Impeachment

Whistleblower and Schiff Staffer In 2017 Coup Talks (UPDATE)

Published by Papa Giorgio

(UPDATE: I had to edit out the name of Eric Ciaramella in the description in order for YouTube to publish this audio. The monolithic thought is amazing to me, and the 1984 beginnings are unmistakable. Obviously no Federal or State law says a person’s name cannot be used… and, in fact, the “whistleblower” statute merely protects the person from on the job harassment by superiors. Not to nix his name from the public. Weird.)

Real Clear Investigations and Red State (linked below respectively) have great stories on these two colleagues (comrades?) discussing how to remove Trump from office 2-weeks after he was inaugurated — insurance policy 2.0 two-weeks after Trump was inaugurated (!):

RED STATE:

……Source 1 said, “Just days after he [Trump] was sworn in, they [Ciaramella and Misko] were already talking about trying to get rid of him. They weren’t just bent on subverting his agenda. They were plotting to actually have him removed from office.”

Sources told Sperry that Misko had been the Schiff staff member whom Ciaramella had “reached out to” for “guidance” before submitting his complaint with the Intelligence Community Inspector General, Michael Atkinson.

Sperry writes:

The coordination between the official believed to be the whistleblower and a key Democratic staffer, details of which are disclosed here for the first time, undercuts the narrative that impeachment developed spontaneously out of the “patriotism” of an “apolitical civil servant.”

Two former co-workers said they overheard Ciaramella and Misko, close friends and Democrats held over from the Obama administration, discussing how to “take out,” or remove, the new president from office within days of Trump’s inauguration. These co-workers said the president’s controversial Ukraine phone call in July 2019 provided the pretext they and their Democratic allies had been looking for.

[….]

Source 1 said, “They were popping off about how they were going to remove Trump from office. No joke.”

[….]

He had also heard Ciaramella tell Misko, “‘We can’t let him enact this foreign policy.’“

Source 2 said he reported what he’d overheard to his superiors. “It was so shocking that they were so blatant and outspoken about their opinion,” he recalled. “They weren’t shouting it, but they didn’t seem to feel the need to hide it.”

The co-workers, [sources 1 and 2] didn’t think much more about the incident…..

Senate Impeachment Is A Political Process (Schumer v. Schumer)

Published by Papa Giorgio
  • “It’s her duty to turn it over. It’s not some mechanism she can control,” – House Minority Whip Steve Scalise (WASHINGTON TIMES)

Like a previous post[s], the Democrats try to control Nature (by legislating Climate Control) and Nature (by saying gender does not exist through legislation). They also wish to control the Constitutional process the Founders clearly laid before us. And in doing so, they (the Democrats) are blowing previous agreed upon rules and their own conduct out of the water — thus proving — Senator McConnell’s understanding (not disproving) that this is a political process:

In the 1999 video clip, Schumer told Larry King:  “We have a pre-opinion [before the trial starts]. This is not a criminal trial, but this is something that the Founding Fathers decided to put in a body that was susceptible to the whims of politics.”

King replied: “So therefore, anybody…can have a pre-opinion; it’s not a jury box.”

Schumer replied that the Senate impeachment trial is “not like a jury box [because] people will call us and lobby us. It’s quite different than a jury. We’re also the judge.”

In other words, Schumer admits that Senators like him can be lobbied and harangued to vote a certain way on impeachment — regardless of whether the burden of proof is met. Why? Because impeachment is a political (not a legal) process.

(BIZPAC)

One comment from my YouTube:

  • How can you tell if a POLITICIAN IS LYING??……… “WHEN THEY START SPEAKING!” DRAIN THE SWAMP! (Deplorable Vet in Tennessee)

Mcconnell Should Hold Impeachment Trial | Without Pelosi’s Ok

Published by Papa Giorgio

(FOX NEWS) “Mitch McConnell shouldn’t be subjecting himself to the extortion of Nancy Pelosi,” Jarrett said to guest host Tammy Bruce. “He can, beginning in January, simply alter the rule or eliminate it entirely and set a date for an impeachment trial.”

[….]

“Simply change the rule, hold a trial, do it. Do it on your own terms,” Jarrett advised McConnell.

Jeff Van Drew’s Reasoning For Switching Parties

Published by Papa Giorgio

Van Drew also says that he was troubled by the leftward lunge of the Democrats: “I’m a proud capitalist”

LEGAL INSURRECTION has some Tweets about the issue:

“The party is moving further and further to the left, where there is discussion of it being a socialist party. And I am a proud capitalist. I believe in hard work. I believe that we can give people opportunity, but that they also, when they get that opportunity, have to work hard to achieve success. You can’t give them success.”

He then says that the final straw for him was being told to vote for impeachment . . . or else.

“But the final sign for me was oddly enough actually in my home county when one of the county chairmen came to me and said, ‘I have to speak with you.’ I said, ‘Sure.’ He said, ‘I just want to let you know that you have to vote for impeachment … If you don’t, you’re not going to be able to run in my county.’”

This didn’t sit well with Van Drew who feels the impeachment articles are “thin” and “weak.”

“This impeachment is a weak, thin impeachment that just doesn’t really mean anything much to most of the American people. It has been a long, dark, shadow on our country.” –@CongressmanJVD pic.twitter.com/cH0EN20D3A

— GOP (@GOP) December 22, 2019

It’s a Process — Impeachment (Alan Dershowitz)

Published by Papa Giorgio

THE BLAZE catalogs the debate between Dershowitz and Laurence Tribe via NEWSMAX. The best book written on the subject is the one pictured here… it delves into the debates over this PROCESS well.

I here reproduce the arguments I think the Founders clearly noted in their deliberations about the impeachment clause:

“It is difficult to imagine anything more unconstitutional, more violative of the intention of the Framers, more of a denial of basic due process and civil liberties, more unfair to the president and more likely to increase the current divisiveness among the American people. Put bluntly, it is hard to imagine a worse idea put forward by good people,” he added.

[….]

“President Trump would stand accused of two articles of impeachment without having an opportunity to be acquitted by the institution selected by the Framers to try all cases of impeachment,” Dershowitz said. “It would be as if a prosecutor deliberately decided to indict a criminal defendant but not to put him on trial.”

[….]

Dershowitz concluded that to deny Trump the “fundamental right” of a speedy trial “might serve the temporary interests of the Democratic Party, and academics who support it, but would do violence to the rule of constitutional law that is supposed to serve all Americans, regardless of party or ideology.”

This echoes leftist Harvard Law Professor Noah Feldman, who testified on behalf of Democrats in front of the House Judiciary Committee earlier this month, essentially saying President Trump isn’t actually impeached until the Pelosi sends the articles to the other side of Capitol Hill. Feldman argues this point in a new piece for Bloomberg titled, “Trump Isn’t Impeached Until the House Tells the Senate.”

  • According to the Constitution, impeachment is a process, not a vote. If the House does not communicate its impeachment to the Senate, it hasn’t actually impeached the president. If the articles are not transmitted, Trump could legitimately say that he wasn’t truly impeached at all.”… (TOWNHALL)

Back-n-Forth from My Facebook Regarding Impeachment

Published by Papa Giorgio

Some conversation arose from the following post on my Facebook — which is a short excerpt and then link to this article:

If you’re like me and getting into conversations with people about the Trump impeachment, then you need a short, simple summary of the facts.

Quote:

Essentially the Democrats are accusing Trump of shaking down Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelensky by withholding aid and demanding announcement of investigations, including one involving Joe Biden’s son, Hunter.

To this, the central charge in the articles of impeachment, Rep. Jim Jordan and others presented four specific facts. First, both Trump and Zelensky say there was no pressure applied. Second, the transcript does not indicate Trump making any demands or setting any conditions. Third, Ukraine was not aware that the aid was delayed. And fourth, aid flowed without any announcement of investigations. Taken together, these four defenses have more than enough weight to crush the Democrats’ case, but lets look at them one by one.

Here are some conversations via the above with JIM G. First up, the proclivity of people to offer psychoanalyses about other peoples position based on the interpreter’s (JIM G.) dislike of a person:

JIM G.

Of course Zelensky says their was no pressure. He knows Trump will make him pay dearly if he says anything else. Ukraine desperately needs our support and Trump has already revealed his willingness to withhold that support.

SEAN G.

Trump didn’t reveal anything of the sort. Zelenski got javelins before and after the phone call. I guess the real question is is why did Democrats not help the Ukraine?

JIM G.

first of all, it’s “Ukraine,” not “the Ukraine” just like it is “Canada,” not “the Canada.”

As for why Democrats did not help, I don’t know. But that does not excuse Trump’s attempted shakedown.

[….]

Jordan’s analysis of the so called “transcript” is absurd. It’s like he holds up a black piece of paper and says, “Look, it’s white!”

SEAN G.

if the paper being held up is “black” as you say. Why didn’t the Democrats include an impeachment article saying it was black?

Let me explain this a bit. I have already shared this with JIM, but I want to remind my audience as well with an excerpt from a previous convo also on Facebook:

  • So two articles of impeachment have been put forward. Bribery was what CNN says was the Crux of the case a few weeks ago. However, remember all the terms changed over time: quid pro quo, to extortion, to bribery, to obstruction of justice. None of these are part of the impeachment articles. One impeachment article is “obstruction of Congress” (read here Democrats). What a joke! I think a bulk of the American voters see through this sham/witch Hunt.

This is what I am referring to.

JIM G.

Yes, Ukraine was aware that the aid was delayed.

Aid only flowed after Trump knew he was caught.

SEAN G.

[quote]

One of the few facts in all of this where there is some debate is when exactly Ukraine became aware that the military aid had been delayed. But all versions place it very late in the timeline of events, certainly long after the July 25 phone call with Zelensky. That’s like trying to blackmail someone with scandalous photos of them without letting them know you have any scandalous photos of them. It’s impossible.

The delay of the aid was part of a wider set of concerns regarding how much Ukraine could be trusted with the money. Throughout the late summer and fall, through a set of meetings and phone calls with American officials Zelensky proved to Trump that he could be trusted. That is what Trump wanted to know and why he released the aid without any announcement of investigations.

And that final fact, that the aid was released without the announcements Democrats claim were the condition to release them, really puts the period on the sentence. Democrats claim the aid was only released on September 11 because the White House became aware of the whistleblower report. But this ignores the fact the aid had to release by September 30, and doing so is a two-week process.

So essentially, aid was released on or about the deadline set to release it. That is a much more plausible explanation for the timing than some whistleblower report spooking Trump. Is it possible Trump was angry at yet again being undermined by people in the federal government for exercising his legitimate powers? Sure. But there is no evidence to suggest that Trump was ever planning to ultimately kill the aid.

(again, THE FEDERALIST)

[un-quote]

The aid was set to be released at a certain time, and it was… Not because “Trump thought he was caught.” Dumb.

I then posted this as a reminder that there is no quid-pro-quo in the call. No bribery, or anything like it:

Hugh Hewitt and Generalissimo Duane read the phone call Trump had with the Ukrainian President. One debunked position people attribute to the call was that President Trump used military aid as a barganing chip to get what he wanted from Ukraine. However, the far Left magazine, THE NATION, notes this about the issue:

  • Democratic leaders and media pundits are convinced that Trump extorted Ukraine by delaying military aid to compel an investigation into Biden. Their theory may prove correct, but the available evidence does not, as of now, make for a strong case. Trump had held up military aid to Ukraine by the time of his call with Zelensky, but if the public transcript is accurate, it did not come up during their conversation. According to The New York Times, Zelensky’s government did not learn that the military aid was frozen until more than one month later. Democratic Senator Chris Murphy, who met with Zelensky in early September, said that the Ukrainian president “did not make any connection between the aid that had been cut off and the requests that he was getting from [Trump attorney Rudy] Giuliani.” It will be difficult to prove extortion if Trump’s purported target was unaware.

Here is where I have had a response in my quiver for two-months that in the following convo I FINALLY got to use (and yes, like a true nerd I was excited when I saw JIM’S response):

... C (a)

JIM G.

It’s a summary edited by the White House. It’s not a transcript.

I will add to the conversation below so the reader here has a fuller picture of the issue to help them respond to family/friends/co-workers/etc:

SEAN G.

It is [a transcript]. In fact, TIN BOY Vindman said a single word was missing [from the transcript that he tried to have reinserted], and it didn’t change the meaning of the transcript.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman testified in Tuesday’s impeachment hearing that the omission of the word “Burisma” — the Ukrainian natural gas firm that hired Hunter Biden to serve in a lucrative role on the board — in the transcript of President Trump’s July 25 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky was not “significant,” despite some prior controversy over the missing references.
(video linked in original conversation directly below)

It is worse than that though. GATEWAY PUNDIT notes the total lack of conspiracy theories proffered by the Left and #NeverTrumpers.

Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman, a National Security Council aide, was one of three people on the infamous July 25 phone call between President Trump and Ukraine President Volodymyr Zelensky. Democrats allege that Trump demanded Zelensky investigate the business dealings of Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, with Ukrainian power company Burisma, then omitted the word from a transcript of the call, which they say White House then hid in a secure server.

Not so, Vindman said.

Vindman testified under oath in Tuesday’s impeachment hearing before the House Intelligence Committee that the omission of the word “Burisma” was not “significant.”

He attributed the omission “to the fact that this transcript being produced may have not caught the word Burisma.”

“It was in the transcript that was released as ‘the company,’ which is accurate,” Vindman testified. “It’s not a significant omission,” he said, later adding: “I didn’t see that as nefarious.” Vindman added that it was “informed speculation that the folks that produce these transcripts do the best they can, and they just didn’t catch the word.”

He also shot down conspiracy theories that the White House moved the call transcript to a secure server to keep it from Democrats.

Again, not so, Vindman said.

Vindman testified Tuesday that storing the transcript in a secure server was not unusual.

“Why would it be put on a separate secure system?” Vindman was asked.

“This is definitely not unprecedented,” he said. “At times, if you want to limit access to a smaller group of folks you put it on the secure system to insure that a smaller group of people with access to the secure system have it.”

BaBoom! Every key witness shot down major MSM and Democrat conspiracy stories.

…CONTINUING WITH OUR EXCHANGE…

... C (b)

JIM G.

the call was approximately 30 minutes. The “transcript” covers roughly 10 minutes.

Here it is… the Pièce De Résistance

SEAN G.

almost 15-minutes. The translators had to translate… [which] essentially doubles the time

Those were the best parts from that convo.

Christianity Today Hates Religious Freedom (Hugh Hewitt)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Hugh Hewitt quickly deals with the Christianity Today article seeking Trump’s removal from office.

First, there was no quid-pro-quo in the call… here is the entire transcript read out loud:

Also, there was nothing in the articles of impeachment anywhere near a “high-crime-and-misdemeanor”

So two articles of impeachment have been put forward. Bribery was what CNN says was the Crux of the case a few weeks ago. However, remember all the terms changed over time: quid pro quo, to extortion, to bribery, to obstruction of justice. None of these are part of the impeachment articles. One impeachment article is “obstruction of Congress” (read here Democrats). What a joke! I think a bulk of the American voters see through this sham/witch Hunt.

(RPT: IG Report Slams FBI and Others)

More regarding Christianity Today via LIFE NEWS:

…Franklin Graham called out the magazine on social media saying, in part: “Yes, @BillyGraham founded Christianity Today; but no, he would not agree w/ their piece. He’d be disappointed.” He later tweeted this revealing fact about his father: “I hadn’t shared who my father @BillyGraham voted for in 2016, but because of @CTMagazine’s article, I felt it necessary to share now. My father knew @realDonaldTrump, believed in him & voted for him. He believed Donald J. Trump was the man for this hour in history for our nation.”

Uhhh, mic drop.

Christianity Today didn’t call for the removal of a Presidential Predator—Bill Clinton. In their 1998 article entitled “The Prodigal Who Didn’t Come Home”, they lamented his inadequate “apology.” According to CT, Clinton merely “missed a truly historic moment” with what could’ve been a “straightforward admission.” But the conclusion of the article really showed the “progressive” magazine’s hopes for the impeached President: “At this writing, we expect Clinton to hang tough, to remain the comeback kid he is known to be.”

That was gracious.

Then there was the 1974 CT editorial that asked the question “Should Nixon Resign?” In it, there is never a call for removal. “The transcripts show him to be a person who has failed gravely to live up to the moral demands of our Judeo-Christian heritage. We do not expect perfection, but we rightly expect our leaders, and especially our President, to practice a higher level of morality than the tapes reveal,” writes CT. I agree with those sentiments exactly. We should expect so much more from our elected leaders. It is tragic how Christians, too often, repeatedly justify political corruption over personal character all in the name of Party allegiance. The following two sentences show CT’s blatant contradiction, though: “Yet the Constitution does not provide for the removal of a President because of moral flaws. To resign would be to leave the presidency for other than a constitutional offense.”

Christianity Today, and many other liberal evangelical outlets, rightfully point out the moral failings in (select) elected leaders. Yet they often fail to apply the same standards to those on the Left, especially when those politicians are advocating issues that CT champions. But where was the call for removal of President Barack Obama? For the first time in history, an American President keynoted a fundraising gala for the leading killer of those made in God’s image—Planned Parenthood. Though Obama campaigned on “middle ground” rhetoric regarding abortion, he never sought it as President. In fact, he was the most radically pro-abortion President in history. Eerily echoing Democrat Governor George Wallace’s famous segregation declaration, Obama proclaimed at the gala: “Planned Parenthood is not going anywhere. It’s not going anywhere today. It’s not going anywhere tomorrow.” The response from the crowd was thunderous applause. He ended the speech to the organization that kills over 330,000 of the most marginalized and most victimized in our society: “God Bless Planned Parenthood!”

But enabling and supporting the shedding of innocent blood apparently isn’t enough for Christianity Today to have called for the ousting of President Barack Obama. That behavior wasn’t immoral enough for his removal.

[….]

…I find the Left’s obsession with demonizing and distorting his every action and word equally as immoral. Slander is a sin, too, people. I’ll never be invited, like many of my colleagues, to the Trump White House. I’ve never been a Trump apologist, but I will defend the rule of law. I know the alternative to a Trump presidency would’ve been a Hillary Clinton presidency. I didn’t choose the lesser of two evils. I chose to vote my conscience with a Party platform that aligns with my faith and common sense….

Pelosi Admits They’ve Been Trying to Impeach Trump For 2 1/2 Years

Published by Papa Giorgio

Nancy Pelosi claimed that

  • “’No member, regardless of party or politics, comes to Congress to impeach a president,’ Mrs. Pelosi, California Democrat, said during the floor debate on two articles of impeachment against Mr. Trump.” (WASHINGTON TIMES)

Maxine Waters and Rashida Tlaib literally came to Congress wanting that. Also, Nancy admitted it is what she wanted, via THE FEDERALIST PAPERS

…But five days before that speech she gave another where she let the American citizens see behind the curtain.

“You’ve been hesitant for weeks to make the move and cautious to make this move to impeach. Was there an ‘aha’ moment for your personally, a piece of evidence or testimony that swayed you now to take this step?” a reporter asked.

“Well, I’m glad you asked that question, because all I hear from the press is that I move so swiftly that it’s like a blur going by.

“This has been a couple of years – two and a half – since the initial investigation of the U.S. – of the Russian involvement in America’s election, which started much of this and led to other things,” she said.

Was it a mistake? It could be that she did not mean to say that. But wait, there was another reporter, another question and another answer.

“So, all along I said for two years, this is an impeachment, it is not a pleasant experience, it can be divisive. We don’t take any glee in this at all. It is heartbreaking,” she said.

Two mistakes? That is possible. Everyone makes mistakes. Let’s see her answer to a third question.

“We feel comfortable with all of the time that has gone into this, two and a half years since the appointment of Mueller and all that that has, that has transpired since then.

“I’m not, I have confidence, humility, again a heart full of love for America,” she said.

I do not know, I’m not an expert, but when someone tells me that they have been working on something for two and a half years, and they say it three times, I take them at their word….

The media as well:

  • There was this racy headline, from Vanity Fair on Nov. 14, 2016: “Will Trump Be Impeached?”
  • Then this, yet another Vanity Fair piece, on Dec. 15, 2016: “Democrats Are Paving the Way to Impeach Donald Trump.”
  • There was this, from The New York Times, in an opinion headline from Nov. 3, 2016: “Donald Trump’s Impeachment Threat.”
  • Remember: Trump wasn’t inaugurated until Jan. 20, 2017. He wasn’t even elected president until Nov. 8, 2016.

GOP Rep. Clay Higgins (R-LA) Is Legend!

Published by Papa Giorgio

He should have ended with something like: “I surrender my time, but not my will.”

Full Transcript:

  • I have descended into the belly of the beast. I have witnessed the terror within and I rise committed to oppose the insidious forces which threaten our Republic. America is being severely injured by this betrayal, by this unjust and weaponized impeachment brought upon us by the same socialists who threaten unborn life in the womb, who threaten First Amendment rights of conservatives, who threaten Second Amendment protections of every American patriot, and who long ago determined that they would organize and conspire to overthrow President Trump. We don’t face this horror because the Democrats have all of the sudden become constitutionalists! We’re not being devoured from within because of some surreal assertion of the Socialists’ newfound love for the very flag they tread upon! We face this horror because of THIS MAP! This is what the Democrats fear. They fear the true will of ‘We the People.’ They are deep establishment D.C. They fear, they call this Republican map ‘flyover country.’ They call us deplorables. They fear our faith. They fear our strength. They fear our unity. They fear our vote and the fear our president. We will NEVER surrender our nation to career establishment DC politicians and bureaucrats. Our Republic shall survive this threat from within. American patriots shall prevail. Mr. Speaker, I yield.

FLASHBACK:

President Trump’s Letter To Speaker Pelosi (Read by Hugh Hewitt)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Hugh Hewitt took the time to read the entire letter from President Trump to Speaker Nancy Pelosi. (If you wish, the entire letter is below for your reading pleasure)

Letter From President Trump… by charliespiering on Scribd

A Brief History Of Democrats Impeaching Trump (LOLZ)

Published by Papa Giorgio

Hugh Hewitt is right, it seems to be a fetish with lefty Democrats. The entire article is worth the time… but here are three of the attempted impeachments from THE FEDERALIST:

A Brief History Of Trump’s Many ‘Impeachable Offenses’

On Twitter, Phil Kerpen posted a helpful list of all the Democrats who supported these impeachment votes. Let’s review them.

Back in December 2017, 58 Democrats voted to advance articles of impeachment for criticizing NFL players who knelt in protest during the national anthem. Rep. Al Green, who drafted the articles, said at the time that Trump, “by causing such harm to the society of the United States is unfit to be president and warrants impeachment, trial and removal from office.”

Rep. Jim McGovern, who managed the floor debate for Thursday’s impeachment vote, said the Ukraine allegations “are as serious as it gets.” But are they? McGovern was among those who voted to impeach Trump for complaining about NFL players.

A month later, in January 2018, Green again brought forward articles of impeachment, this time because Trump described some nations as “sh-thole countries.” This time around, 66 Democrats voted for impeachment, including McGovern (again) and Rep. Maxine Waters, now chair of the House Financial Services Committee.

On Thursday, Waters, who has previously called on her supporters to harass Trump officials in public, said, “I look forward to Democrats and Republicans alike prioritizing country over party.”

The third impeachment vote was even more successful than the first two: 95 Democrats voted for it in July 2019—more than 40 percent of the caucus. Trump’s “high crime” this time around was that he tweeted some mean things about the Squad. He’d said Reps. Alexandria Ocasio-Cortez, Ilhan Omar, Ayanna S. Pressley and Rashida Tlaib should “go back” to their home countries if they don’t like America (all the congresswomen except Omar were born in the United States).

All four of them were among the 95 Democrats who voted for impeachment in July, as was House Judiciary Committee Chair Rep. Jerry Nadler. On Thursday, Nadler said it’s the “solemn duty of the Congress to investigate serious allegations against the president.” Okay.

McConnell Rejects Schumer’s Call for New Witnesses

Published by Papa Giorgio

LEGAL INSURRECTION quoting Axios:

“We don’t create impeachments, Mr. President. We judge them. 

“The House chose this road. It is their duty to investigate. It’s their duty to meet the very high bar for undoing a national election. As Speaker Pelosi herself once said, it is the House’s obligation to, quote, ‘build an ironclad case to act.’

“If they fail, they fail. It is not the Senate’s job to leap into the breach and search desperately for ways to get to guilty. That would hardly be impartial justice.”

— Sen. McConnell