Posts Tagged ‘Impeachment’

The Political Assassination of MAGA

Tuesday, February 2nd, 2021

Trial Behind Razor Wire – Capitol Remains Armed Camp for Unconstitutional Impeachment Trial

Next week, the United States Senate will take up the unconstitutional impeachment of a former office-holder. Their intention would seem to be to prohibit Donald Trump from holding political office again. While the impeachment itself is unconstitutional, the very punishment they seek is even more perverse. As bad as all of this is and seems, it’s also something still worse. The real object of this coming show trial is to permanently damage Donald J. Trump in the eyes of the world and the American people, and with him, all the people who have and continue to support him. This is a broad attack on political speech, and a despicable attempt to gin-up emotions against a former president with two purposes. The first is to simply and permanently politically damage him, since they strongly suspect they cannot get to the 67 vote threshold to convict him. The second is to defame his supporters as domestic terrorists and insurrectionists. It’s not merely about making sure that Trump is never foolish enough to seek office again, but to see to it that those who supported him will never have a political voice again. In part then, this is about the future of Donald Trump, but more critically, this is about the future of the country and how they intend to gain submission of a nation. This is a mass political assassination, of a President, and of 75 million(plus) Americans. While Trump will be named, you will be tried and convicted in absentia.

First, let us cover the technical facts. The constitution makes plain that an impeachment has two objects, and that they are not separable:

“Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law.” — US Const Art I., Section 3 (emphasis added in red)

I call your attention to the word “and.” This is not an either-or proposition. This is specifically a matter of one unified punishment for high crimes and misdemeanors, and the word “and” here means these two remedies (removal and prohibition from holding future offices) are inseparable. One cannot simply say “well, he’s out of office, so we’re just going to prohibit him from holding the office again.” It doesn’t work that way. The use of the word “and” in this context makes it plain.

Second, to the legitimacy of the whole procedure, consider the following:

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.” — US Const Art II, Section 4 (emphasis added in red)

Who is the President? It is currently Joe Biden. Unless the Democrats wish to admit that they stole the election and that Donald J. Trump is still the legitimate President of the United States, it is impossible to impeach and remove Donald J. Trump from the Presidency because he is not the President. The United States has exactly one President at any one time. Therefore, nothing about this impeachment is constitutional, and that fact is why even Chief Justice Roberts, constitution-murderer that he is, recognizes that he cannot preside over the impeachment trial of a man who is no longer President.

Again, referring to the constitution:

“The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.” — US Const Art I, Section 3 (emphasis added in red)

The Democrats are arguing that Senator Leahy shall preside, and that this is okay since Trump is no longer President, but if Trump is no longer President, then they have no authority to impeach, try, or in any way molest private citizen Donald J. Trump.

This should be enough to understand why this whole procedure is and must be adjudged entirely unconstitutional. This is a legal, constitutional farce, and frankly, the people carrying this forward are acting as actual enemies of the United States.

This is the obvious answer to this entire hoax of an impeachment. What makes all of this dangerous, however, is what they are going to use this opportunity to do in the political realm. It is intended to divide the American people even more deeply, and to damn roughly one-half of the electorate as insurrectionists and terrorists, i.e., domestic enemies. The idea being advanced is that the people who carried out the debacle at the Capitol on January 6th were representative of seventy-five million(plus) Americans who support Donald Trump. The notion is to create such a hew and cry against Donald Trump that if ever he seeks office again, they will place first an obstacle of illegitimacy before him, and secondly, they will associate all those who would seek to again elect him as terrorists.

This is a danger far in excess of the perverse and wholly unconstitutional impeachment trial to be carried out next week. As bad as it is, and as constitutionally laughable as it may be, the trial will be used as a platform to try MAGA in absentia. You will not be defended. You will have no voice in the US Senate. Their presiding officer, Senator Patrick “Leaky” Leahy, will undoubtedly rule any arguments out of bounds. This will be a show trial of epic proportions, intended to defame and diminish you. This is about expunging Donald Trump from the history of the United States, and with him, all those who supported his election and presidency. Those who raised questions about the legitimacy of the completely fraudulent election of November 2020 will be adjudged as guilty of a form of treason, but without the ability to answer, refute, or in any way defend against the charge. There will be no manner by which you will be given a voice, and the handfull of RINOs who will support this exercise hate you just as much as they hate Donald Trump.

The only recourse remaining to you, having been silenced and squelched in social media, and having been derided and defamed in the so-called mainstream media will be to ring the phones and fill the inboxes of every US Senator, of either party, and to let them know that you will remember their conduct with this show trial and railroading of MAGA. That’s what this is, after all, and it’s intended to wipe you from the American political landscape. Joe Biden is not long for the presidency. His rapidly declining mental capacity is becoming dangerously apparent, and the media is having difficulty concealing it, so that I expect by late summer, or certainly by this time next year, Kamala Harris, a wholly unlikable political prostitute, will be thrust upon us as the President of the United States. The Democrat/DeepState program of wrecking the United States is resuming apace, and left unchallenged, we will absolutely lose our country. The political assassination of MAGA, both Trump and his supporters, is intended to eliminate the opposition when she runs for re-election in 2024, giving Democrats the ability to finalize the destruction. Welcome to the Great Reset.

Advertisements

Panetta Testimony Prompts Resolution Threatening Impeachment

Monday, March 12th, 2012

A Bridge Too Far?

The Obama administration is signaling that it will overstep its bounds again, this time with respect to Syria.  Many in Congress were upset by President Obama’s use of military force against Libya without Congressional approval.  This issue again raises questions about when this nation goes to war, what constitutes the actual making of war, and what is an effective limitation on executive authority in this respect.  More pressing than this, however, may be an underlying notion put forward by Secretary of Defense Leon Panetta on consultation with our allies and the international community before even talking to Congress.  A resolution is being offered that threatens an impeachment should President Obama step outside the bounds of his authority and fail to consult with Congress in order to gain their approval before engaging American forces.

Congressman Walter B. Jones Jr.(R-N.C.,) has introduced a resolution stating that should the president use offensive military force without prior authorization by an act of Congress, “it is the sense of Congress” that any such actions would constitute “an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor.” Of course, introducing such a resolution and actually passing it, and then subsequently acting upon it are very different things.  According to WND, former Congressman Tom Tancredo believes the bill was offered as a response to the following statement by Leon Panetta, now serving as Secretary of State:

“Our goal would be to seek international permission and we would … come to the Congress and inform you and determine how best to approach this, whether or not we would want to get permission from the Congress – I think those are issues we would have to discuss as we decide what to do here.”

This was Panetta’s response to Senator Jeff Session(R-Al,) during testimony before the Senate Armed Services Committee.  There has long been a significant division between presidents and congresses on the use of military force, but this is an escalation of sorts, because what it admits is that the Obama administration is willing to seek permission from international bodies like the United Nations, but not willing to seek approval from Congress.  That’s an absurd reversal of precedent in many respect, because the Article I, Section 8 of the US Constitution provides that it shall be Congress that has the authority to declare war.

Here’s video of the exchange:

Of course, what Presidents have long asserted is that not all military actions constitute a war by traditional definition, and that various military incursions do not require approval of Congress.  For instance, the operational security of some strikes might be compromised if the President had to go to Congress for each relatively small action.  There is a certain truth to this, but at the same time, Congress has addressed this with the  War Powers Act, that virtually every President has ignored ever since it was passed.  There are vigorous debates over the constitutionality of that act, but what remains certain is that when it comes to declaring war, Congress is the proper authority.  Instead, the argument revolves around what constitutes a war requiring that declaration from Congress.

Congress has itself added to the confusion, by passing resolutions that “authorize the use of force” in various contexts, but they have not issued an “resolution of war” since 1941.  If Congress is going to assert its authority, it has a long line of precedents it established by its own intransigence or malingering in the last seventy or so years since it last summoned the will to declare war.  This has been part of the case that previous presidents have made with respect to Congressional objections in the last four or five decades.

On the other hand, if the Congress actually passes Congressman Jones’ resolution, this might signal the willingness of Congress to take a more fundamentally active role in the foreign and military affairs of the nation. While all presidents would prefer a Congress to act as rubber-stamps for their foreign and military affairs agenda, the fact is that President Obama has been governing wildly outside the norm as commander-in-chief, and his intransigence to long-standing American foreign policy interests is a sore spot in many quarters.  His willingness to abandon allies, or support former enemies is a troubling development, and this may be leading Congress to finally re-examine its largely inactive role in that part of the policy arena. Here is the complete wording of the resolution:

Expressing the sense of Congress that the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Whereas the cornerstone of the Republic is honoring Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under article I, section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution: Now, therefore, be it

Resolved by the House of Representatives (the Senate concurring), That it is the sense of Congress that, except in response to an actual or imminent attack against the territory of the United States, the use of offensive military force by a president without prior and clear authorization of an act of Congress violates Congress’s exclusive power to declare war under Article I, Section 8, clause 11 of the Constitution and therefore constitutes an impeachable high crime and misdemeanor under Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution.

Readers should bear in mind that any such resolution, to carry any force, would need to be approved by the  House and the Senate, but that would require the resolution being brought up for a vote.  That would effectively require Speaker John Boehner(R-OH) to be in favor of it, or at least willing to put it up for a vote, and I suspect this may not be the case.  Boehner has long avoided controversial maneuvers simply because he wants to avoid the possible political fall-out, meaning in too many cases, he has been unwilling to do that which is right in favor of that which he can do in relative political safety. More importantly, it would have to come to a vote in the Senate, and there’s virtually no chance of Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid(D-NV) would ever permit that.  This strangely means that Boehner might be willing to bring it up for a vote, since he knows it would go nowhere in the Senate.  That would merely continue the trend of Congress doing nothing to sustain its own power in foreign and military affairs, and that’s what readers should expect.