An intro by John R. Houk
Posted December 19, 2019
The Democratic Party is as corrupt as many of the Ukrainian
oligarchs courted to depose President Trump. Giuliani ignored and vilified by
the Dems and their propaganda machine MSM touches on some Dem-Ukrainian
corruption. THEN Mark Alexander has some Original Intent thoughts on
Impeachment.
JRH 12/19/19
Your generosity is always appreciated:
the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.
Blog Editor: Rather than
capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post
and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship
tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false
accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat
censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you
belong to.
***************************
Giuliani Says He's Uncovered 'Two Major'
Money-Laundering/Bribery Schemes Involving Joe Biden, Obama Admin
By Megan
Fox
December 17, 2019
Rudy Giuliani went on Fox News with Laura Ingraham on Monday
and dropped a huge bomb onto former Ukranian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and
Joe Biden.
"What I uncovered, there are two major schemes,"
said Giuliani. "One for 7.5 billion and the other one for 5 billion in
money laundering that went on all through the Obama administration, part of it
involved Joe Biden, the bribery part." Giuliani went on to implicate
American law enforcement at the very top for not investigating what he says is
corruption.
"It's a disgrace that he's not under investigation in
America, maybe because our law enforcement is too afraid, but the reality is
it's a complete defense for the president. When the president of the United
States was asking the president of the Ukraine to investigate, he was asking
him to investigate crimes at the highest level of both governments....he's
being impeached for doing the right thing."
Giuliani also tweeted on Tuesday that "Yovanovitch
needed to be removed for many reasons most critical she was denying visas to
Ukrainians who wanted to come to the US and explain Dem corruption in Ukraine.
She was OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and that's not the only thing she was doing. She at
minimum enabled Ukrainian collusion."
Yovanovitch needed to be removed for many reasons most critical she was denying visas to Ukrainians who wanted to come to US and explain Dem corruption in Ukraine. She was OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and that’s not the only thing she was doing. She at minimum enabled Ukrainian collusion.— Rudy Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) December 17, 2019
Democrats have accused Giuliani of forcing Yovanovitch out
for political reasons. He says that's garbage. "I didn't need her out of
the way, I forced her out because she's corrupt. I came back with a document
that will show unequivocally that she committed perjury when she said she
turned down the visa for [Ukrainian prosecutor] Mr. Shokin because of
corruption. The fact is on the record...the reason given is because he'd had an
operation and hadn't recovered yet. The operation was two years before. There's
documented evidence that she committed perjury."
These documents, according to Giuliani, were turned over to
the State Department and included four other witness statements corroborating
the allegations.
"I have 4 witnesses who will testify that she
personally turned down their visas because they were going to come here and
give evidence either against Biden or against the Democratic Party,"
Giuliani told Ingraham. "There's no question she that she was acting
corruptly in that position and had to be removed. She should have been fired if
the State Department weren't part of the Deep State."
Giuliani first heard about Yovanovitch's deception from
former Rep. Pete Sessions and a "number of congressman" who told him
what Yovanovitch was up to. "When I interviewed witnesses they told me she
was specifically holding up visas in order to obstruct the investigation of
collusion in the Ukraine and specifically to obstruct the Biden investigation.
I have that testimony under oath. I gave it to the State Department, they never
investigated a single witness. When they say she's innocent, it's innocent
without investigation. It is a cover-up."
Giuliani says he has audio recordings to back up his story that
also implicate Barack Obama in the scandal. "I also have tape recordings
with Ukrainian officials including career prosecutors who say that during the
Obama era the corruption in Ukraine became substantially worse and that she
[Yovanovitch] was a contributor to the corruption."
Senior officials in the White House are reportedly worried
about Giuliani and his insistence on being vocal about Democrats' involvement
in Ukrainian corruption. He doesn't care. "Joe Biden was involved in a
multi-million dollar corrupt scheme along with a number of other Democrats.
It's never been resolved. They've never been held to account. As long as those
issues remain between the U.S. and Ukraine we really can't fight corruption in
the Ukraine and the fact is that there are numerous Ukranian witnesses that
want to come to the U.S. and explain how much during the Obama administration
Ukraine was corrupted by Americans."
The question now should be, why haven't our State Department
and Department of Justice launched an official investigation into what happened
to billions of dollars of American aid money that was sent to Ukraine? Why
doesn't anyone in our government seem to want to know where it went? "I
have a report from the Ukrainian accounting office in 2017 showing that 5.3 billion
dollars in aid seems to have been wasted," Giuliani said. "Our State
Department under Yovanovitch went to the police and told them not to do the
investigation... because our embassy was involved in wasting a great deal of
that money by giving it to NGOs and when I was asked 'do the NGOs have a
political bent?' They were left of left."
Giuliani reports that he has been trying to get anyone in
law enforcement to look at his evidence and no one will. "I am willing to
show this to anybody who wants to pay attention to it. So far law enforcement
has been afraid to look at it." Obviously, it's time for Giuliani to
release the evidence to the press. PJ Media reached out to Giuliani's office
and offered to publish this evidence, but have not heard back yet.
Watch the interview below.
[Posted by Fox News
3.9M subscribers - Dec 16, 2019
Trump's personal lawyer Rudy
Giuliani returns to Fox News claiming he has proof that impeachment is a
'cover-up' and explains why he was recently in Ukraine. … MORE TO READ]
Megan Fox is the author of “Believe Evidence; The Death of Due
Process from Salome to #MeToo.” Follow on Twitter
@MeganFoxWriter
+++++++++++++++++++
The Impeachment Theater of the Absurd
Ironically, by claiming he needs more witnesses,
Schumer is admitting that the House impeachment case is insufficient!
Dec. 18, 2019
“The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the
United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction
of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” —U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section
4 (1789)
In Federalist
No. 65, Alexander Hamilton outlined the Senate’s
powers of impeachment, noting: “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.”
In 1788, our Founders anticipated that future senators
should possess at least a modicum of decency, such that they would be able to
judge articles of impeachment on the merits of such charges.
But Hamilton also noted that impeachment would “agitate the
passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less
friendly or inimical to the accused.” He concluded, “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 partisanship that attended the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury (for which
he was disbarred) was but a mere shadow of the all-consuming hatred the Democrat Party has for Donald Trump — a partisan hatred
fanned and fueled nationwide by their shameless Leftmedia
publicists.
And it’s within this disgraceful climate that the House of
Representatives will vote today, on partisan lines, to refer articles of
impeachment to the Senate for trial.
In preparation for that show trial, Senate Majority Leader
Mitch McConnell declared, “I think we’re going to get almost entirely partisan
impeachment. I would anticipate an almost entirely partisan outcome in the
Senate as well.”
He added, “Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating
with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the
president’s position and our position as to how to handle this.”
Laughably, McConnell’s transparency led a demand from Sen.
Chuck Schumer that he “recuse himself” from the entire impeachment proceeding:
“Do the American people want Mitch McConnell not to be an impartial juror in
this situation? I would ask every one of our Republican colleagues, ‘Do you
want someone who proudly says they are not impartial to be on a jury, judging
high crimes and misdemeanors, serious charges against the president of the
United States?’ And I would ask every one of my Republican Senate colleagues,
‘Are you impartial jurors or are you like Mitch McConnell, proud not to be?’”
McConnell responded to Schumer, “I am not an impartial jury.
This is a political process. There’s not anything judicial about it.
Impeachment is a political decision.”
Of course, the list of those who most arguably should
be recused because of conflict of interest or lack of impartiality starts with
the most biased members of the Senate — those Demo candidates hoping to unseat
Trump: Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, and
Michael Bennet.
Hypothetically, a non-voluntary recusal would require a
motion by one senator and would be decided by Chief Justice John Roberts,
presiding. His ruling would then be appealed for a full floor vote. But if such
a dubious claim were made and a vote called, it would likely result in a domino
effect — 99 more votes, with the Republican majority ultimately prevailing by
recusing each minority member, one by one.
None of that should happen in the Senate.
But weeks before these howls for McConnell’s recusal, I
contemplated this recusal issue as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold
Nadler displayed his historic, long-seething hatred for Trump while presiding
over Rep. Adam Schiff’s contrived impeachment charges —
charges that were devoid of any evidence of “treason, bribery or other high
crimes and misdemeanors.”
By “historic,” I don’t mean since the 2016 election, but
since Nadler was in the New York State Assembly 35 years ago.
Back then, their dispute started when Nadler opposed Trump’s
development of blighted sections of New York, becoming his arch adversary. So
contentious was their antipathy for each other that in Trump’s 2000 book, The
America We Deserve, he singled out Nadler as “one of the most egregious
hacks in contemporary politics.”
After Trump’s election, Nadler posted on his official
website a manifesto for the resistance
detailing a plan for how to dispose of Trump: “We cannot wait four years to
vote Mr. Trump out of office, as members of the GOP Senate and House Majorities
have already stated that they will facilitate the Trump agenda. … So we must do
everything we can to stop Trump and his extreme agenda now.”
Nadler called for “fierce battles against every regressive
action he takes — from personnel appointments to his legislative program — in
order to thwart or at least slow them down [and expose] his Republican enablers
in Congress, voting them out of office in 2018, with the goal of taking back
either the House or the Senate for Democratic control.”
“To achieve this,” insisted Nadler, “we must keep our eyes
on two important goals: depressing Trump’s public support and dividing the
Congressional GOP from him and from each other.”
And Democrats want McConnell to recuse himself?
If the head of the Judiciary Committee were held to a
standard even remotely similar to that of a judge, Nadler’s vitriolic animus
toward Trump would have been grounds for recusal, or even impeachment if
necessary. Indeed, a legitimate process would’ve seen Nadler ousted before the
first day’s testimony.
In his opening statement last month, Nadler declared: “We
cannot rely on an election to solve our problems.”
In other words, Nadler and his fellow congressional
Democrats cannot rely on the will and the wisdom of the American people.
Clearly, they had no intention of doing so — even before Trump took office.
The evidence of their slo-mo coup d'état to take down Trump is
now emerging, most notably with the exposure last week of the felonious FBI/FISA fiasco. A handful of Demo deep-state operatives in the FBI
and CIA used that subterfuge to seed the Mueller investigation charade,
which led to the current double-standard impeachment inquisition
parade.
And recall what Nadler said about the impeachment of Bill
Clinton in 1998: “We must not overturn an election and remove a president from
office … without an overwhelming consensus of the American people. There must
never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our
major political parties and opposed by the other.”
So, after Nadler’s predictable party-line committee vote, we now
await the next episode of this political theater — a House vote that will most
assuredly be a “narrowly voted impeachment … supported by one of our major
political parties and opposed by the other.”
For his part, on the eve of the House vote, Trump issued a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi Tuesday
that included the following key points in his typical rhetorical form:
“This impeachment represents an unprecedented and
unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two
and a half centuries of American legislative history. The Articles of
Impeachment introduced by the House Judiciary Committee are not recognizable
under any standard of Constitutional theory, interpretation, or jurisprudence.
They include no crimes, no misdemeanors, and no offenses… Your first claim, ‘Abuse
of Power,’ is a completely disingenuous, meritless, and baseless… The second
claim, so-called ‘Obstruction of Congress,’ is preposterous and dangerous. …
Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans of
faith by continually saying ‘I pray for the President,’ when you know this
statement is not true… Speaker Pelosi, you admitted just last week at a public
forum that your party’s impeachment effort has been going on for ‘two and a
half years,’ long before you ever heard about a phone call with Ukraine. …
Before the Impeachment Hoax, it was the Russian Witch Hunt. … You are the
ones interfering in America’s elections.
You are the ones subverting America’s Democracy. You are the ones Obstructing
Justice.”
Trump continued: “By proceeding with your invalid
impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your
allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on American
Democracy. … You and your party are desperate to distract from America’s extraordinary economy,
incredible jobs boom, record stock market, soaring confidence, and flourishing
citizens. Your party simply cannot compete with our record. … Any
member of Congress who votes in support of impeachment — against every shred of
truth, fact, evidence, and legal principle — is showing deeply they revile the
voters and how truly they detest America’s Constitutional order. … Our Founders
feared the tribalization of partisan politics, and you are bringing their worst
fears to life.”
And that, fellow Patriots, adequately sums up this sorry
affair. And the House vote comes in the same week we learned about the
politically motivated FISA court abuses that seeded the
whole effort to undermine Trump’s presidency.
The House of Representatives has initiated impeachment
proceedings more than 60 times since 1789. Of the 19 federal officeholders or
officials who’ve been brought up on impeachment charges, only eight have been
convicted — all federal judges. Of the two presidents tried in the Senate —
Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton — both had the charges dismissed after the
Senate failed to meet its two-thirds majority requirement for conviction.
The Demo charges against Trump will also be dismissed, for
the reasons outlined by the president in his letter to Pelosi. But the
trivialization of impeachment removes the already low bar on constitutional Rule of Law, creating a menacing
threat to Liberty.
In order to keep the Demos’ Trump/Russia/Ukraine narrative
on life support after the Senate vote, Schumer will continue to claim that
Trump is guilty, but that Republicans wouldn’t allow his witnesses to prove it.
Those would be the same witnesses that the House could have called in its
hearings — but didn’t in order to provide Schumer his “witness denial” layup.
Ironically, by claiming he needs more witnesses, Schumer is admitting that the
House impeachment case is insufficient!
In Federalist
No. 69, Alexander Hamilton described impeachment as a
pressure release valve in order to avoid the “crisis of a national revolution.”
But this round of impeachment, if it were to actually succeed, would most
assuredly set up a “crisis of a national revolution.”
P.S. Patriots, the most cost-effective investment you
can make to ensure the future of Liberty is to support The Patriot Post. We’re the
Web’s most influential grassroots journal for promoting freedom and challenging
the dominant Leftmedia narrative. We rely 100% on the voluntary financial
support of Patriots like you, so please support our Year-End Campaign
today. Thank you.
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776
++++++++++++++++++
Blog Editor: Rather than
capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post
and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship
tactic I’ve experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false
accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat
censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you
belong to.
__________________________
Giuliani Says He's
Uncovered 'Two Major' Money-Laundering/Bribery Schemes Involving Joe Biden,
Obama Admin
_______________________
The Impeachment Theater of
the Absurd
