ADAM SCHIFF

thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ADAM SCHIFF

Post by thelivyjr »

FOX NEWS

"Barr confirms DOJ reviewing Ukraine information from Giuliani, others"


Brooke Singman

10 FEBRUARY 2020

Attorney General Bill Barr confirmed Monday that the Justice Department is reviewing information about Ukraine coming to the department from President Trump's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani and others through an “intake process" to gauge its credibility.

“The Justice Department has the obligation to have an open door to anybody who wishes to provide us information that they think is relevant,” Barr told reporters.

“But as I did say to Senator [Lindsey] Graham ... we have to be very careful …with respect to any information coming from the Ukraine.”


Barr went on to explain that there are “a lot of agendas” in Ukraine and “a lot of cross currents.”

“We can’t take anything we receive from the Ukraine at face value,” Barr said.

“For that reason, we had established an intake process in the field so that any information coming in about Ukraine could be carefully scrutinized by the department” to assess its credibility.

He added: “And you know, that is true for all information that comes to the department relating to the Ukraine, including anything Mr. Giuliani might provide.”

Over the weekend, Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Lindsey Graham, R-S.C., described the Justice Department’s methods for verifying information gathered in Ukraine by Giuliani, who has claimed to have information related to former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

Giuliani for months has focused on the circumstances surrounding Hunter Biden’s past board position with Ukrainian natural gas firm Burisma Holdings and his father Joe Biden’s role in ousting a prosecutor who had been looking into the firm’s founder.

The impeachment of Trump -- which ended last week in his acquittal -- focused largely on his efforts to press Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky to investigate that issue.

The president’s request came after millions in U.S. military aid to Ukraine had been frozen, which Democrats argued showed a “quid pro quo” arrangement. Trump denied it.

While the impeachment trial is over, both parties continue to investigate the underlying issues.

Graham, on CBS News’ “Face the Nation” on Sunday, said that the DOJ has “created a process that Rudy could give information and they would see if it’s verified.”

“Rudy Giuliani is a well-known man,” Graham said.

“He’s a crime fighter."

"He’s loyal to the president."

"He’s a good lawyer.”

Graham did, though, warn that the information collected by Giuliani needed to be given to the Justice Department “because it could be Russian propaganda.”

Last month, Giuliani teased that he would reveal evidence of “shocking new crimes” in the coming weeks related to the Ukraine controversy.

Giuliani also made claims about supposed bribes concerning the Bidens.

The timeline of the Justice Department’s review of Giuliani’s Ukraine information is unclear at this point.

Last week, the Senate voted to acquit the president on both impeachment charges against him — abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

Fox News' Jake Gibson contributed to this report.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ADAM SCHIFF

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR February 10, 2020 at 9:33 pm

Paul Plante says :

And seriously, people, why on earth are we pretending this IMPEACHMENT FARCE was anything other than what it really was – that being THEATER OF THE ABSURD staged by the Democrats and scripted by the best screenwriters in Hollywood Adam Schiff was able to assemble, including some who were said to have helped Mel Brooks put together “Blazing Saddles,” plus notable Doctors of JURIS (the art of wrapping pure bull**** in a fancy wrapping) like Larry Tribe, the Carl M. Loeb University Professor of Constitutional Law at Harvard University and the co-author, most recently, of “To End a Presidency: The Power of Impeachment,” who laid out the game plan followed by Nancy Pelosi in a “Special to The Washington Post” entitled “Laurence H. Tribe: Impeach Trump, but don’t necessarily try him in Senate” published June 07, 2019, to wit:

It is possible to argue that impeaching President Donald Trump and removing him from office before the 2020 election would be unwise, even if he did cheat his way into office, and even if he is abusing the powers of that office to enrich himself, cover up his crimes and leave our national security vulnerable to repeated foreign attacks.

end quotes

I don’t know about anyone else, but this ignorant horse**** above here from Larry Tribe makes me throw up in my mouth it is so stupid sounding.

Getting back to Larry’s inane gibbering, which inane gibbering was then adopted by Nancy Pelosi and her rabid pack of snarling, snapping, foam-at-the-mouth Democrats as their impeachment game plan to influence the 2020 presidential elections in their favor, given they can’t beat Trump any other way, we have:

Those who make this argument rest their case either on the proposition that impeachment would be dangerously divisive in a nation as politically broken as ours, or on the notion that it would be undemocratic to get rid of a president whose flaws were obvious before he was elected.

Rightly or wrongly – I think rightly – much of the House Democratic caucus, at least one Republican member of that chamber (Rep. Justin Amash of Michigan), and more than a third of the nation’s voters, disagree.

They treat the impeachment power as a vital constitutional safeguard against a potentially dangerous and fundamentally tyrannical president and view it as a power that would be all but ripped out of the Constitution if it were deemed unavailable against even this president.

That is my view, as well.

end quotes

And the view of the authors of the Federalist Papers is that you Democrats, Larry, are a grave threat to OUR Republic and I agree with them as an American citizen.

Getting back to Larry’s spew of lawyerly gibberish:

Still, there exists concern that impeachment accomplishes nothing concrete, especially if the Senate is poised to quickly kill whatever articles of impeachment the House presents.

This apprehension is built on an assumption that impeachment by the House and trial in the Senate are analogous to indictment by a grand jury and trial by a petit jury: Just as a prosecutor might hesitate to ask a grand jury to indict even an obviously guilty defendant if it appeared that no jury is likely to convict, so, it is said, the House of Representatives might properly decline to impeach even an obviously guilty president – and would be wise to do so – if it appeared that the Senate was dead set against convicting him.

end quotes

Now, how stupid is that, people, besides very stupid, or stupid in the extreme?

Because if the House is going to impeach a president for cause, they do it – they don’t go ask the Senators who will be the jury to approve impeachment before the Articles are brought.

And Larry’s assertion about a district attorney not asking a grand jury to indict because he somehow knows beforehand that a jury won’t convict is pure rubbish, since until a jury has been picked, nobody knows how they will decide, which takes us back to more of Larry’s mindless blathering, to wit:

But to think of the House of Representatives as akin to a prosecutor or grand jury is misguided.

end quotes

Actually, what is really misguided is lawyer Larry Tribe asking us to think that thinking of the House of Representatives as akin to a prosecutor or grand jury is misguided, when in fact, in a nation of laws, that is exactly what they are.

But here is Larry Tribe’s goofy version of reality as he teaches it over there at Harvard, to wit:

The Constitution’s design suggests a quite different allocation of functions: The Senate, unlike any petit (or trial) jury, is legally free to engage in politics in arriving at its verdict.

end quotes

Now, from where, besides from outer space, is Larry pulling that mindless crap from?

First of all, FEDERALIST No. 62, The Senate, by either Hamilton or Jemmy Madison, for the Independent Journal to the People of the State of New York, states as follows concerning the caliber of the members of that body as opposed to the House of Representatives, to wit:

HAVING examined the constitution of the House of Representatives, and answered such of the objections against it as seemed to merit notice, I enter next on the examination of the Senate.

A senator must be thirty years of age at least; as a representative must be twenty-five.

And the former must have been a citizen nine years; as seven years are required for the latter.

The propriety of these distinctions is explained by the nature of the senatorial trust, which, requiring greater extent of information and stability of character, requires at the same time that the senator should have reached a period of life most likely to supply these advantages; and which, participating immediately in transactions with foreign nations, ought to be exercised by none who are not thoroughly weaned from the prepossessions and habits incident to foreign birth and education.

end quotes

The “Senatorial Trust,” people – unlike the House of Representatives under Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, the Senate is not supposed to be a clown show as goofy Larry Tribe of Harvard would have us believe.

Getting back to Federalist No. 62:

It is a misfortune incident to republican government, though in a less degree than to other governments, that those who administer it may forget their obligations to their constituents, and prove unfaithful to their important trust.

end quote

There, they are clearly talking about Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and the rest of the House Democrats.

Getting back to Federalist No. 62:

In this point of view, a senate, as a second branch of the legislative assembly, distinct from, and dividing the power with, a first, must be in all cases a salutary check on the government.

It doubles the security to the people, by requiring the concurrence of two distinct bodies in schemes of usurpation or perfidy, where the ambition or corruption of one would otherwise be sufficient.

end quotes

Tells quite a different story from the horse**** Larry Tribe from Harvard is peddling, doesn’t it?

Federalist No. 62 then goes further, as follows:

The necessity of a senate is not less indicated by the propensity of all single and numerous assemblies to yield to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and to be seduced by factious leaders into intemperate and pernicious resolutions.

Examples on this subject might be cited without number; and from proceedings within the United States, as well as from the history of other nations.

end quotes

And we have yet another case of the House of Representatives yielding to the impulse of sudden and violent passions, and being seduced by factious leaders like Nancy Pelosi and Adam Schiff into intemperate and pernicious resolutions like this IMPEACHMENT CIRCUS which has been nothing more than a huge waste of our taxpayer dollars.

In FEDERALIST. No. 63, The Senate Continued, for the Independent Journal to the People of the State of New York, the founders continued as follows with respect to the purpose of the Senate in OUR national government, to wit:

Thus far I have considered the circumstances which point out the necessity of a well-constructed Senate only as they relate to the representatives of the people.

To a people as little blinded by prejudice or corrupted by flattery as those whom I address, I shall not scruple to add, that such an institution may be sometimes necessary as a defense to the people against their own temporary errors and delusions.

As the cool and deliberate sense of the community ought, in all governments, and actually will, in all free governments, ultimately prevail over the views of its rulers; so there are particular moments in public affairs when the people, stimulated by some irregular passion, or some illicit advantage, or misled by the artful misrepresentations of interested men, may call for measures which they themselves will afterwards be the most ready to lament and condemn.

In these critical moments, how salutary will be the interference of some temperate and respectable body of citizens, in order to check the misguided career, and to suspend the blow meditated by the people against themselves, until reason, justice, and truth can regain their authority over the public mind?

What bitter anguish would not the people of Athens have often escaped if their government had contained so provident a safeguard against the tyranny of their own passions?

Popular liberty might then have escaped the indelible reproach of decreeing to the same citizens the hemlock on one day and statues on the next.

end quotes

So, Larry Tribe of Harvard is either an ignorant moron who knows nothing of real American history, which would not surprise me, or he is simply lying to us through his teeth about the Senate being able to play politics with an impeachment, which would also not surprise me in the least, which takes us back to his Washington Post op-ed, to wit:

And the House, unlike any grand jury, can conduct an impeachment inquiry that ends with a verdict and not just a referral to the Senate for trial – an inquiry in which the target is afforded an opportunity to participate and mount a full defense.

end quotes

And on top of the mountain of bull**** Larry has already piled up here, there he adds some more to make it higher and deeper, and here he tries to put a bow on it to make it pretty, to wit:

It seems fair to surmise, then, that an impeachment inquiry conducted with ample opportunity for the accused to defend himself before a vote by the full House would be at least substantially protected, even if not entirely bullet-proofed, against a Senate whitewash.

The House, assuming that an impeachment inquiry leads to a conclusion of Trump’s guilt, could choose between presenting articles of impeachment even to a Senate precommitted to bury them and dispensing with impeachment as such while embodying its conclusions of criminality or other grave wrongdoing in a condemnatory “Sense of the House” resolution far stronger than a mere censure.

The resolution, expressly and formally proclaiming the president impeachable but declining to play the Senate’s corrupt game, is one that even a president accustomed to treating everything as a victory would be hard-pressed to characterize as a vindication.

A House resolution finding the president “impeachable” but imposing no actual legal penalty would avoid the Constitution’s ban on Bills of Attainder, despite its deliberately stigmatizing character as a “Scarlet ‘I’ ” that Trump would have to take with him into his reelection campaign.

The point would not be to take old-school, House impeachment leading to possible Senate removal off the table at the outset.

Instead, the idea would be to build into the very design of this particular inquiry an offramp that would make bypassing the Senate an option while also nourishing the hope that a public fully educated about what this president did would make even a Senate beholden to this president and manifestly lacking in political courage willing to bite the bullet and remove him.

By resolving now to pursue such a path, always keeping open the possibility that its inquiry would unexpectedly lead to the president’s exoneration, the House would be doing the right thing as a constitutional matter.

It would be acting consistent with its overriding obligation to establish that no president is above the law, all the while keeping an eye on the balance of political considerations without setting the dangerous precedent that there are no limits to what a corrupt president can get away with as long as he has a compliant Senate to back him.

And pursuing this course would preserve for all time the tale of this uniquely troubled presidency.

end quotes

Yes, people, it is a game, this IMPEACHMENT CIRCUS, and that is all it ever was – a blatant attempt as we see from the above by Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, Larry Tribe and the Democrats to influence the 2020 presidential election in favor of the Democrats by totally perverting the impeachment process as it is laid out in the Federalist papers by this nation’s founders to protect OUR liberty and OUR Republic from clear and present dangers like Nancy Pelosi, Larry Tribe, Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler and the Democrats!

To treat it as otherwise is to spite ourselves as citizens and to mock our own intelligence.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-230093
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ADAM SCHIFF

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR February 11, 2020 at 7:34 pm

Paul Plante says:

Except, Mr. Landis, there is no such thing in the House of Representatives as process according to House rules or precedents that allows for representation of president, witnesses, and cross examination, and with all due respect to yourself, Sir, the concept in a NATION OF LAWS with a Constitution which guarantees We, the People, SEPARATION OF POWERS, the concept that there would be such rules in the House is frankly ludicrous, as it would imply that the executive in fact answers to the House of Representatives, and more specifically, to Hollywood, California Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff, who is actually making a blatant attempt right out in plain sight of everybody in the nation, including these so-called “Preeminent Constitutional scholars,” Professors Alan Dershowitz, Kenneth Starr, and Jonathan Turley, to subvert OUR Constitution and PERVERT its meaning and intent so as to strip the executive of executive authority granted to the executive by OUR Constitution, and instead, vest the House of Representatives with that power, which would make the president a eunuch and the House all powerful in OUR federal government.

As to usurpation of power by Adam Schiff in violation of OUR Constitutional SEPARATION OF POWERS, or arrogating power unto himself, let us go to his formal prosecutorial “charge sheet” which got this IMPEACHMENT CIRCUS formally started, where CHIEF PROSECUTING ATTORNEY Schiff detailed to the House what he believed Trump’s many high crimes and misdemeanors were, and what evidence in the record thus assembled supported those charges, to wit:

The President’s Scheme Unraveled

By early September, President Zelensky was ready to make a public announcement of the two investigations to secure a White House meeting and the military assistance his country desperately needed.

He proceeded to book an interview on CNN during which he could make such an announcement, but other events soon intervened.

On September 9, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, the Committees on Oversight and Reform, and the Committee on Foreign Affairs announced an investigation into the scheme by President Trump and his personal attorney, Mr. Giuliani “to improperly pressure the Ukrainian government to assist the President’s bid for reelection.”

The Committees sent document production and preservation requests to the White House and the State Department related to the investigation.

NSC staff members believed this investigation might have had “the effect of releasing the hold” on Ukraine military assistance because it would have been “potentially politically challenging” to “justify that hold.”

Later that day, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) sent a letter to Chairman Schiff and Ranking Member Nunes notifying the Committee that a whistleblower had filed a complaint on August 12 that the ICIG had determined to be both an “urgent concern” and “credible.”

end quotes

And WHOA, hold on, can we get a read-back, Your Honor?

And my goodness, yes, Adam Schiff did indeed state there that on 9 September 2019, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) had sent a letter to him, Congressman Adam Schiff, notifying Adam, a Congressman, that a whistleblower had filed a complaint on August 12 that the ICIG had determined to be both an “urgent concern” and “credible.”

Which has me personally, and this is as an American citizen who never had his mind twisted or perverted at Harvard by “constitutional scholars” such as JURIS doctor Larry tribe, saying HMMMMMM to myself, because according to its website, the IG of the Intelligence Community DOES NOT report to Adam Schiff, to wit:

The Inspector General Act of 1978 created Inspectors General for federal agencies and provides broad authorities for overseeing programs, promoting efficiencies, and detecting fraud, waste, and mismanagement throughout the federal government.

The 2010 Intelligence Authorization Act formally established the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community within the Office of the Director of National Intelligence.

In accordance with Title 50 U.S.C.A. Section 3033, the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community (ICIG) conducts independent and objective audits, investigations, inspections, and reviews to promote economy, efficiency, effectiveness, and integration across the Intelligence Community.

The ICIG does so with integrity, professionalism, and independence.

We conduct our mission free of external influence and provide objective assessments, findings, and conclusions, regardless of political or personal consequence.

end quotes

Ah, yes, I see, I see, but what I don’t yet see is the part where the Inspector General runs to Adam Schiff with anonymous gossip about the executive right when Adam Schiff was getting ready to investigate the same executive, but let’s keep looking, in case I missed something, and we can best do that by referring to 50 U.S.C.A. § 3033, Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, effective: December 18, 2015, to wit:

(c) Inspector General of the Intelligence Community

(1) There is an Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, who shall be the head of the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community, who shall be appointed by the President, by and with the advice and consent of the Senate.

end quotes

HUH?

Wow, I thought he was appointed by Adam Schiff to keep watch over the president and to report to Adam all the dirt he was able to gather on Trump in order to help Adam get rid of Trump so Adam can be president.

So what it is the IG of the Intelligence Community is supposed to be doing when he isn’t gathering dirt on Trump for Adam Schiff?

Let’s go back to the law and see:

(b) Purpose

The purpose of the Office of the Inspector General of the Intelligence Community is–

(1) to create an objective and effective office, appropriately accountable to Congress, to initiate and conduct independent investigations, inspections, audits, and reviews on programs and activities within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence;

(2) to provide leadership and coordination and recommend policies for activities designed–

(A) to promote economy, efficiency, and effectiveness in the administration and implementation of such programs and activities; and

(B) to prevent and detect fraud and abuse in such programs and activities;

(3) to provide a means for keeping the Director of National Intelligence fully and currently informed about–

(A) problems and deficiencies relating to the administration of programs and activities within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence; and

(B) the necessity for, and the progress of, corrective actions; and

(4) in the manner prescribed by this section, to ensure that the congressional intelligence committees are kept similarly informed of–

(A) significant problems and deficiencies relating to programs and activities within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence; and

(B) the necessity for, and the progress of, corrective actions.

end quotes

Except the programs and activities within the responsibility and authority of the Director of National Intelligence are as follows according to its website as follows:

The Director of National Intelligence serves as the head of the Intelligence Community, overseeing and directing the implementation of the National Intelligence Program budget and serving as the principal advisor to the President, the National Security Council, and the Homeland Security Council for intelligence matters related to national security.

Working together with the Principal Deputy DNI and with the assistance of Mission Managers and Deputy Directors, the Office of the DNI’s goal is to effectively integrate foreign, military and domestic intelligence in defense of the homeland and of United States interests abroad.

LEADING THE INTELLIGENCE COMMUNITY

The U.S. Intelligence Community is a coalition of 17 agencies and organizations, including the ODNI.

The IC agencies fall within the Executive Branch, and work both independently and collaboratively to gather and analyze the intelligence necessary to conduct foreign relations and national security activities.

IC elements

The IC’s mission is to provide timely, insightful, objective, and relevant intelligence to inform decisions on national security issues and events.

The DNI executes the IC’s mission through decision making bodies, IC strategies, IC budget and resource management, development of IC capabilities, information sharing and safeguarding, and partnering with domestic and international partners.

end quotes

So, the IC agencies fall within the Executive Branch, and work both independently and collaboratively to gather and analyze the intelligence necessary to conduct foreign relations and national security activities.

Then what was the IG of the Intelligence Community doing then running to Adam Schiff with gossip about a whistleblower having the goods on Trump?

Which question in my mind takes us back to FEDERALIST No. 65 by Alexander Hamilton titled “The Powers of the Senate Continued” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Friday, March 7, 1788, where we had as follows concerning the House of Representatives, the most DANGEROUS part of OUR federal government because it is unstable, and roiled by passion and emotion, while being devoid of reason and common sense, and impeachment, to wit:

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

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

They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.

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

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

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

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

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

end quotes

Which is why the due process argument of the so-called, but quite underwhelming, preeminent Constitutional scholars, Professors Alan Dershowitz, Kenneth Starr, and Jonathan Turley, that in both Schiff’s and Nadler’s (Judiciary) hearings, the President’s/Republican right to due process was denied with witnesses for President, counsel for President, and right of cross examination denied is ridiculous, and amounts to a SELL-OUT of OUR Constitution by implying that the House of Representatives has some kind of constitutional authority to command the attendance of an American president, when it is quite the other way around, according to OUR Constitution.

So what if depositions were in a secret bunker in basement of Capitol where attendance was restricted and selected leaks were provided by Schiff to favored media?

And that serves as proof positive that when the founders gave the House no further power beyond filing charges to be heard and adjudicated not in the House, but in the Senate, they were in fact acting in our best interests, which takes us back to Federalist No. 65, to wit:

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

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

end quotes

The House of Representatives are merely the accusers, not the jury, and well it should be that way, which takes us to FEDERALIST No. 66 by Alexander Hamilton titled “Objections to the Power of the Senate To Set as a Court for Impeachments Further Considered” from the New York Packet to the People of the State of New York on Tuesday, March 11, 1788 for confirmation of that fact, to wit:

And it may, perhaps, with no less reason be contended, that the powers relating to impeachments are, as before intimated, an essential check in the hands of that body upon the encroachments of the executive.

The division of them between the two branches of the legislature, assigning to one the right of accusing, to the other the right of judging, avoids the inconvenience of making the same persons both accusers and judges; and guards against the danger of persecution, from the prevalency of a factious spirit in either of those branches.

end quotes

And yes, people, there is in the House of Representatives since the Democrats took control in January 2019 a very factious spirit which has crippled the functioning of our federal government and made it into a mockery around the world to our detriment as citizens, and that takes us to the main requisite of due process, which is an impartial body hearing the charges.

That impartial body DID NOT exist in the House of Representatives under Nancy Pelosi, and I doubt there is a soul in the nation who was not aware of the fact that in January of 2019, the Democrats had publicly denounced Trump in the media as a “MOTHER******” that they intended to impeach, period.

So why were these underwhelming, preeminent Constitutional scholars, Professors Alan Dershowitz, Kenneth Starr, and Jonathan Turley, wasting our time bleating to us about Trump getting no due process of law in the House of Representatives, where it simply does not exist, because of Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats, who do not believe in OUR laws, or OUR Constitution, nor OUR Republican form of government which they intend to replace with their democracy, if only they can influence the 20209 elections sufficiently to gain control over the Senate and presidency as well as the House, and what a sad day for the nation that will be, if we are STUPID enough to allow it to happen.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-230342
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ADAM SCHIFF

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR February 16, 2020 at 1:49 pm

Paul Plante says :

U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence

The Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report by Adam Schiff

However, the Founding Fathers prescribed a remedy for a chief executive who places his personal interests above those of the country: impeachment.

Accordingly, as part of the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry, the Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in coordination with the Committees on Oversight and Reform and Foreign Affairs, were compelled to undertake a serious, sober, and expeditious investigation into whether the President’s misconduct warrants that remedy.

In response, President Trump engaged in an unprecedented campaign of obstruction of this impeachment inquiry.

Nevertheless, due in large measure to patriotic and courageous public servants who provided the Committees with direct evidence of the President’s actions, the Committees uncovered significant misconduct on the part of the President of the United States.

As required under House Resolution 660, the Intelligence Committee, in consultation with the Committees on Oversight and Reform and Foreign Affairs, has prepared this report to detail the evidence uncovered to date, which will now be transmitted to the Judiciary Committee for its consideration.

PREFACE

This report reflects the evidence gathered thus far by the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence, in coordination with the Committee on Oversight and Reform and the Committee on Foreign Affairs, as part of the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry into Donald J. Trump, the 45th President of the United States.

The report is the culmination of an investigation that began in September 2019 and intensified over the past three months as new revelations and evidence of the President’s misconduct towards Ukraine emerged.

The Committees pursued the truth vigorously, but fairly, ensuring the full participation of both parties throughout the probe.

Members of the Intelligence Committee, as well, worked selflessly and collaboratively throughout this investigation.

Finally, I am grateful to Speaker Nancy Pelosi for the trust she placed in our Committees to conduct this work and for her wise counsel throughout.

Constitutional Authority for Congressional Oversight and Impeachment

The House’s Constitutional and legal authority to conduct an impeachment inquiry is clear, as is the duty of the President to cooperate with the House’s exercise of this authority.

Article I of the U.S. Constitution gives the House of Representatives the “sole Power of Impeachment.”

The Framers intended the impeachment power to be an essential check on a President who might engage in corruption or abuse of power.

Congress is empowered to conduct oversight and investigations to carry out its authorities under Article I.

Because the impeachment power is a core component of the nation’s Constitutional system of checks and balances, Congress’ investigative authority is at its zenith during an impeachment inquiry.

The Supreme Court has made clear that Congress’ authority to investigate includes the authority to compel the production of information by issuing subpoenas, a power the House has delegated to its committees pursuant to its Constitutional authority to “determine the Rules of its Proceedings.”

The President’s Categorical Refusal to Comply

A common theme of his defiance has been his claims that Congress is acting in an unprecedented way and using unprecedented rules.

However, the House has been following the same investigative rules that Republicans championed when they were in control.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... m-dummies/
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ADAM SCHIFF

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR February 16, 2020 at 6:02 pm

Paul Plante says :

Said any other way, at least outside the BELTWAY where a different reality exists that has no resemblance to whatever lurks and skulks and passes for reality inside the BELTWAY, shown on maps as Terra Incognito, this Adam Schiff Impeachment Farce was RINKY-DINK THEATER OF THE ABSURD based on a FARRAGO (a confused mixture, as in “a farrago of fact and myth about the United States Constitution as it applies to impeachments”) that has Adam Schiff displaying what would have to be classed as “supernatural powers,” akin to say, some kind of mental X-ray vision that allows Adam to see right into Trump’s brainwaves so that Adam can then testify in his IMPEACHEMENT CHARGE SHEET that he, Adam Schiff, actually knew what Trump was thinking at any given time, even though nobody else did, because like Superman, only Adam has that power, which is why he was selected by Nancy Pelosi to put together the FARRAGO that became the Articles of Impeachment Trump was just tried on.

Knowing what Trump was actually thinking then freed up Adam from having to actually prove criminal intent, because Adam knew Trump had criminal thoughts in his mind when he took certain actions, and in an impeachment in the House under the Democrats, that is all that is required – it is a waste of valuable government resources to even think to question Adam Schiff as to his intimate knowledge of the inner thoughts of Donald J. Trump, U.S. president, who Adam has oversight responsibility for.

Now, had this IMPEACHMENT FARCE actually been something real, as opposed to RINKY-DINK THEATER OF THE ABSURD, the idea that Adam Schiff could be a credible witness against Trump to testify as to motive, which Schiff clearly did in his CHARGE SHEET, because Schiff can read Trump’s mind would be considered ludicrous, as we see in the following rule for witnesses in real courtroom proceedings which are not FARCES like this CIRCUS was, to wit:

4. Mental Condition

In general, a witness may not give an opinion on another person’s state of mind or mental processes, such as intent or malice.

Such an opinion would be pure speculation.

Courts do not generally allow a witness to give an opinion concerning intent, guilt or innocence of a criminal defendant.

end quotes

But since this was a FARCE, not a court of any kind, and because it was a Democrat FARCE, those RULES OF RATIONAL PROCEDURE do not apply.

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... m-dummies/
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ADAM SCHIFF

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR February 16, 2020 at 6:50 pm

Paul Plante says :

And talk about those cosmic confluences of events associated with the Cape Charles Mirror which we to the north attribute to the immense gravitational field of that bolus buried under Chesapeake Bay due to its density (Arrhenius in Chapter VII of his seminal scientific work “WORLDS IN THE MAKING – THE EVOLUTION OF THE UNIVERSE” by Svante Arrhenius, Director of the Physico-Chemical Nobel Institute in Stockholm, Sweden, published March, 1908, ”THE NEBULAR AND THE SOLAR STATES,” explains in great detail the tremendous forces which created the bolus out of cosmic dust and then hurled it at great speed right at Cape Charles, Virginia, forever after warping the local gravitational field so as to cause an endless succession of cosmic confluences as the gravitational field of the bolus continues to dominate what reality will be on the Eastern Shore of Virginia, anyway), it is Yorgi comparing the bizarre and surreal Adam Schiff IMPEACHMENT CIRCUS to an episode of all things, “The Outer Limits,” which was an American television series that was broadcast on ABC from September 16, 1963 to January 16, 1965 at 7:30 PM Eastern Time on Mondays, and I was a regular viewer, so I grasp the comparison quite well.

For those too young to remember “The Outer Limits,” while you might hear people today try to compare the series to “The Twilight Zone,” which I also watched, “The OUTER LIMITS” had a greater emphasis on science fiction stories as opposed to stories of fantasy or the supernatural matters.

Now, in my mind, what makes Yorgi’s comparison of the Adam Schiff IMPEACHMENT CIRCUS to an episode of “The Outer Limits” so spot on it isn’t funny is that each episode began with a “Control Voice” narration using an Orwellian theme of taking over your television, which Adam Schiff certainly did with all the proceedings of his long-running IMPEACHMENT CIRCUS, which ran as follows:

“There is nothing wrong with your television set.”

“Do not attempt to adjust the picture.”

“We are controlling transmission.”

“If we wish to make it louder, we will bring up the volume.”

“If we wish to make it softer, we will tune it to a whisper.”

“We will control the horizontal.”

“We will control the vertical.”

“We can roll the image, make it flutter.”

“We can change the focus to a soft blur or sharpen it to crystal clarity.”

“For the next hour, sit quietly and we will control all that you see and hear.”

“We repeat: there is nothing wrong with your television set.”

“You are about to participate in a great adventure.”

“You are about to experience the awe and mystery which reaches from the inner mind to – The Outer Limits.”

end quotes

In a modern day version, of course, we would have Keanu Reeves playing Adam, not Warren Oates, who nobody today even knows, and in what we would call “The Great Scene,” we would have Keanu Reeves standing up on the floor of the Senate, looking each senator in the eye, one by one by one, and then, making this impassioned speech not only to the assembled multitude, but to the nation and world, as well, to wit:

“Travelers and astronomers inform us that in the Southern heavens, near the Southern cross, there is a vast space which the uneducated call the ‘hole in the sky,’ where the eye of man, with the aid of the powers of the telescope, has been unable to discover nebulae, or asteroid, or comet, or planet, or star, or sun.”

“In that dreary, cold, dark region of space, which is only known to be less infinite by the evidences of creation elsewhere, the great author of celestial mechanism has left the chaos which was in the beginning.”

“If this earth were capable of the sentiments and emotions of justice and virtue which in human mortal beings are the evidences and pledge of our divine origin and immortal destiny, it would heave and throb with the energy of the elemental forces of nature, and project this enemy (referring to President Trump) of the Democrat Party and Nancy Pelosi into that vast region, there forever to exist in a solitude eternal as life or as the absence of life, emblematical of, if not really, that outer darkness of which the Savior of mankind spoke in warning to those who are enemies to themselves and of their race and of God.”

Outer Limits, indeed!

Thanks, Yorgi!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... am-schiff/
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ADAM SCHIFF

Post by thelivyjr »

CNN

"US intelligence briefer appears to have overstated assessment of 2020 Russian interference"


By Jeremy Diamond, Jake Tapper and Zachary Cohen, CNN

23 FEBRUARY 2020

The US intelligence community's top election security official appears to have overstated the intelligence community's formal assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 election, omitting important nuance during a briefing with lawmakers earlier this month, three national security officials told CNN.

The official, Shelby Pierson, told lawmakers on the House Intelligence Committee that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election with the goal of helping President Donald Trump get reelected.

The US intelligence community has assessed that Russia is interfering in the 2020 election and has separately assessed that Russia views Trump as a leader they can work with.

But the US does not have evidence that Russia's interference this cycle is aimed at reelecting Trump, the officials said.


"The intelligence doesn't say that," one senior national security official told CNN.

"A more reasonable interpretation of the intelligence is not that they have a preference, it's a step short of that."

"It's more that they understand the President is someone they can work with, he's a dealmaker."

Pierson's characterization of Russian interference led to pointed questions from lawmakers, which officials said caused Pierson to overstep and assert that Russia has a preference for Trump to be reelected.

One intelligence official said that Pierson's characterization of the intelligence was "misleading" and a national security official said Pierson failed to provide the "nuance" needed to accurately convey the US intelligence conclusions.


The Office of the Director of National Intelligence, where Pierson is a senior official, did not respond to CNN's request for comment.

Trump has been periodically briefed on Russian interference in the 2020 election, but was upset when he learned of Pierson's characterization of the intelligence in part because intelligence officials had not characterized the interference as explicitly pro-Trump.

One national security official said Russia's only clear aim, as of now, is to sow discord in the United States.

Russia interfered in the 2016 election with the aim of helping Trump get elected and damaging then-Democratic nominee Hillary Clinton's campaign, the intelligence community concluded, writing in its post-election assessment that "Putin and the Russian government developed a clear preference for President-elect Trump."

And while it is not inconceivable that Russia is once again looking to boost Trump's candidacy, three national security officials said the US intelligence community does not yet have the evidence to make that assessment.

Since becoming President, Trump has consistently questioned that intelligence assessment, including during a news conference alongside Russian President Vladimir Putin.

And many of Trump's foreign policies have benefited Russia, from his abrupt pullout of US troops from northern Syria to the discord he has sown with America's closest European allies.

And he has previously expressed a reluctance to impose severe sanctions on Russia.

Those facts, the US assessment that Russia views Trump as someone they can work with and the separate assessment of Russian interference in the 2020 elections may have led Pierson to connect the dots.

Sen. Chris Murphy, a Democrat on the Senate Foreign Relations Committee, argued Sunday on CNN's "State of the Union" that Russia would like to see Trump reelected "because he has been a gift to Russia."

"He has essentially ceded the Middle East to Russian interests."

"He has accomplished more in the undermining of NATO than Russia has in the last 20 years," Murphy said.

"And he continues to effectively deny that they have an ongoing political operation here in the United States that, by and large, is intended to support Donald Trump and his allies."

One source familiar with the matter said Pierson was merely providing her view of the intelligence as she faced a series of questions from lawmakers trying to pin her down on whether the intelligence showed a Russian preference for Trump.

It's the type of situation intelligence briefers are prepped to avoid, the source said, in part so as not to wade into partisan controversy.

The source said the answer she provided has been misconstrued because it lacked context and nuance.

The brouhaha over the intelligence briefing led national security adviser Robert O'Brien to flatly deny the existence of an intelligence assessment regarding Russian interference aimed at helping Trump.

But O'Brien did not explain that the US has also assessed that the Kremlin views Trump as a leader they can work with.

"Well, there's no briefing that I've received, that the President has received, that says that President Putin is doing anything to try and influence the elections in favor of President Trump."

"We just haven't seen that intelligence."

"If it's out there, I haven't seen it."

"I'd be surprised if I haven't seen it."

"The leaders of our -- the IC have not seen it," O'Brien said on CBS' "Face the Nation."

But while O'Brien denied that assessment, he was quick to seize on reports that Russia is interfering in the election to help Sen. Bernie Sanders in the Democratic primaries -- and mischaracterized the reports to suggest Russia wants Sanders to be President.

"There are these reports that they want Bernie Sanders to get elected president."

"That's no surprise."

"He honeymooned in Moscow," O'Brien told ABC News, parroting a line Trump used during a campaign rally on Friday.

While intelligence agencies warned Sanders that Russia is interfering to boost him in the Democratic primaries, they have not assessed that Russia wants Sanders to win the general election.

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb7Kz
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ADAM SCHIFF

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR February 29, 2020 at 12:09 pm

Paul Plante says:

And actually, our dear friend and fellow American patriot Chas Cornweller is getting our American history somewhat confused here, because the NEO-CON (New confidence game) was a very specific period of our history, as was the Teapot Dome Scandal before it, and the NEO-CONS, those who were pushing the SCAM, or CON, the SCAM being that Saddam Hussein had weapons of mass destruction so that we could then invade Iraq, were a distinct group of people, as were the Keating Five.

As to who the NEO-CONS actually were as people, here is the list:

Sens. Baucus (D-MT), Bayh (D-IN), Biden (D-DE), Breaux (D-LA), Cantwell (D-WA), Carnahan (D-MO), Carper (D-DE), Cleland (D-GA), Clinton (D-NY), Daschle (D-SD), Dodd (D-CT), Dorgan (D-ND), Edwards (D-NC), Feinstein (D-CA), Harkin (D-IA), Hollings (D-SC), Johnson (D-SD), Kerry (D-MA), Kohl (D-WI), Landrieu (D-LA), Lieberman (D-CT), Lincoln (D-AR), Miller (D-GA), Nelson (D-FL), Nelson (D-NE), Reid (D-NV), Rockefeller (D-WV), Schumer (D-NY), and Torricelli (D-NJ).

82 Democratic Representatives are members of that group, as well, to include Sanford Bishop (GA-02), Joe Crowley (NY-14), Ted Deutsch (FL-22), Eliot Engel (NY-16), Gene Green (TX-29), Steny Hoyer (MD-05), Ron Kind (WI-03), Nita Lowey (NY-17), Stephen Lynch (MA-08), Carolyn Maloney (NY-12), Bill Pascrell (NJ-09), Collin Peterson (MN-07), Adam Schiff (CA-28), Brad Sherman (CA-30), Adam Smith (WA-09), and Ed Markey (D-MA).

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/t ... ted-trump/
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ADAM SCHIFF

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR March 7, 2020 at 7:35 pm

Paul Plante says :

And it is interesting from a historical perspective, now that this Adam Schiff Democrat Impeachment Farce is receding in the rear view mirror as it makes its way into the dustbin of history, where the farce belongs, to go back in time to a speech Democrat Congressman James Brooks (November 10, 1810 – April 30, 1873), a U.S. Representative from New York, made on the floor of the House of Representatives concerning the impeachment of Democrat president Andy Johnson, known as “King Andy,” on or about Feb. 22d, 1868, to wit:

Mr. Speaker, I had hoped to have an opportunity, at least, to submit a minority report before we entered upon this august proceeding of impeaching the chief executive officer of this Government.

But after a session of the Committee on Reconstruction, hardly an hour in length, violating an express rule of this House by sitting during the session — for Rule 72, provides that no committee shall sit during the session of the House without special leave — we have been summoned upon a very partial submission of facts, without any comprehension, in reality, of the charges which are made against the President of the United States, upon a new indictment, in a new form once more, and in a more alarming manner than ever, in this but a partial Congress, representing but a section of a portion of the people — in my judgment not representing the people of the United States at all — to act as a grand jury, with a large portion of that grand jury excluded from the jury-room here; and suddenly, impromptu perhaps, a vote is to be forced this very day — to impeach the President of the United States!

I am utterly inadequate to discharge the duty which has devolved upon me on this august day, the anniversary of the birthday of the Father of his country.

I am utterly unable upon this occasion either to do my duty to the people or to express myself with that deep solemnity which I feel in rising to resist this untoward, this unholy, this unconstitutional proceeding.

Indeed, I know not why the ghost of impeachment has appeared here in a new form.

We have attempted to lay it hitherto, and we have successfully laid it upon the floor of this House.

But a minority of the party on the other side (Radical Republicans), forcing its influence and its power upon a majority of a committee of this House, has at last succeeded in compelling its party to approach the House itself in a united, and therefore in a more solemn form, and to demand the impeachment of the President of the United States.

Sir, we have long been in the midst of a revolution.

Long, long has our country been agitated by the throes of that revolution.

But we are now approaching the last and the final stage of that revolution in which, like many revolutions that have preceded it, a legislative power not representing the people attempts to depose the executive power, and thus to overthrow that constitutional branch of the Government.

end quotes

Think about those words then from a Democrat Congressman concerning the impeachment of a Democrat president, about it being a legislative power not representing the people attempting to depose the executive power, and thus to overthrow that constitutional branch of the Government, and what those words are in turn saying about what Democrats Adam Schiff and Nancy Pelosi and “Jumping Jerry” Nadler were doing with respect to Trump, which was the exact same thing, to wit: a legislative power not representing the people attempting to depose the executive power, and thus to overthrow that constitutional branch of the Government, which takes us back to Congressman Brooks, as follows:

There is nothing new in all this.

There is nothing new in what we are doing, for men of the present but repeat the history of the past.

We are traversing over and over again the days of Cromwell and Charles I and Charles II, and we are traversing over and over again the scenes of the French revolution, baptized in blood in our introductory part, but I trust in God never again to be baptized by any revolutionary proceeding on the part of this House.

I have not and never have been a defender of all the opinions of General Jackson, but those on the other side who pretend to hold him as authority and those on this side who have ever held him as authority will find that in uttering the opinions which I have I but reutter the opinions which he advanced in his veto of July 10, 1832, when he said:

“The Congress, the Executive, and the court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution.”

“Each public officer who takes the oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others.”

The President of the United States has given his opinion upon the official tenure-of-office act and upon the Constitution of the United States by the appointment of Adjutant General Thomas as Secretary of War ad interim. and because of the exercise of that Constitutional right we are called upon here at once to pronounce him guilty of high crimes and misdemeanors and to demand his deposition and degradation therefor.

end quotes

Now, certainly, a real top-notch constitutional lawyer and scholar and Harvard Law School graduate and impeachment expert like the smarmy and unctuous Hollywood, California Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff cannot be ignorant of those words, given they are a part of the American public record of impeachments, that Adam must have consulted as a guide while bringing his impeachment charges against Trump, so why the double standard then?

If on July 10, 1832, American president Andrew Jackson, a Democrat, said “(T)he Congress, the Executive, and the court must each for itself be guided by its own opinion of the Constitution and each public officer who takes the oath to support the Constitution swears that he will support it as he understands it, and not as it is understood by others,” why was Schiff insisting that Trump has to understand the Constitution as Schiff tells him it must be understood, or else, as if Schiff were the LORD PROTECTOR Cromwell himself?

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-238377
thelivyjr
Site Admin
Posts: 73424
Joined: Thu Aug 30, 2018 1:40 p

Re: ADAM SCHIFF

Post by thelivyjr »

THE CAPE CHARLES MIRROR March 8, 2020 at 10:59 pm

Paul Plante says :

Staying with our own American history here, it is interesting to note how similar the comments of the smarmy and unctuous Hollywood, California Democrat Congressman Adam Schiff were in our times today to those of Congressman John Armor Bingham (January 21, 1815 – March 19, 1900), an American Republican Representative from Ohio and a prosecutor in the impeachment trials of U.S. President Andrew Johnson, a Democrat.

In his U.S. House of Representatives Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence Trump-Ukraine Impeachment Inquiry Report which formed the basis for the subsequent articles of impeachment against Trump, the smarmy and unctuous Adam Schiff stated thusly, to wit:

The decision to move forward with an impeachment inquiry is not one we took lightly.

Under the best of circumstances, impeachment is a wrenching process for the nation.

I resisted calls to undertake an impeachment investigation for many months on that basis, notwithstanding the existence of presidential misconduct that I believed to be deeply unethical and damaging to our democracy.

The alarming events and actions detailed in this report, however, left us with no choice but to proceed.

In making the decision to move forward, we were struck by the fact that the President’s misconduct was not an isolated occurrence, nor was it the product of a naïve president.

Instead, the efforts to involve Ukraine in our 2020 presidential election were undertaken by a President who himself was elected in 2016 with the benefit of an unprecedented and sweeping campaign of election interference undertaken by Russia in his favor, and which the President welcomed and utilized.

Having witnessed the degree to which interference by a foreign power in 2016 harmed our democracy, President Trump cannot credibly claim ignorance to its pernicious effects.

Even more pointedly, the President’s July call with Ukrainian President Zelensky, in which he solicited an investigation to damage his most feared 2020 opponent, came the day after Special Counsel Robert Mueller testified to Congress about Russia’s efforts to damage his 2016 opponent and his urgent warning of the dangers of further foreign interference in the next election.

With this backdrop, the solicitation of new foreign intervention was the act of a president unbound, not one chastened by experience.

It was the act of a president who viewed himself as unaccountable and determined to use his vast official powers to secure his reelection.

This repeated and pervasive threat to our democratic electoral process added urgency to our work.

end quotes

Now, compare those words of Schiff today with those of Republican Congressman Bingham on or about Feb. 22d, 1868 concerning “reluctance to impeach,” to wit:

Mr. Speaker, all right-minded men must concede that the question under consideration is one of supreme moment to all the people of the Republic.

I protest for myself, sir, that I am utterly incapable of approaching the discussion of this question in the spirit of a partisan.

I repel, sir, the intimation of the gentleman from New York, Mr. Brooks, that I am careless of the obligation of my oath or unconcerned about the supremacy of the Constitution and the laws.

I look upon the Constitution of the country as the very breath of the nation’s life.

I invoke this day upon the consideration of this great question the matchless name of Washington, as did the gentleman, and ask him, in the consideration of the matter now before us, to ponder upon those deathless words of the Father of our Country, wherein he declares that “the Constitution which at any time exists, till changed by an explicit and authentic act of the whole people, is sacredly obligatory upon all” — upon all sir, from the President to the humblest citizen — standing within the jurisdiction of the Republic.

Washington but echoed the words that himself and his associates had imbedded in the text of the Constitution, that “this Constitution and the laws passed in pursuance thereof shall be the supreme law of the land.”

It shall be supreme over every officer; it shall be supreme over every State; it shall be supreme over every territory; it shall be supreme upon every deck covered by your flag in every zone all round the globe.

Every man within its jurisdiction, official and unofficial, must bow to the supremacy of the Constitution.

The gentleman says that the issue involved is an issue about an office.

I beg the gentleman’s pardon.

The issue involved is whether the supremacy of the Constitution shall be maintained by the people’s Representatives.

The President of the United States has assumed, sir, to set himself above the Constitution and the laws.

He has assumed to defy the law, he has assumed to challenge the people’s Representatives to sit in judgment upon his malfeasance in office.

Every man who has considered it worth while to observe my conduct touching this question that has so long agitated this House and agitated this country may have discovered that I have kept myself back and have endeavored to keep others back from making any unnecessary issue between the President and Representatives of the people touching the manner in which he discharged the duties of his great office.

I had no desire, sir, to have resort unnecessarily to this highest power reposed by the people in their Representatives and their Senators for the vindication of their own violated Constitution and violated laws.

Notwithstanding there was much in the conduct of the President to endanger the peace and repose of the country, yet, so long as there was any doubt upon the question of his liability to impeachment within the text and spirit of the Constitution, I was unwilling to utter one syllable to favor such a proposition or to record a vote to advance it.

end quotes

But in the end, like Schiff, Bingham not only voted to impeach, but became a prosecutor, as well.

It is interesting reading about the impeachment of Andy Johnson in 1868, the many parallels between that impeachment of a Democrat president by the radical Republicans in Congress at that time, versus the impeachment of a Republican president by radical Democrats in Congress in our times.

One would think that the Hollywood script writers who put the narrative together for this now-failed Schiff IMPEACHMENT CIRCUS used the impeachment of Andy Johnson, which is well documented, as the basis for their script that Adam Schiff and the Democrats then followed.

Or hey, maybe they just made it up out of thin air!

http://www.capecharlesmirror.com/news/o ... ent-238608
Post Reply