Tag Archives: Impeachment Hoax

The Once and Future Scandal – American Greatness

Elections

Soon the worm may turn. The real scandal is back on the horizon, and at last, we may learn that no one is above the law—most certainly not a group of smug and mediocre apparatchiks who assumed they had the moral right to destroy a presidential candidate and later an elected president.Victor Davis Hanson – February 9th, 2020

Print Friendly, PDF & Email

Now that the four-and-a-half-month-long Ukraine impeachment bookend to the 22-month Mueller charade is over, it clearly accomplished nothing other than substantially raising the polls of both Donald Trump and the Republican Party. The public was reminded that Representative Gerald Nadler (D-N.Y.) and House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) are every bit as childish, peevish, and absurd as Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.).

So, we are now back to the existential issue of the entire Trump phenomenon: to what degree did the Hillary Clinton campaign collude with high-ranking Obama officials, and the top echelons of the FBI, CIA, and the national intelligence apparatus, to surveil, defame, and hope to derail Donald Trump’s 2016 presidential campaign by unlawful means?

Who in the federal government then continued Clinton’s efforts after the 2016 election to disrupt and indeed attempt to destroy the Trump transition and presidency?

Eventually, someone will sort out whether that post-election effort on the part of federal officials to abort the Trump presidency, abetted by the media and #TheResistance, was a simple follow-up to the Clinton-DNC-Perkins Coe-Fusion GPS collusion against candidate Trump—or a sick preemptive attempt of the administrative state to smear Trump as a “Russian asset” because of their worries about the exposure of their own prior criminality and Trump’s iconoclastic agenda.

But for now, the following statements are irrefutable.

Donald Trump, in concrete ways, has been far harder on Russia than was the “reset” Obama presidency, and far more helpful to Ukraine than Team Obama ever was. Trump armed the Ukrainians. He upped sanctions against Russia. He ordered lethal retaliation against Russian mercenaries in Syria. He vastly increased U.S. oil and gas production to Russia’s detriment. He jawboned Germany about its fuel dependence on Moscow. He coerced NATO to spend more on defense. He got out of an asymmetrical missile treaty with Russia. He is rebuilding the U.S. military.

The litany of these systematic abuses constitutes the greatest scandal in American history.

Unlike his predecessor, Trump did not dismantle U.S.-joint European missile defense in order to coax Putin into behaving during his reelection bid. He did not push a big plastic red reset button in Geneva to mark outreach to Putin, in rejection of prior Bush sanctions on Russians. He did not forbid the shipment of anti-tank missiles to an endangered Ukraine. He did not invite the Russians into Syria after a 40-year hiatus from the Middle East.

So the libel of Russian collusion was absurd from the get-go.

It originated in 2015-16 when the deep state was terrified over the then unlikely possibility of a President Donald Trump. The “collusion” ruse involved the chief players of federal law enforcement and national intelligence agencies. All, of course, had assumed Hillary Clinton would be president and their extralegal efforts to “insure” her victory would soon be commensurately rewarded, regardless of the illegality and unethical behavior required. And both crimes and amorality were most certainly involved.

See No Evil, Hear No Evil

The litany of these systematic abuses constitutes the greatest scandal in American history.

The FBI and the Justice Department deliberately misled Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court judges to spy on an American citizen as a way to monitor others in the Trump campaign. That crime is a charitable interpretation of Justice Department Inspector General Michael Horowitz’s report, given that supposedly intelligent federal judges were told that the evidence for such state espionage was based on the “opposition research” of the 2016 campaign. And yet apparently in see-no-evil, hear-no-evil fashion, not one of the squishy judges ever asked the U.S. government, who exactly had paid for the Steele Dossier and why? After all, who was the “opposition” to Trump in late 2016?

Top Obama officials, such as Samantha Power and Susan Rice, in a panic over the Trump candidacy and then victory, requested the unmasking of scores of redacted names of those surveilled by intelligence agencies. Some of those names mysteriously, but certainly illegally, were leaked to the media with the intent of defaming them.

When Adam Schiff’s pernicious role in jump-starting the impeachment is finally fully known, he will likely be revealed as the prime schemer, along with minor Obama officials buried within the Trump National Security Council, dreaming up the entire Ukraine caper of the “whistleblower.”

Over the past three years during the Russian and Ukrainian farces, Schiff variously lied to the public about impending “bombshell” revelations of Trump “collusion.” His minority House Intelligence Committee memo outrageously alleged that the Steele dossier was accurate and truthful and yet was not the prime evidence for the granting of FISA warrants—two more lies exposed by Horowitz.

Schiff rigged the initial House impeachment hearings to exclude transparency and bipartisan access to witnesses. He read a false version of the Trump conversation with the Ukrainian president into the congressional record. He secretly data mined his own colleagues’ communications. And to the very last moments of the entire fraud, even in his dotage, he was still babbling in the Senate about the long-ago discredited “Russian collusion” and again stringing together absurd fantasies of Trump wishing to sell Alaska to the Russians.

Justice for the Wrongdoers?

Schiff was given a great gift with a quick Senate acquittal. If he had been called as a fact witness, he either would have had to lie under oath to refute his earlier myths, or continue them and compound his falsities.

The Mueller investigation—500 subpoenas, 22 months, $35 million—was one of the great travesties in American investigatory history. It was cooked up by fired, disgraced—and furious—former FBI Director James Comey. By his own admission, Comey conceded that he leaked confidential memos of private conversations he had with the president to create a large enough media and political storm to force the naming of a special prosecutor to investigate “Russian collusion.”

Comey is not yet in jail, in part, because his cronies at the FBI, including the disgraced Peter Strzok and Lisa Page, post facto, announced that the leaked Comey versions of his one-on-one talks with the president of the United States were merely confidential rather than top secret and thus their dissemination to the media was not quite felonious.

The rest is history. Comey’s leaking gambit paid off. It led to the appointment of his long-time friend and predecessor, former FBI Director Robert Mueller. Mueller then delighted the media by appointing mostly progressive activist lawyers, some with ties to Hillary Clinton and the Clinton Foundation, in what then giddy journalists called a “dream team,” of “all-stars” who in the fashion of a “hunter-killer” team would abort the Trump presidency. They would prove Trump was what former Director of National Intelligence James Clapper on television called a “Putin asset.”

In surreal fashion, the main players, under suspicion for seeding and peddling the fraudulent Steele dossier among the high echelons of the U.S. government and using such smears to cripple Trump—John Brennan, James Clapper, and Andrew McCabe—were hired by liberal CNN and MSNBC as paid analysts to fob off on others the very scandals that they themselves had created.

The proof of the pudding is in the eating, and the Mueller team finally had to concede that it was born out a conspiratorial hoax by finding after 88 weeks—punctuated by almost daily leaks to sympathetic progressive media—that there was no Trump-Russian collusion to warp the 2016 election. Nor did it find actionable obstruction of justice on the part of Trump to thwart the investigation of what was admittedly a non-crime.

Yet Mueller’s team was marred with problems from the outset. The amorous and textually promiscuous pair of Peter Strzok and Lisa Page were both fired for their rank partisanship, although Mueller and his team initially hid the reasons for their departures and staggered their firings to suggest a natural rotation. Mysteriously, hundreds of their incriminating texts have disappeared from FBI smart devices—a weirdness reminiscent of the FBI’s willingness not to examine Hillary Clinton’s computers that were hacked, as well as apparent unconcern that she destroyed thousands of subpoenaed emails.

Eric Clinesmith, another FBI lawyer, was fired by Mueller inter alia for his left-wing biases and tweeting out “Viva le [sic] Resistance”—as in long-live the World War II-like progressive resistance against the fascist and foreign occupier Trump. Clinesmith, according to the inspector general, altered an email presented as evidence before a FISA court to warp the request to surveil Carter Page. If there is any justice left in this sordid mess, he will end up in jail.

Four Years of Fakery

The end of the Mueller team was equally unceremonious. Mueller himself proved enfeebled in an embarrassing testimony before House committees, marked by the stunning admission he really had no idea what Fusion GPS was—the Glenn Simpson monstrosity that had hired the charlatan Christopher Steele, spawned the collusion myth and compromised top Justice Department officials such as Bruce Ohr, whose spouse worked for Simpson on the dossier.

When Mueller’s legal ramrod, progressive Andrew Weissman, finished up running the day-to-day operations of the “Mueller investigation,” in parody fashion he went to work—but of course—as a paid analyst for CNN where he no longer publicly had to suppress his loathing of the former target of his investigations.

The net effects of the Mueller and Horowitz investigations were variously to exonerate Trump, to expose a corrupt Justice Department, CIA, and FBI, to illustrate how the government hounded and ruined the lives of minor 2016 Trump campaign officials with largely process convictions and plea-bargained confessions, and to explain the peremptory resignations of more than a dozen top Washington officials of James Comey’s FBI—as well as the railroading General Michael Flynn.

Some of that skullduggery and more are currently the subjects of a criminal investigation by U.S. Attorney John Durham. The American public has been assaulted for four years by an array of fake scandals, fake bombshells, and fake televised analyses that camouflaged a systematic and terrible assault on our constitutional freedoms.

But soon the worm may turn. The real scandal is back on the horizon, and at last, we may learn that no one is above the law, and most certainly not a group of smug and mediocre apparatchiks who assumed they had the moral right to destroy a presidential candidate and later an elected president.

In sum, this real scandal, dormant for over four years, had been overshadowed by a series of progressive-government-media driven melodramas, aimed at both injuring the Trump presidency—and, in preemptive fashion, shielding a virtual coup to destroy an elected president.

Victor Davis Hanson

Victor Davis Hanson is an American military historian, columnist, former classics professor, and scholar of ancient warfare. He was a professor of classics at California…

https://amgreatness.com/2020/02/09/the-once-and-future-scandal/

TiLTNews Network

Trump purge: Impeachment witnesses lose their jobs

The firings came two days after the Republican-majority Senate acquitted US president of charges of abuse of power.

Trump purge: Impeachment witnesses lose their jobs
Sat, 08 Feb 2020 03:43:56 GMT

Trump purge: Impeachment witnesses lose their jobs

Firings come two days after the Republican-majority Senate acquitted the US president of charges of abuse of power.

Vindman was reportedly escorted out of the White House, where he had worked on the National Security Council [File: Win McNamee/Getty Images/AFP]

Vindman was reportedly escorted out of the White House, where he had worked on the National Security Council [File: Win McNamee/Getty Images/AFP]

US President Donald Trump has fired two of the highest-profile witnesses in his impeachment probe, sparking accusations that he is on a campaign of revenge.

Trump recalled his ambassador to the European Union, Gordon Sondland, just hours after Lieutenant Colonel Alexander Vindman, a decorated soldier who worked at the National Security Council, was ordered out of the White House on Friday.

Vindman’s twin brother Yevgeny, also a lieutenant colonel who worked as an attorney in the NSC, was fired simultaneously, US media reported.

The firings came two days after the Republican-majority Senate acquitted Trump of charges that he abused his office and one day after he gave a victory speech branding his opponents as “evil”.

Sondland, a political appointee who got his post after donating $1m to Trump’s inauguration, said in a brief statement, “I was advised today that the president intends to recall me effective immediately.”

The ouster of Vindman, a respected officer who was wounded in Iraq, was even more abrupt, when he was ordered out of his NSC offices at the White House.

Vindman was escorted out of the White House, where he had worked on the National Security Council (NSC), lawyer David Pressman said in a statement, adding that the move was retribution for Vindman’s testimony.

Will Trump’s presidency remain tainted by impeachment? | UpFront

“There is no question in the mind of any American why this man’s job is over, why this country now has one less soldier serving it at the White House. LTC Vindman was asked to leave for telling the truth,” Pressman said.

Trump has described the impeachment process as a hoax, denying there was anything wrong in his push for Ukraine to open a politically embarrassing investigation into Democratic presidential candidate Joe Biden’s family.

Petty retaliation

Vindman testified to the US House of Representatives impeachment inquiry in November that Trump made an improper demand of Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelenskyy in a July phone call that became the centrepiece of the probe of the Republican president.

Vindman told a Democratic-run committee “I couldn’t believe what I was hearing” in the phone call. Trump asked Zelenskyy to launch investigations into both Democratic rival Joe Biden and a widely debunked conspiracy theory that Ukraine, not Russia, was behind meddling in the 2016 US presidential election.

In that appearance, Vindman also downplayed concerns that he would suffer payback for speaking out. “I will be fine for telling the truth,” he said.

What happens now after Donald Trump’s impeachment trial?

A spokesman for the NSC declined to comment.

Trump emerged victorious from his trial this week with a vote in the Senate, controlled by fellow Republicans who rejected abuse of power and obstruction of justice charges against him.

Asked earlier on Friday about media reports that he might remove Vindman, Trump told reporters: “I’m not happy with him. You think I’m supposed to be happy with him? … They’re going to be making that decision.”

A source familiar with the situation told Reuters news agency that Vindman would be reassigned to the US Department of Defense.

Vindman’s two-year stint at the White House was due to end in July.

Sondland

Sondland, a political appointee who got his post after donating $1m to Trump’s inauguration, had testified that Trump had sought a ‘quid pro quo’ deal with Ukraine to investigate former Vice President Joseph Biden and his son [File: Andrew Harnik/AP]

For his part, Sondland told lawmakers he followed the president’s orders in seeking a “quid pro quo” deal for Ukraine to investigate Biden in exchange for getting Zelensky a coveted White House visit.

Sondland said Trump’s personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani led the effort at Trump’s direction to pressure Zelensky for the investigation and that top officials in the White House and State Department knew about it.

That testimony helped build the case leading to Trump becoming only the third president ever impeached by Congress, before his acquittal this week.

Another senior White House aide who testified during impeachment proceedings, Jennifer Williams, left this week for a post at the US military’s Central Command, according to Bloomberg News.

Trump has cast both Vindman and Williams as “Never Trumpers” who oppose him.

In a social media post, Democratic Senator Ron Wyden said the firings were “petty retaliation” carried out “for telling the truth.”

TiLTNews Network

White House Legal Brief: Impeachment a ‘Dangerous Perversion’ of Constitution

Impeachment Trial

President Donald Trump walks on the South Lawn to board Marine One at the White House in Washington on Dec. 18, 2019. (Charlotte Cuthbertson/The Epoch Times)

By Jack Phillips14 Comments January 20, 2020 Updated: January 20, 2020

President Donald Trump’s legal team asserted Monday that the House Democrats’ impeachment case against the president is frivolous and a “dangerous perversion of the Constitution,” while again saying Trump did “absolutely nothing wrong,” setting the tone for the potentially weeks-long Senate trial.

In a brief that was submitted to the Senate before the trial will start Tuesday, Trump’s lawyers will make the argument that both articles of impeachment against the president were constitutionally deficient, while potentially endangering the future office of the presidency and upsetting the government’s balance of power.

“House Democrats were determined from the outset to find some way—any way—to corrupt the extraordinary power of impeachment for use as a political tool to overturn the result of the 2016 election and to interfere in the 2020 election,” Trump’s lawyers wrote. “All of that is a dangerous perversion of the Constitution that the Senate should swiftly and roundly condemn.”

The Trump legal team’s filing comes after House Democrats submitted their own brief that essentially summarized weeks of testimony from witnesses.

“The process that brought these articles of impeachment to the Senate” was “completely unprecedented” in U.S. history, said a source working with Trump’s legal team in a conference call. The source said that every presidential impeachment inquiry has “involved basic due process” protections for the accused, while arguing that Trump was given none of these rights by House Democrats during the inquiry late last year.

The same source echoed House Republicans’ claims during the inquiry that only one of the witnesses involved in the case, Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland, actually spoke to the president. What’s more, the source said House managers will not be able to provide a single witness who had direct knowledge of an alleged quid pro quo scheme between Trump and Ukraine’s leadership, as Democrats have alleged throughout the inquiry.

“It is the president who defines foreign policy, not the unelected bureaucrats who are his subordinates,” his team will argue. “Any theory of an impeachable offense that turns on ferreting out supposedly ‘constitutionally improper’ motives by measuring the president’s policy decisions against a purported interagency consensus is both fundamentally anti-democratic and an absurdly impermissible inversion of the constitutional structure.”

Democrats’ impeachment case accuses Trump of abusing his power by withholding military aid from Ukraine while he was pushing to investigate former Vice President Joe Biden, his son Hunter, and Ukraine-based energy company Burisma Holdings, of which the younger Biden sat on the board. They have also alleged Trump obstructed Congress by not sufficiently cooperating with their inquiry.

Trump on Monday signaled on Twitter that he opposes the use of witnesses: “They didn’t want John Bolton and others in the House. They were in too much of a rush. Now they want them all in the Senate. Not supposed to be that way!” He was referring to his former national security adviser, John Bolton, who indicated earlier this month that he would be willing to testify in the trial if he were subpoenaed.

The House impeachment managers, including Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) and Judiciary Chairman Jerrold Nadler (D-N.Y.), responded to the White House’s filing on Monday afternoon.

“President Trump has engaged in the trifecta of constitutional misconduct warranting removal,” the managers wrote in response. “He is the Framers’ worst nightmare come to life.”

Their filing argued: “President Trump did not engage in this corrupt conduct to uphold the Presidency or protect the right to vote. He did it to cheat in the next election and bury the evidence when he got caught.”

Over the weekend, the House management team filed their first brief with the Senate ahead of the trial, which is slated to start Tuesday and run for several weeks. Senators are expected to work six days per week.

White House Legal Brief: Impeachment a ‘Dangerous Perversion’ of Constitution https://www.theepochtimes.com/white-house-legal-brief-impeachment-a-dangerous-perversion-of-constitution_3209971.html

TiLTNews Network

White House response calls impeachment case ‘dangerous attack’ on American electorate – Washington Times

In this May 8, 2014, file photo, then Baylor University President Ken Starr testifies at the House Committee on Education and Workforce on college athletes forming unions. in Washington. President Donald Trump's legal team will include former Harvard University law professor Alan Dershowitz and Ken Starr, the former independent counsel who led the Whitewater investigation into President Bill Clinton, according to a person familiar with the matter. The team will also include Pam Bondi, the former Florida attorney general. (AP Photo/Lauren Victoria Burke, File) **FILE**
In this May 8, 2014, file photo, then Baylor University President Ken Starr testifies at the House Committee on Education and Workforce on college athletes forming unions. in Washington. President Donald Trump’s legal team will include former Harvard University law … more >
– The Washington Times – Saturday, January 18, 2020

The White House said Saturday in a formal response to Democrats’ impeachment case that the articles of impeachment “must be rejected” by the Senate because they fail to allege any actual crimes by President Trump and they represent a “dangerous attack” on Americans’ right to vote.

In a written response to a legal summons issued by Democrats at the start of Mr. Trump’s trial, the White House stated: “The articles of impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their president.”

“This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election, now just months away,” the document said. “This highly partisan and reckless obsession with impeaching the president began even before his election and continues to this day. President Trump categorically and unequivocally denies each and every allegation in both articles of impeachment.”

White House Counsel Pat Cipollone and Trump personal lawyer Jay Sekulow argue in their answer to Congress:
 
“In order to preserve our constitutional structure of government, to reject the poisonous partisanship that the Framers warned against, to ensure one-party political impeachment vendettas do not become the ‘new normal,’ and to vindicate the will of the American people, the Senate must reject both articles of impeachment.”
 

The impeachment trial of the president will begin on Tuesday, with senators ultimately deciding whether to remove Mr. Trump from office. House Democrats impeached the president last month over his withholding of military aid to Ukraine in an alleged effort to pressure Ukraine’s president to announce a corruption investigation involving Democratic presidential candidate Joseph R. Biden and his son, Hunter.

The president’s top lawyers said nothing in the articles of impeachment “could permit even beginning to consider removing a duly elected president or warrant nullifying an election and subverting the will of the American people.”

The White House also gave a robust defense of Mr. Trump’s claims of executive privilege to block numerous Democratic requests for documents and testimony by top presidential advisers. The six-page response says Mr. Trump’s assertion of executive privilege is legitimate and not an obstruction of Congress.

The president’s lawyers say House Democrats “sought testimony from a number of the president’s closest advisors despite the fact that, under longstanding, bipartisan practice of prior administrations of both political parties and similarly longstanding guidance from the Department of Justice, those advisors are absolutely immune from compelled testimony before Congress related to their official duties.”

“As the Supreme Court has recognized, the president’s constitutional authority to protect the confidentiality of executive branch information is at its apex in the field of foreign relations and national security,” they wrote.

Sources close to Mr. Trump’s legal team said Saturday that the president’s lawyers will begin their side of the case by attacking the two articles of impeachment —abuse of power and obstruction of Congress — as defective, in part because Democrats failed to identify any crimes committed.

“It fails on its face to state an impeachable offense and alleges no crimes at all, let alone ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ as required by the Constitution,” the source said. “In fact, it does not allege any violation of law whatsoever.”

He said of the impeachment articles, “They are the product of invalid proceedings that flagrantly denied the president any due process rights. They rest on dangerous distortions of the Constitution that would do lasting damage to our structure of government.”

The White House’s written response addresses the two phone calls that Mr. Trump had with Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky last year, stating that Mr. Trump did nothing improper in either conversation.

The answer from the White House states that Mr. Trump acted with “unprecedented transparency” in declassifying the transcript of a July 25 phone call with Ukraine’s president, and was working with full and constitutional legal authority in the national interests of the U.S.

The Government Accountability Office said Thursday that Mr. Trump violated federal law by temporarily withholding the $391 million from Ukraine after Congress approved it and he signed it into law.

But sources close to Mr. Trump’s legal team dismissed the GAO finding as irrelevant, noting that Mr. Trump eventually did release the aid to Ukraine.

“The aid was released, and it was released before the deadline,” the source said. “We’re on strong legal footing. The president’s done nothing wrong.”

The president’s response asserts that House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam B. Schiff, California Democrat, “created a fraudulent version of the July 25 call and read it to the American people at a congressional hearing, without disclosing that he was simply making it all up.”

By approving the articles of impeachment, the president’s lawyers wrote, “the House violated our constitutional order, illegally abused its power of impeachment, and attempted to obstruct President Trump’s ability to faithfully execute the duties of his office.”

Mr. Cipollone and Mr. Sekulow will give opening presentations after the House impeachment managers finish their side of the case.

Also included on the president’s team are former Independent Counsel Ken Starr, who led the Whitewater investigation during President Bill Clinton’s impeachment case, and Harvard law professor Alan Dershowitz.

Mr. Starr’s report to Congress in 1998 on Mr. Clinton’s actions argued that he improperly invoked executive privilege while lying under oath about a sexual relationship with a White House intern. Now, Mr. Starr will be defending Mr. Trump’s assertion of executive privilege.

A source close to the president’s legal team said that Mr. Clinton’s actions were “markedly different than what the allegations are here.”

“Bill Clinton was asserting executive privilege over private conduct,” this person said. “This is markedly different, and I think that’s a clean distinction.”

Source: White House response calls impeachment case ‘dangerous attack’ on American electorate – Washington Times

TiLTNews Network

Pelosi: House will move to transmit impeachment articles next week | Fox News

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced Friday that she will take steps next week to send impeachment articles to the Senate, after delaying the process since last month in a bid to extract favorable terms for a trial.

“I have asked Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler to be prepared to bring to the Floor next week a resolution to appoint managers and transmit articles of impeachment to the Senate. I will be consulting with you at our Tuesday House Democratic Caucus meeting on how we proceed further,” Pelosi, D-Calif., wrote in a letter to colleagues.

PRESSURE MOUNTS ON PELOSI TO TRANSMIT ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT, AS DEMOCRATS LOSE PATIENCE

The decision to release the articles came as fellow Democrats in recent days had started to voice frustration and impatience with the speaker’s approach. They stressed the urgency with which impeachment was treated at the end of 2019 and questioned why the House would then delay a trial by using articles as leverage.

Asked about Pelosi’s decision to move forward on Friday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said: “About time.”

Pelosi nevertheless defended her approach in the memo, stressing important new information on the Ukraine controversy at the heart of impeachment that emerged during the interim.

“I am very proud of the courage and patriotism exhibited by our House Democratic Caucus as we support and defend the Constitution,” she wrote. She continued to press the Senate, as she has for weeks, to conduct a “fair trial” with witnesses and documents.

Video

“In an impeachment trial, every Senator takes an oath to ‘do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws.’ Every Senator now faces a choice: to be loyal to the President or to the Constitution,” she wrote. “No one is above the law, not even the President.”

Pelosi’s demands in recent days included calling on McConnell to reveal the resolution that would set the terms for the trial before she would transmit the articles.

Pelosi and her allies seemingly wanted a commitment to call certain Democrat-sought witnesses, and at least learn more about McConnell’s plans. But McConnell wouldn’t budge, insisting that the Senate first launch the trial, and then resolve issues surrounding witnesses later, declaring that he would not haggle with Pelosi and accusing her Thursday of playing “irresponsible games.”

While Senate Minority Leader Chuck Schumer, D-N.Y., had largely backed Pelosi in calling for commitments from McConnell, other Democratic senators began this week to pressure the House to get moving.

MCCONNELL TELLS GOP SENATORS TRIAL COULD START NEXT WEEK

“I think it’s time to turn the articles over,” Sen. Joe Manchin, D-W.Va., said Wednesday on Fox News’ “America’s Newsroom.” “Let’s see where the Senate can take it.”

Even Sen. Dianne Feinstein, D-Calif., called out Pelosi for the delay.

“The longer it goes on, the less urgent it becomes,” Feinstein told Politico. “So if it’s serious and urgent, send them over. If it isn’t, don’t send it over.”

Sens. Angus King, D-Maine; Richard Blumenthal, D-Conn.; and Chris Coons, D-Del., also came out this week calling for the process to move along.

“I respect the fact that she is concerned about the fact about whether or not there will be a fair trial,” Coons told Politico this week. “But I do think it is time to get on with it.”

McConnell has repeatedly said the resolution to govern the impeachment trial in the Senate would mirror the one used for then-President Bill Clinton’s impeachment trial in 1999 — setting a timeframe for the trial to begin, with the opportunity for lawmakers to determine how to proceed on potential witness testimony and additional documents later, after both the defense and the prosecution make their opening statements.

Sen. Susan Collins, R-Maine, on Friday, though, voiced hope that Republicans would hold a trial that would feature witnesses should prosecutors, and counsel for the president, request them.

“I have had many discussions with some of my Republican colleagues on how we can adhere as closely as practical to the precedent for conducting the impeachment trial of President Clinton, which included as a third stage the decision on whether to call witnesses,” Collins said Friday. “I am hopeful that we can reach an agreement on how to proceed with the trial that will allow the opportunity for witnesses for both the House managers and the President’s counsel if they choose to do so.”

She added: “It is important that both sides be treated fairly.”

McConnell said earlier this week he has the votes needed to pass the resolution and begin the trial, once he receives the articles. In impeachment, most resolutions can pass with a simple majority — 51 votes. To remove the president from office, though, there must be 67 votes.

After Pelosi’s announcement Friday, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, blasted the speaker for the delay.

“Speaker Pelosi threw the United States Congress into unnecessary chaos with this pointless delay,” Grassley said in a statement. “From the beginning, it’s been unclear what the goal of this hurry-up-and-wait tactic was or what the country stood to gain. We now know the answer was nothing.”

“We’ve had three weeks of uncertainty and confusion, causing even more division,” he added. “Regardless, I will take my role as a juror seriously and review the evidence presented by both sides before making any determination.”

Meanwhile, the next step for Pelosi will be to determine who will serve as House managers to prosecute the case against the president in the Senate trial.

Last month, bipartisan sources told Fox News that several names have been floated to make the case for the president’s removal.

Likely candidates include Nadler, D-N.Y., whose panel drafted the articles of impeachment (abuse of power and obstruction of Congress); House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif., who led much of the impeachment inquiry out of his committee with dramatic hearings to develop the case against the president; House Democratic Caucus Chairman Hakeem Jeffries, D-N.Y.; and Rep. Jamie Raskin, D-Md., a constitutional lawyer.

Other possible candidates include Democrats who were more outspoken during the impeachment hearings, like Rep. David Cicilline, D-R.I., and Eric Swalwell, D-Calif.

Sources told Fox News that other names being floated include Reps. Pramila Jayapal, D-Wash.; Val Demings, D-Fla., who served as the first female police chief in Orlando; and Zoe Lofgren, D-Calif., who was involved in the impeachment of former President Bill Clinton and was a staffer during the congressional investigation into former President Richard Nixon.

During Clinton’s impeachment in 1999, there were 13 House impeachment managers. A source familiar with the planning told Fox News that Pelosi is expected to appoint fewer than that.

Fox News’ Mike Emanuel and Jason Donner contributed to this report. 

Source: Pelosi: House will move to transmit impeachment articles next week | Fox News

TiLTNews Network

Full Video: Reporter Arrested After Calling Impeachment Hearings a Scam

Exclusive: Owen Shroyer booked in Washington, D.C., won’t be released until end of day at earliest

Shroyer, who hosts The War Room on weekdays, was arrested on Monday morning during a House Judiciary Committee hearing headed by Nadler, who said the House could vote on articles of impeachment against President Trump this week.

Here’s the full confrontation below:

As of this writing, Shroyer is being held in jail and isn’t expected to be released until the end of the day at the earliest.

The arrest highlights a double standard in Washington, D.C., in which establishment-approved activists are allowed to confront congressmen in their faces, but a reporter like Shroyer is arrested for protesting a House representative from a distance.

So don’t expect Time Magazine to write a glowing piece of Shroyer anytime soon.

This story is developing.

Source: Full Video: Reporter Arrested After Calling Impeachment Hearings a Scam

TiLTNews Network

THE HUMAN STORY