Impeachment or Coup?
This is why Democrats have been pushing to impeach Donald Trump for as long as he’s been in office: they do not want risk that he might get re-elected.
Finally, House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.) and I agree on something. In announcing the two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, Nadler said: “Our next election is at risk….That is why we must act now.”
That, you see, is why Democrats have been pushing to impeach Trump for as long as he’s been in office: they do not want to take the risk that he might get re-elected.
The first sentence of the first article of impeachment says it all, stating that Trump “solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.” No mention of a quid pro quo, bribery, extortion, or a “shake-down,” the phrases Democrats had been trying out in the last few months. They settled on accusing Trump of “abusing his high office to enlist a foreign power in corrupting democratic elections.”
According to the resolution, the interference that Trump solicited was for Ukraine “to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection.” These were investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden, “a political rival,” and a “discredited theory…that Ukraine—rather than Russia—interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.” Trump tried to pressure Ukraine into announcing these investigations by making them the condition for receiving security assistance Congress had appropriated and a “head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought.”
The impeachment agenda of Democrats is a political coup
-By Jenna Rives, The Hill
The impeachment narrative pushed by House Democrats needs to be called exactly what it is, which is a political coup. Contrary to what Speaker Nancy Pelosi, Chairman Adam Schiff, and progressive left wingers would have you believe, the United States still does have an objective rule of law, and the Constitution is not merely a guideline subject to interpretation and application at the whim of power grabs.
Regardless of whether you are a Republican, a Democrat, an independent, or anything else, it should concern all of us that the rule of law is being tossed out in favor of an open coup designed to undermine a free and fair election in the United States. Sheer partisan hatred toward an American president by the other party is not and has never been a sufficient legal or constitutional basis for impeachment. The Constitution specifically lays out “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Political leverage or the inability to win elections are not listed. Read More....
DECEMBER 11, 2019 By Tristan Justice
The Democrats’ latest attempt to undo the 2016 election are not going over well with voters in several key congressional swing districts across the country.
DECEMBER 12, 2019 By David Marcus
Rep. Jim Jordan and other GOP House members presented four specific facts refuting the Democrats arguments for impeachment.
News changes quickly. Below are "older" articles that have been replaced with more current events. However, if you haven't had a chance to catch up, the articles below may be helpful.
The Real Purpose of the Nadler Impeachment Hearing
The Democrats need pseudo-constitutional camouflage for their hyper-partisan coup
- David Catron, The American Spectator
Anyone holding out hope that Wednesday’s impeachment hearing by the House Judiciary Committee would consist of thoughtful testimony from impartial constitutional scholars was destined to be disappointed. Four witnesses appeared, three of whom were chosen by Democratic Chairman Jerrold Nadler, who restricted the Republican committee members to a single voice of reason crying in the congressional wilderness. All of Nadler’s choices were vehemently pro-impeachment, including two longtime Democratic donors who contributed to the presidential campaign of Hillary Clinton and a regular columnist for a “news service” owned by Democratic presidential candidate Michael Bloomberg. Even the solitary Republican witness freely admitted he had voted for Hillary Clinton.
That was Jonathan Turley, of the George Washington University Law School. Turley’s presentation, his personal political leanings notwithstanding, counseled against impeachment. His fellow law professors, Harvard’s Noah Feldman, Stanford’s Pamela Karlan, and the University of North Carolina’s Michael Gerhardt, all but shouted that the president must be removed. Never mind that the crimes of which Trump is accused in the impeachment inquiry report released by Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Committee remain unproven and that he has been denied due process. These academics insist he must go. Indeed, in the regular column he writes for Bloomberg, Professor Feldman warned the Democrats not to get bogged down in pesky legal arguments in their attempt to oust the president: Read More....
Pamela Karlan’s Long, Biased Record of Anti-Trump Prejudices
Exposing the Democrat "impeachment expert" who worked for Obama’s administration.
- Dov Fischer, American Spectator
On December 27, 2013, it was reported that Pamela Karlan would join the Obama administration. She initially had been a leading Obama preference for the Supreme Court, but her name was not submitted because it was determined that she never would pass Senate confirmation owing to her extreme leftist leanings. Karlan is so left-wing that Obama instead selected Sonia Sotomayor as a less extreme nominee.
Here, in Pamela Karlan, we have a person with so many chips on her shoulders that she is fortunate to
have shoulders. Her record, augmented by her own words, presents a deep-seated leftist bias in her politics — so extreme that even Obama would not name her to a judgeship, deeming even Sonia Sotomayor more “moderate.” Karlan, reminiscent of Inspector Javert’s single-minded pursuit of Jean Valjean in LesMisérables, has been going after Donald Trump from day one of his presidency — and even from before. She is on record, even before Mr. Trump became president, as saying about him that “I can’t think of one who had such an across-the-board combination of ignorance, indifference and defiance.” She is on record, even before he began, as questioning whether or not he would last four years in the presidency and mocking his “Trumpian standards.” She publicly released an open letter warning him — again, even before he took office — that she and her ilk “feel a responsibility to challenge you in the court of public opinion, and we hope that those directly aggrieved by your administration will challenge you in the courts of law.”
On the subject of Donald J. Trump and his presidency, the opinion of this “scholar” has no more legitimacy or value than does any other coherent person’s opinion. She may have tried to seem tough, combative, and authoritative when answering Republican questioners during her testimony at the Nadler Show on Wednesday, but her record condemns her as biased beyond words, prejudiced against the democratically elected man whose election by the voters she wants to help the Democrats undo, and thoroughly unsuited to present an objective view of the president.
We have no more use for this witness. Read the full article....
Dems’ Impeachment Trickery
Five deceptive claims from the House Judiciary tricksters.
Note, this article was written before the House Judiciary sham took place, but its spot on in its prediction of how the day would go.
"Alexander Hamilton warned in Federalist 65 that impeachment could someday hinge more on “the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of guilt or innocence.” What’s happening now is Hamilton’s worst nightmare."
- By Betsy McCaughey, American Spectator
On Wednesday, House Judiciary Committee chairman Jerry Nadler (D-N.Y.) takes over as ringmaster for the ongoing impeachment show. He’s billing his opening act as an inquiry into the “historical and constitutional basis of impeachment” and “the Framers’ intent.” Nadler claims he’ll be looking into what the Constitution’s authors meant by “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
Don’t be fooled by Nadler’s scholarly posturing. He isn’t planning a civics lesson. Democrats are hell-bent on impeaching Trump, so Nadler has to rewrite American history and massage the meaning of the Constitution’s impeachment clause to fit the pile of non-evidence Adam Schiff’s Intelligence Committee has produced.
Count on Nadler to come loaded with a bag of legal tricks.
Trick No. 1: Read More....
Adam Schiff: Poster Boy for Democrat Sleaze
Even though he had the actual transcript in front of him, "Sack of Schiff" (coined by Judge Janine) chose instead to read his own mafia-like version into official congressional records. Here's what this jerk said. You can listen to it at right to hear the dramatic, mafia don style reading, and then compare it to the actual transcript below.
"And what is the President’s response — well it reads like a classic organized crime shake down. In essence, what the President Trump communicates is this: We’ve been very good to your country. Very good. No other country has done as much as we have. But you know what, I don’t see much reciprocity here. You know what I mean? I hear what you want. I have a favor I want from you though. And I’m going to say this only seven times, so you better listen good. I want you to make up dirt on my political opponent, understand? Lots of dirt, on this and on that. I’m going to put you in touch with people, and not just any people. I’m going to put you in touch with the Attorney General of the United States — my Attorney General, Bill Barr — he’s got the whole weight of American law enforcement behind him. And I’m going to put you in touch with Rudy, you’re going to love him. Trust me. You know what I’m asking, so I’m only going to say this a few more times, in a few more ways. And don’t call me again. I’ll call you when you’ve done what I asked."
Here's The Federalist's take on this sleazy behavior. Read more....