Act?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
STEFANIK: So for the public listening, we are not just talking about President Trump focusing on anticorruption in Ukraine, but it is so critical so important that hard-earned taxpayer dollars when given to foreign nations that by law overwhelmingly bipartisan support requires anticorruption in Ukraine in order to get U.S. taxpayer-funded aid.
end quotes
So, Trump as president took an oath which states “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” which requires him according to section 3 of Article II of OUR united States Constitution to take “Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and Congress passed under the Ukrainian Security Assistance Initiative a legal obligation to certify that corruption is being addressed, and when Trump then complied with that law, according to the whacked-out, lost-in-space Democrats and Jamie Raskin, that adherence to that law by Trump then constituted not only “high crimes and misdemeanors, but a constitutional crime in progress up to this very minute,” which is simply bizarre!
Getting back to that transcript excerpt:
STEFANIK: And my last question Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, I know you serve in the NSC in the White House.
I served in the West Wing of the White House for President Bush on the Domestic Policy Council and in the Chief of Staff’s office so I’m very familiar with the policy process.
I also know that as a staff member, the person who sets the policy in the United States is the president, not the staff and you testified that the president sets the policy correct?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
STEFANIK: And do you agree that the president sets the policy as commander-in-chief, as you testified previously?
VINDMAN: Absolutely.
STEFANIK: Thank you.
end quotes
And it is out of that, that the Democrats have gotten the impeachment charges they are trying to enforce against Trump today- high crimes and misdemeanors, and a constitutional crime in progress up to this very minute!
And now we take a break from today’s episode of “WEIRD TALES OF THE DEMOCRATS OF WASHINGTON, D.C.” for station identification and a word from our sponsors, and if the dam don’t break, and the water don’t rise, we’ll be right back with further tales of the weird Democrats, so don’t go away and don’t touch that dial!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-209326
Paul Plante says :
“We present you not just with high crimes and misdemeanors, but a constitutional crime in progress up to this very minute!”
That hysterical, incredible and patently ridiculous charge was made last night during a House Rules Committee meeting on the impeachment of Trump by Democrat Jamin Ben “Jamie” Raskin, born December 13, 1962, a politician with a J.D. from Harvard Law School, who serves as the U.S. Representative for Maryland’s 8th congressional district located in Montgomery County, an affluent suburban county northwest of Washington, D.C., extending through rural Frederick County to the Pennsylvania border who prior to his election to Congress, was a constitutional law professor at American University Washington College of Law as we were informed in the Roll Call article “On impeachment eve, House Rules provides preview of divisive floor debate” by Katherine Tully-McManus on 17 December 2019, where we were reminded as follows:
The Democrats’ case is centered on the allegation that Trump leveraged a White House meeting and military aid to pressure Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskiy to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter while Ukraine faced continued military aggression from Russia.
end quotes
But that charge by Jamie Raskin of “a constitutional crime in progress up to this very minute” is patently stupid, as could be expected from a Democrat, precisely because based on the record developed by the Democrats themselves during the Schiff Committee hearing on 19 November 2019 starring the bemedaled U.S. Army Lt. Colonel Alexander Vindman as the expert witness for the Democrats against Trump, Trump never violated his oath of office as the rabid and hate-filled Democrats are alleging today, nor was a “constitutional crime” ever committed, as we can clearly see in this colloquy between Lt. Col. Vindman and Congresswoman Elise Stefanik serving as the U.S. Representative for New York’s 21st congressional district, to wit:
STEFANIK: My question to both of you today will focus on the following, systemic corruption in Ukraine, two highlighting for the public that by law aid to Ukraine requires anti corruption efforts and three, who in our government has the decision-making authority when it comes to foreign policy and national security matters.
So on corruption in Ukraine, as Ambassador Yovanovitch testified, one of the key reasons why President Zelensky was overwhelmingly elected by the Ukrainian people was that they were finally standing up to rampant corruption in their country.
Would you both agree with the ambassador’s assessment?
VINDMAN: Yes.
WILLIAMS: Yes.
STEFANIK: And Ms. Williams, corruption was such a critical issue from your perspective that when you prepared the vice president for his congratulatory call with President Zelensky, you testified that the points you wanted to communicate on the call where the following quote, look forward to seeing President Zelensky really implement the agenda on which he had run related anticorruption reforms.
That is correct?
WILLIAMS: That is, yes.
STEFANIK: And Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, would you agree that this focus on anticorruption is a critical aspect of our policy towards Ukraine?
VINDMAN: I would.
end quotes
So much for Jamie Raskin’s stupid theory of not only “high crimes and misdemeanors, but a constitutional crime in progress up to this very minute,” because there were no “high” crimes, there were no misdemeanors, and the only constitutional crime in progress this very minute is this on-going effort by the Democrats to subvert OUR United States Constitution with this KANGAROO COURT they are running in the House of Representatives, which takes us back to that transcript excerpt, to wit:
STEFANIK: And Lieutenant Vindman, you are aware that in 2014 during the Obama Administration, the first anticorruption investigation partnered between the U.S., the U.K. and Ukraine was into the owner of the company, Burisma?
VINDMAN: I’m aware of it now.
STEFANIK: And Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, you testified that you were aware that Burisma had questionable business dealings.
That’s part of its track record?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
STEFANIK: You also testified that regarding Burisma, money laundering, tax evasion comports with your understanding of how business is done in Ukraine.
Is that correct?
VINDMAN: I’m not aware of specific incidents but my understanding is that it would not be out of the realm of the possible for Burisma.
STEFANIK: Well, that’s page 207 from your testimony but I’ll move on.
You are aware that Hunter Biden did sit on the board of Burisma at this time?
VINDMAN: I am.
STEFANIK: Well I know — I know that my constituents in New York 21 have many concerns about the fact that Hunter Biden, the son of the vice president, sat on the board of a corrupt company like Burisma.
The Obama Administration, state Department was also concerned and yet Adam Schiff refuses to allow this committee to call Hunter Biden despite our requests.
Every witness who has testified and has been asked this has answered yes.
Do you agree that Hunter Biden on the board of Burisma has the potential for the appearance of a conflict of interest?
VINDMAN: Certainly the potential, yes.
STEFANIK: And Ms. Williams?
WILLIAMS: Yes.
STEFANIK: Now shifting to the legal requirements that our aid to Ukraine is conditioned on anticorruption.
Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, you testified that you understood that Congress had passed under the Ukrainian Security Assistance Initiative, a legal obligation to certify that corruption is being addressed?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
STEFANIK: And you also testified that it is required by the National Defense Authorization Act?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
STEFANIK: So for the public listening, we are not just talking about President Trump focusing on anticorruption in Ukraine, but it is so critical so important that hard-earned taxpayer dollars when given to foreign nations that by law overwhelmingly bipartisan support requires anticorruption in Ukraine in order to get U.S. taxpayer-funded aid.
end quotes
So, Trump as president took an oath which states “I do solemnly swear that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,” which requires him according to section 3 of Article II of OUR united States Constitution to take “Care that the Laws be faithfully executed,” and Congress passed under the Ukrainian Security Assistance Initiative a legal obligation to certify that corruption is being addressed, and when Trump then complied with that law, according to the whacked-out, lost-in-space Democrats and Jamie Raskin, that adherence to that law by Trump then constituted not only “high crimes and misdemeanors, but a constitutional crime in progress up to this very minute,” which is simply bizarre!
Getting back to that transcript excerpt:
STEFANIK: And my last question Lieutenant Colonel Vindman, I know you serve in the NSC in the White House.
I served in the West Wing of the White House for President Bush on the Domestic Policy Council and in the Chief of Staff’s office so I’m very familiar with the policy process.
I also know that as a staff member, the person who sets the policy in the United States is the president, not the staff and you testified that the president sets the policy correct?
VINDMAN: That is correct.
STEFANIK: And do you agree that the president sets the policy as commander-in-chief, as you testified previously?
VINDMAN: Absolutely.
STEFANIK: Thank you.
end quotes
And it is out of that, that the Democrats have gotten the impeachment charges they are trying to enforce against Trump today- high crimes and misdemeanors, and a constitutional crime in progress up to this very minute!
And now we take a break from today’s episode of “WEIRD TALES OF THE DEMOCRATS OF WASHINGTON, D.C.” for station identification and a word from our sponsors, and if the dam don’t break, and the water don’t rise, we’ll be right back with further tales of the weird Democrats, so don’t go away and don’t touch that dial!
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-209326
Re: CUT THE CRAP, ADAM SCHIFF
THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR January 3, 2020 at 9:27 pm
Paul Plante says :
And while we wait for the Democrat Impeachment Train to get rolling again here, after its wheels appear to have fallen off, causing it to veer off the tracks and roll down a steep hill into a gully where it now lays prone on its back, let’s go to Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 135 S. Ct. 2076 (2015) for a look at who really is in charge of OUR nation’s foreign policy – the president, or the Democrats in the House of Representatives, where we have the real LAW OF THE LAND on that important subject which is key to this up-coming impeachment trial, assuming the Democrats can salvage the wreck from the gully it now lays in, to wit:
I. INTRODUCTION
“The power of originally recognizing a new state [is a] power the exercise of which is equivalent, under some circumstances, to a declaration of war.”
President Andrew Jackson made this observation as Texas pursued recognition as a new sovereign nation.
His statement highlights the significance of the act of recognition, which has bearing not only in a potential outbreak of war but also carries certain privileges regarding trade and treatment in a country’s legal system.
Despite the fact that even during the earliest days of the Republic, American leaders were acutely aware of the importance of formal recognition, they failed to clearly designate which branch of government exercises the “recognition power.”
end quotes
That, of course, is really the basis of this present kerfuffle between Nancy Pelosi and her raving, foam-at-the-mouth pack of Democrats and Trump over the corrupt ****-hole of Ukraine – who really is in charge?
Getting back to the view of the Supreme Court on that question, we have:
Throughout American history, this authority has been exercised by the President alone, by Congress alone, and, at times, by the President and Congress concurrently.
Until Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, the Supreme Court of the United States had never been called upon to determine whether Congress or the President solely possessed this power.
The instigator of the controversy was a small section of the 2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which addressed the place of birth on U.S. passports.
Section 214(d) of the Act granted a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem the right to have the State Department list his or her location of birth as Israel.
This provision stood in contrast to the Executive Branch’s long-held position to not recognize any nation as possessing formal sovereignty over Jerusalem.
When Petitioner’s parents acted on his behalf to exercise his right under section 214(d), the State Department refused, stating that only the President could formally recognize a sovereign nation and that Congress lacked authority to contradict this position.
The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the State Department’s argument, but built its support for this position upon tenuous ground.
The Court based its decision on the Constitution, case law, and historical precedent.
While these sources offer some support for the Court’s conclusion, it appears contrary to the drafters’ original intent and finds firmer footing in functionality and practicality than in the Constitution.
A majority of the Court focused on the President’s authority to recognize sovereign nations, and framed the issue as whether Congress can pass a law requiring a subordinate part of the Executive Branch to contradict the President.
In 2002, Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky (hereinafter “Petitioner”) was born in Jerusalem to American citizens.
In December of that year, his mother went to the American Embassy in Tel Aviv and sought a consular report of birth abroad and a passport for Petitioner.
After the Embassy refused to comply with Petitioner’s mother’s request, Petitioner’s parents brought suit against the Secretary of State in an effort to have the courts enforce the statute.
The case first appeared in the District Court of the District of Columbia.
The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing and because it considered the issue a political question — whether Israel exercises sovereignty over Jerusalem — which could not be answered by the Judiciary.
However, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, ruling Petitioner did have standing, but agreed with the district court’s holding that the issue was a political question and could not be resolved by the Judicial Branch.
The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, remanded the case, and instructed the appellate court to determine whether Petitioner’s interpretation of the statute was correct and whether the statute itself was constitutional, but cautioned the appellate court to not address the political question of sovereignty.
The appellate court subsequently found the statute unconstitutional and held that only the President possessed the authority to recognize a foreign sovereign.
Petitioner appealed and the Court granted certiorari a second time.
This time, the Court affirmed the decision by the court of appeals and held that the recognition power was solely within the President’s authority.
III. COURT’S DECISION AND RATIONALE
A. Majority Opinion by Justice Kennedy
Justice Kennedy authored the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
Justice Kennedy found that this case consisted of two issues: (1) Whether the President exercises exclusive control to formally recognize another sovereign nation, and (2) If the President possesses this power, whether Congress can require the President and his Secretary to issue statements which contradict the President’s official position.
Since this case concerned Presidential action that conflicted with the will of Congress, Justice Kennedy recognized that the President must have “exclusive” and “conclusive” authority for his action.
Presidential power is “at its lowest ebb” when the President acts contrary to the will of Congress and, in this situation, the President can rely solely on the authority the Constitution has granted the Executive Office.
Justice Kennedy began his analysis by determining whether the power to formally recognize a foreign sovereign was an exclusive power of the Executive Office.
The Court found the President did possess exclusive authority to formally recognize other sovereigns and reached this conclusion by assessing evidence found within the structure and text of the Constitution that addressed the President’s authority in international affairs and by reviewing precedent, historical practice, as well as practicality of engaging in foreign affairs.
First, Justice Kennedy turned to the Constitution, but found limited textual support for the theory that the Executive Branch is the sole possessor of the “recognition power” as the term never appears within the text.
Within the Constitution, Justice Kennedy looked to the “Reception Clause” as a Constitutional source for Presidential authority over recognition.
The Reception Clause states that the President “shall receive Ambassadors and other public ministers.”
Justice Kennedy noted that some scholars find this significant in light of the historical context.
At the time of America’s founding, governments considered the formal reception of another country’s ambassador as the equivalent of recognizing that nation’s sovereignty; however, during the Constitution’s ratification few gave much attention to the Reception Clause.
Initially, Alexander Hamilton dismissed the Reception Clause as merely a ministerial duty, but after President Washington formally recognized the new French government by receiving its ambassadors, Hamilton wrote that the clause did in fact authorize the President to formally recognize other nations.
Justice Kennedy considered this explanation persuasive and found that since the Constitution charged the President, and only the President, with receiving ambassadors, it implied that the President has authority to recognize sovereign governments.
Next, Justice Kennedy considered the other powers over international affairs that the Constitution granted the Executive Office: the power to make treaties and the power to appoint ambassadors.
Although Justice Kennedy acknowledged that these powers were subject to congressional approval, he considered it significant that Congress lacked authority to initiate diplomatic relations with foreign nations.
Justice Kennedy found that this indicated the Executive Branch was vested with more authority over international affairs than Congress.
Justice Kennedy considered these findings conclusive evidence that the President possesses recognition power and then addressed whether it is exclusive to the Executive.
To determine the exclusivity of this authority, Justice Kennedy reviewed case precedent and historical practice.
He concluded that in light of the lack of examples of Congress exercising this power, and the functional aspect of limiting this power to the Executive Branch, the Executive Branch could exercise unilateral power.
Since the Legislature and Executive have never quarreled over this issue before, the Court had limited precedent to consult.
First, Justice Kennedy addressed two cases involving disputes between the Federal government’s recognition of a sovereign nation and a state’s recognition of that nation.
In United States v. Pink and United States v. Belmont, New York courts declined to recognize property seized by the Soviet Government as belonging to Russia despite the fact that President Roosevelt formally recognized the Soviet Government and had entered into agreements with it.
In Belmont, the Supreme Court recognized the President’s authority to recognize governments and enter into diplomatic relations.
In Pink, the Court found that because the President had the authority to not only recognize another government but also “the power to determine the policy which is to govern the question of recognition,” the states must recognize that government as well.
Justice Kennedy admitted that these cases addressed the issue of a conflict between federal and state government and not whether the President has sole authority to formally recognize another sovereign government; however, Justice Kennedy found that these cases supported the contention that recognition power rested solely with the Executive.
Justice Kennedy considered Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino even more instructive.
In this case, the Court refused to assume that ill will between the United States and Cuba sufficed for American courts to de-recognize Cuba since the Executive Branch still recognized the Cuban government.
The Court also remarked, “Political recognition is exclusively a function of the Executive.”
As with Belmont and Pink, Justice Kennedy found that this case provided strong support that the Court had previously determined that the President exercised exclusive authority over the formal recognition power.
The Secretary of State asserted that based upon United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., the President possessed “exclusive authority” over all diplomatic affairs; however, Justice Kennedy declined to go so far.
He recognized that in Curtiss-Wright the Court’s description of the President’s exclusive power was unnecessary for its holding, and despite the case’s broad language, the Legislature retains its ability to make laws concerning diplomatic affairs.
Nevertheless, Justice Kennedy found that the power to recognize another sovereign belonged exclusively to the Executive Branch and is not subjected to Congress’ approval.
Next, Justice Kennedy reviewed historical precedent to support the theory that the President possesses this exclusive authority.
Justice Kennedy reviewed President Washington’s directions to his ambassador to begin relations with the new French government — without first consulting Congress.
The Executive Branch later agreed to receive the new French ambassador, an act that would be a public and official recognition of the new French government — again, without consulting Congress.
Justice Kennedy pointed to other instances where Congress deferred to the President’s decision, and even found instances where the President remained the party to formally recognize a foreign sovereign even though he had worked in concert with Congress to reach that decision.
According to Justice Kennedy, this evidence compelled the conclusion that Congress and the President have historically recognized the President’s exclusive authority over the power of recognition.
Moreover, Justice Kennedy found the practicality of only one branch of government exercising this recognition power particularly persuasive.
Citing American Insurance Ass’n v. Garamendi, Justice Kennedy asserted that the Nation should “speak . . . with one voice” in regards to recognizing a foreign sovereign.
Justice Kennedy argued, “only the Executive has the characteristic of unity at all times.”
He stated that the President’s ability to engage in more secretive diplomatic relations, which may lead to recognition, and the nature of the President’s position, which allows the President to take “decisive, unequivocal action” necessary to recognize a foreign sovereign, justify a finding that the “one voice” should come from the Executive Branch and not the Legislative Branch.
end quotes
That makes it sound very much as if Adam Schiff, the smarmy and unctuous Hollywood, California Democrat Congressman in charge of the inaptly-named “House Intelligence Committee,” himself is really not very intelligent at all, nor does he seem to know LAW OF THE LAND here in the United States of America, and he is trying to impeach Trump because Trump would not surrender his Constitutional duties with respect to the corrupt ****-hole of Ukraine to Nancy Pelosi and her pack of Democrats.
So quit stalling, Adam, and get this Impeachment Show back on the tracks so the American people can see you stand before the United States Senate as Chief Prosecuting Officer for the Democrats to defend your criminal charges against Trump for allegedly abusing his office.
That is a show that nobody will want to miss, Adam, so what is it that you are waiting for?
More time?
More witnesses?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-214584
Paul Plante says :
And while we wait for the Democrat Impeachment Train to get rolling again here, after its wheels appear to have fallen off, causing it to veer off the tracks and roll down a steep hill into a gully where it now lays prone on its back, let’s go to Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, 135 S. Ct. 2076 (2015) for a look at who really is in charge of OUR nation’s foreign policy – the president, or the Democrats in the House of Representatives, where we have the real LAW OF THE LAND on that important subject which is key to this up-coming impeachment trial, assuming the Democrats can salvage the wreck from the gully it now lays in, to wit:
I. INTRODUCTION
“The power of originally recognizing a new state [is a] power the exercise of which is equivalent, under some circumstances, to a declaration of war.”
President Andrew Jackson made this observation as Texas pursued recognition as a new sovereign nation.
His statement highlights the significance of the act of recognition, which has bearing not only in a potential outbreak of war but also carries certain privileges regarding trade and treatment in a country’s legal system.
Despite the fact that even during the earliest days of the Republic, American leaders were acutely aware of the importance of formal recognition, they failed to clearly designate which branch of government exercises the “recognition power.”
end quotes
That, of course, is really the basis of this present kerfuffle between Nancy Pelosi and her raving, foam-at-the-mouth pack of Democrats and Trump over the corrupt ****-hole of Ukraine – who really is in charge?
Getting back to the view of the Supreme Court on that question, we have:
Throughout American history, this authority has been exercised by the President alone, by Congress alone, and, at times, by the President and Congress concurrently.
Until Zivotofsky ex rel. Zivotofsky v. Kerry, the Supreme Court of the United States had never been called upon to determine whether Congress or the President solely possessed this power.
The instigator of the controversy was a small section of the 2003 Foreign Relations Authorization Act, which addressed the place of birth on U.S. passports.
Section 214(d) of the Act granted a U.S. citizen born in Jerusalem the right to have the State Department list his or her location of birth as Israel.
This provision stood in contrast to the Executive Branch’s long-held position to not recognize any nation as possessing formal sovereignty over Jerusalem.
When Petitioner’s parents acted on his behalf to exercise his right under section 214(d), the State Department refused, stating that only the President could formally recognize a sovereign nation and that Congress lacked authority to contradict this position.
The Supreme Court ultimately agreed with the State Department’s argument, but built its support for this position upon tenuous ground.
The Court based its decision on the Constitution, case law, and historical precedent.
While these sources offer some support for the Court’s conclusion, it appears contrary to the drafters’ original intent and finds firmer footing in functionality and practicality than in the Constitution.
A majority of the Court focused on the President’s authority to recognize sovereign nations, and framed the issue as whether Congress can pass a law requiring a subordinate part of the Executive Branch to contradict the President.
In 2002, Menachem Binyamin Zivotofsky (hereinafter “Petitioner”) was born in Jerusalem to American citizens.
In December of that year, his mother went to the American Embassy in Tel Aviv and sought a consular report of birth abroad and a passport for Petitioner.
After the Embassy refused to comply with Petitioner’s mother’s request, Petitioner’s parents brought suit against the Secretary of State in an effort to have the courts enforce the statute.
The case first appeared in the District Court of the District of Columbia.
The district court dismissed the case for lack of standing and because it considered the issue a political question — whether Israel exercises sovereignty over Jerusalem — which could not be answered by the Judiciary.
However, the Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit reversed, ruling Petitioner did have standing, but agreed with the district court’s holding that the issue was a political question and could not be resolved by the Judicial Branch.
The Supreme Court of the United States granted certiorari, vacated the judgment, remanded the case, and instructed the appellate court to determine whether Petitioner’s interpretation of the statute was correct and whether the statute itself was constitutional, but cautioned the appellate court to not address the political question of sovereignty.
The appellate court subsequently found the statute unconstitutional and held that only the President possessed the authority to recognize a foreign sovereign.
Petitioner appealed and the Court granted certiorari a second time.
This time, the Court affirmed the decision by the court of appeals and held that the recognition power was solely within the President’s authority.
III. COURT’S DECISION AND RATIONALE
A. Majority Opinion by Justice Kennedy
Justice Kennedy authored the majority opinion and was joined by Justices Ginsberg, Breyer, Sotomayor, and Kagan.
Justice Kennedy found that this case consisted of two issues: (1) Whether the President exercises exclusive control to formally recognize another sovereign nation, and (2) If the President possesses this power, whether Congress can require the President and his Secretary to issue statements which contradict the President’s official position.
Since this case concerned Presidential action that conflicted with the will of Congress, Justice Kennedy recognized that the President must have “exclusive” and “conclusive” authority for his action.
Presidential power is “at its lowest ebb” when the President acts contrary to the will of Congress and, in this situation, the President can rely solely on the authority the Constitution has granted the Executive Office.
Justice Kennedy began his analysis by determining whether the power to formally recognize a foreign sovereign was an exclusive power of the Executive Office.
The Court found the President did possess exclusive authority to formally recognize other sovereigns and reached this conclusion by assessing evidence found within the structure and text of the Constitution that addressed the President’s authority in international affairs and by reviewing precedent, historical practice, as well as practicality of engaging in foreign affairs.
First, Justice Kennedy turned to the Constitution, but found limited textual support for the theory that the Executive Branch is the sole possessor of the “recognition power” as the term never appears within the text.
Within the Constitution, Justice Kennedy looked to the “Reception Clause” as a Constitutional source for Presidential authority over recognition.
The Reception Clause states that the President “shall receive Ambassadors and other public ministers.”
Justice Kennedy noted that some scholars find this significant in light of the historical context.
At the time of America’s founding, governments considered the formal reception of another country’s ambassador as the equivalent of recognizing that nation’s sovereignty; however, during the Constitution’s ratification few gave much attention to the Reception Clause.
Initially, Alexander Hamilton dismissed the Reception Clause as merely a ministerial duty, but after President Washington formally recognized the new French government by receiving its ambassadors, Hamilton wrote that the clause did in fact authorize the President to formally recognize other nations.
Justice Kennedy considered this explanation persuasive and found that since the Constitution charged the President, and only the President, with receiving ambassadors, it implied that the President has authority to recognize sovereign governments.
Next, Justice Kennedy considered the other powers over international affairs that the Constitution granted the Executive Office: the power to make treaties and the power to appoint ambassadors.
Although Justice Kennedy acknowledged that these powers were subject to congressional approval, he considered it significant that Congress lacked authority to initiate diplomatic relations with foreign nations.
Justice Kennedy found that this indicated the Executive Branch was vested with more authority over international affairs than Congress.
Justice Kennedy considered these findings conclusive evidence that the President possesses recognition power and then addressed whether it is exclusive to the Executive.
To determine the exclusivity of this authority, Justice Kennedy reviewed case precedent and historical practice.
He concluded that in light of the lack of examples of Congress exercising this power, and the functional aspect of limiting this power to the Executive Branch, the Executive Branch could exercise unilateral power.
Since the Legislature and Executive have never quarreled over this issue before, the Court had limited precedent to consult.
First, Justice Kennedy addressed two cases involving disputes between the Federal government’s recognition of a sovereign nation and a state’s recognition of that nation.
In United States v. Pink and United States v. Belmont, New York courts declined to recognize property seized by the Soviet Government as belonging to Russia despite the fact that President Roosevelt formally recognized the Soviet Government and had entered into agreements with it.
In Belmont, the Supreme Court recognized the President’s authority to recognize governments and enter into diplomatic relations.
In Pink, the Court found that because the President had the authority to not only recognize another government but also “the power to determine the policy which is to govern the question of recognition,” the states must recognize that government as well.
Justice Kennedy admitted that these cases addressed the issue of a conflict between federal and state government and not whether the President has sole authority to formally recognize another sovereign government; however, Justice Kennedy found that these cases supported the contention that recognition power rested solely with the Executive.
Justice Kennedy considered Banco Nacional de Cuba v. Sabbatino even more instructive.
In this case, the Court refused to assume that ill will between the United States and Cuba sufficed for American courts to de-recognize Cuba since the Executive Branch still recognized the Cuban government.
The Court also remarked, “Political recognition is exclusively a function of the Executive.”
As with Belmont and Pink, Justice Kennedy found that this case provided strong support that the Court had previously determined that the President exercised exclusive authority over the formal recognition power.
The Secretary of State asserted that based upon United States v. Curtiss-Wright Export Corp., the President possessed “exclusive authority” over all diplomatic affairs; however, Justice Kennedy declined to go so far.
He recognized that in Curtiss-Wright the Court’s description of the President’s exclusive power was unnecessary for its holding, and despite the case’s broad language, the Legislature retains its ability to make laws concerning diplomatic affairs.
Nevertheless, Justice Kennedy found that the power to recognize another sovereign belonged exclusively to the Executive Branch and is not subjected to Congress’ approval.
Next, Justice Kennedy reviewed historical precedent to support the theory that the President possesses this exclusive authority.
Justice Kennedy reviewed President Washington’s directions to his ambassador to begin relations with the new French government — without first consulting Congress.
The Executive Branch later agreed to receive the new French ambassador, an act that would be a public and official recognition of the new French government — again, without consulting Congress.
Justice Kennedy pointed to other instances where Congress deferred to the President’s decision, and even found instances where the President remained the party to formally recognize a foreign sovereign even though he had worked in concert with Congress to reach that decision.
According to Justice Kennedy, this evidence compelled the conclusion that Congress and the President have historically recognized the President’s exclusive authority over the power of recognition.
Moreover, Justice Kennedy found the practicality of only one branch of government exercising this recognition power particularly persuasive.
Citing American Insurance Ass’n v. Garamendi, Justice Kennedy asserted that the Nation should “speak . . . with one voice” in regards to recognizing a foreign sovereign.
Justice Kennedy argued, “only the Executive has the characteristic of unity at all times.”
He stated that the President’s ability to engage in more secretive diplomatic relations, which may lead to recognition, and the nature of the President’s position, which allows the President to take “decisive, unequivocal action” necessary to recognize a foreign sovereign, justify a finding that the “one voice” should come from the Executive Branch and not the Legislative Branch.
end quotes
That makes it sound very much as if Adam Schiff, the smarmy and unctuous Hollywood, California Democrat Congressman in charge of the inaptly-named “House Intelligence Committee,” himself is really not very intelligent at all, nor does he seem to know LAW OF THE LAND here in the United States of America, and he is trying to impeach Trump because Trump would not surrender his Constitutional duties with respect to the corrupt ****-hole of Ukraine to Nancy Pelosi and her pack of Democrats.
So quit stalling, Adam, and get this Impeachment Show back on the tracks so the American people can see you stand before the United States Senate as Chief Prosecuting Officer for the Democrats to defend your criminal charges against Trump for allegedly abusing his office.
That is a show that nobody will want to miss, Adam, so what is it that you are waiting for?
More time?
More witnesses?
http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-214584