Democrats Drop Bribery and Other Crimes In Favor Of A Two-Article Impeachment

The Democratic leadership announced today that it has decided that President Donald Trump will be accused of just two articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. I commend the Committee in dropping the previous claims of bribery, extortion, campaign finance and obstruction of justice. While my fellow witnesses made good-faith arguments for those articles, my testimony primarily focused on the legal and constitutional flaws in claiming those criminal acts. I also commend the Committee in not following the suggested course of many in ignoring the legal definitions of those crimes to claim an impeachable offense. Finally, Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler is correct as he stated yesterday that I repeatedly stated that President Donald Trump could be impeached for a non-criminal act like abuse of power if it could be proven. I also said that he could be impeached for obstruction of Congress, if proven. However, this record falls considerably short of the record needed to support such claims for a submission to the Senate.

I also testified against adding claims from the Mueller investigation. I have long been critical of claims that obstruction of justice, campaign finance violations and other claimed “proven” offenses by members. The Committee wisely is not going forward with such articles, though it might reference obstruction history.

That leaves the problem that was the focus of my testimony: speed. I do not believe that Chairman Nadler is the one pushing for this rocket docket of impeachment. The problem with these two claims is not their constitutional basis but their evidentiary record. This is the thinnest record created in the shortest time of any modern presidential impeachment. Rather than wait and build a viable case, the Democrats are moving to submit an incomplete and undeveloped record to the Senate. The committees have burned three months where they could have secured judicial review and at least one decision on the missing witnesses. It took two months between the ruling of Judge Sirica in the Nixon case and the final ruling of the Supreme Court that led to Nixon’s resignation.

Nevertheless, while I believe this impeachment is premature and half-formed, I am relieved that the House Judiciary Committee did not toss out the legal definitions of crimes for acts like bribery, extortion, campaign finance, and other crimes declared established by some experts.

There is a reason by President Donald Trump encouraged Democrats to stick to its “impeach by Christmas” pledge. This is the case that Trump would want: one-sided and undeveloped. It is a case that will not withstand Senate scrutiny.

Here is my testimony that includes sections on Obstruction and Abuse of Power.

166 thoughts on “Democrats Drop Bribery and Other Crimes In Favor Of A Two-Article Impeachment”

  1. David B. Benson, it passed in the House of Representatives by purely partisan lines. Don’t say the entire house voted for this, they didn’t, only the democrats did. Purely partisan.

    1. Lindsay Graham has done well for himself and he’s as flimsy as a $3 bill and an ass to boot. And then there is Benghazi Gowdy, jack ass extraordinaire. So apparently IOKIYAR.

  2. Clearly there is only one solution and it is the ballot box in November. Vote out these insane partisans and replace them with reasonable people who are intent on serving America rather than covering up decades of abject corruption. As Americans, we have 3 remedies for poor government: The Soap Box, The Ballot Box and The Cartridge Box. Since President Trump used the soap box so effectively, Americans used the ballot box to send him to DC. If our votes are canceled for no reason, we will have no choice but to get out the cartridge box–and we have a plethora of those. Don’t think it can’t happen. Everyone I know is preparing for it.
    Pray for America, we need God’s help now more than ever.

    “The tree of liberty must be refreshed from time to time with the blood of patriots and tyrants, it is it’s natural manure.” —— Thomas Jefferson 1787

    1. Conservative Tea:
      I don’t doubt your analysis. Regular folks are fed up with being told what to do, how to speak and what to think. It’s palpable anger and the Dims don’t get it or don’t care. Don’t pray for America alone; pray for steady hands and good aim.

      1. there is zero revolutionary organization among patriots etc. and general society is atomized as ever. NRA’s lobbying arm is not going to lead anything anywhere soon. 2d amendment crowd is fooling themselves about what it takes to win in a civil war.

        instead look at how the Chinese peasant communists won against the nationalists, and then the Japenese, and then the nationalists again, in their civil war. the issue is not guns or ammo it is social organization. hate the commies all you want but see how Mao lead them on a nationwide organizational struggle against their rivals. well, i have been telling right wingers this for years and they’re not interested.

        nor is the internet any kind of medium for the kind of communications necessary to bring about a popular revolt.

        I just recommend people get more involved with their communities, there is no substitute for personal face to face connections with folks on the ground around you. a sort of connection that’s fallying by wayside with all the social media garbage.

  3. If Trump is being impeached for anything the democrats want to charge him with, then in principle this is nothing more than a huge political hit job. This does not bode well for our politics in the future. If turnabout is fareplay, will the republicans employed these tactics in the future? If you are really objective, this is not a good course for our country to follow.

    1. I agree, Bob. At some point, perhaps the Republican Party will become convinced that this is just how the game is played. If they behave exactly as Democrats have, it will be total chaos. No election results will be honored. It will be constant politically motivated investigations, accusations, and impeachment. I don’t see how our country could function if both sides acted the same way.

      I’ve never been able to get a Democrat to admit that Republicans would support impeachment if Trump did something that rose to a high crime, or that we have a sincere point in our objection to the impeachment based on the evidence. If there is no reasoning, will we just finally throw in the towel and engage in same?

      1. I think Republicans would be impeaching Trump if the Democrats were not. The Republicans are watching how it’s going and deciding not to try it themselves. Good for them. Trump is NOT a politician and that is why both sides hate him, as he has the potential to interrupt their gravy train of corruption.

        1. “I think Republicans would be impeaching Trump if the Democrats were not”. Based on what? You think that Republicans voting against impeachment means they secretly wish they could do it themselves?

          That makes absolutely no sense.

  4. Remember when Pelosi said about the Bush criminals that impeachment was off the table?

    That’s because she was part of the crimes.

    Lying us into Iraq


    Illegally spying

    And worse

    It’s ironic that democrats are pushing for impeachment of Trump when their own crimes like genocide in Yemen and overthrowing democracies in the Ukraine and Honduras were ignored.

    Abuse of power you say?

    The Fbi used the bogus Steele Dossier to illegally spy on a candidate and sitting president and lied to the FISA court!

    Trump is a piker

  5. “However, this record falls considerably short of the record needed to support such claims for a submission to the Senate.”

    The Senate proceedings consist of a trial, do they not? The House merely develops a “probable cause” ( making an analogy with a criminal proceeding ).

    A Senate trial will allow witnesses to be called who can testify that the president both obstructed Congress and mis-used his office. The obstruction element made it impossible for Congress to develop the record further. For Congress to allow such “stone-walling” tactics to succeed would be to abandon it’s oversight role altogether. No president could ever be impeached, because the president could simply carry on stone-walling until the next election by appealing every decision up to the Supreme court.

    1. George B.,
      Is that what Nixon did? He was not up for reelection, but did he run out the clock until he finished his second term?

    2. George – would you typically proceed to trial without evidence of a crime? When it’s been proven that the allegations were heresay, disproven by the transcript, and even made up?

      Remember when Dr Hill was called on the carpet because her opening statement contained false gossip she heard about Republicans? She was proven to have spread a false rumor in her opening statement.

      I sincerely hope that the criminal justice system would not prosecute such a case, and hope that they could uncover evidence at trial.

  6. David:

    Why woudl it be “required” to have a disagreement and involve the courts?

    The balance of powers is comprised of the executive, legislative, and judicial. Neither shall tyrannize the other. Congress is not the boss of the executive. It granted itself oversight, but that is not control. If there are high crimes and misdemeanors, it may impeach. However, merely not liking his policies is not a reason. There is a vote every 4 years to determine the direction of the country.

    Of course, the judiciary may be invoked in a power struggle or disagreement.

    Are you trying to give Congress control of the presidency? Make Congress more powerful than any of the other two? They have the approval rating of a cockroach. That would not be wise.

    1. It may not be wise but the Constitution clearly gives the House of Representatives the power to indict; four grounds are given. One is High Crimes. Which means whatever the representatives want it to mean.

      Absolutely no role is given to the courts. It is purely a political process.

      1. High Crimes “means whatever the representatives want it to mean.”

        Dems hate Trump = high crimes.

        Are you unaware that you are describing “you show me the man, and I’ll show you his crime?” You are talking about total lawlessness. This kind of governance has led to the massacre of hundreds of millions of people throughout history. Sure, the House is physically capable of lying about the evidence, as they have done. They are capable of gaveling down Republican questions. But it’s wrong.

        If Trump had committed a high crime, such as assassinting Trudeau for mocking him, then there would be bipartisan support. The reason why there is not is because the accusations, yet again, were disproven. This is harassment and fabrication.

        Why do you disagree with Jonathan Turley that it is absurd to view the courts as obstruction? Every President has gone to the courts. It’s ridiculous.

        I will agree this is political, and not in any way just. Pure dirty politics.

        If Democrats are so concerned with the integrity of our election, keeping it free from interference, how about they start with accepting the results of the 2016 election?

        1. David:

          I find it incredibly frustrating that so many people support impeachment, who acknowledge that no high crime was committed. Instead, I hear vapid explanations like yours. Well, a high cream means whatever the House says it means. Going to the courts is obstruction.

          I point out the evidence disproves tying aid to Biden, and there’s no response.

          I ask why Biden should be protected from investigation, merely because he’s running for President, and why Ukraine should not cooperate in an investigation, and it’s ignored.

          I list actual cases of colluding with Russians, lying, destroying evidence, obstruction, etc that was done by prominent Democrats, and there’s silence.

          I point out that if Trump committed a terrible crime, or an evil act, there would be bipartisan support for his impeachment. Therefore, the lack of support from Republicans is not because they refuse to impeach for political reasons, but because it is unjust – crickets.

          Does none of this bother anyone who supports impeachment? This is turning the country into a form of single party state. Sure, a Republican can get elected, but he’ll find no peace. He’ll be hounded by one false allegation after another, and Democrat voters will be serenely untroubled. They won’t even acknowledge that conservatives have a sincere point in their objections. Just…nothing…because it benefits their political team to abuse power. It doesn’t matter what facts or reasoning I present to you. You just ignore what disproves your narrative…which you keep repeating.

          Pelosi was right, but not for the reason she thought. This is a sad day for America.

    2. Yes, Congress is the most powerful of the 3 branches; sets the laws and the budget.

      1. That is a pretty basic foundational principle of our government that you are not aware of.

        The balance of powers. Separation of powers. Checks and balances. If Congress became all powerful, we would be an oligarchy. Have you noticed yet how the Left keeps trending towards tyranny?

        “Separation of Powers

        The Enlightenment philosopher Montesquieu coined the phrase “trias politica,” or separation of powers, in his influential 18th-century work “Spirit of the Laws.” His concept of a government divided into legislative, executive and judicial branches acting independently of each other inspired the framers of the U.S. Constitution, who vehemently opposed concentrating too much power in any one body of government.

        In the Federalist Papers, James Madison wrote of the necessity of the separation of powers to the new nation’s democratic government: “The accumulation of all powers, legislative, executive and judiciary, in the same hands, whether of one, a few, or many, and whether hereditary, self-appointed, or elected, may justly be pronounced the very definition of tyranny.”

        In framing a government which is to be administered by men over men, the great difficulty is this: You must first enable the government to control the governed; and in the next place, oblige it to control itself,” James Madison wrote in the Federalist Papers. To ensure that all three branches of government remain in balance, each branch has powers that can be checked by the other two branches. Here are ways that the executive, judiciary, and legislative branches keep one another in line:

        · The president (head of the executive branch) serves as commander in chief of the military forces, but Congress (legislative branch) appropriates funds for the military and votes to declare war. In addition, the Senate must ratify any peace treaties.

        · Congress has the power of the purse, as it controls the money used to fund any executive actions.

        · The president nominates federal officials, but the Senate confirms those nominations.

        · Within the legislative branch, each house of Congress serves as a check on possible abuses of power by the other. Both the House of Representatives and the Senate have to pass a bill in the same form for it to become law.

        · Once Congress has passed a bill, the president has the power to veto that bill. In turn, Congress can override a regular presidential veto by a two-thirds vote of both houses.

        · The Supreme Court and other federal courts (judicial branch) can declare laws or presidential actions unconstitutional, in a process known as judicial review.

        · In turn, the president checks the judiciary through the power of appointment, which can be used to change the direction of the federal courts

        · By passing amendments to the Constitution, Congress can effectively check the decisions of the Supreme Court.

        · Congress can impeach both members of the executive and judicial branches.”

          1. David:

            “Yes, yes. I did the required civics course in 7th grade.” But…you just said that Congress is more powerful than the other two branches, which means there is no balance of power. Did you pay attention in 7th grade?

            Sorry, I’ve got nothing. I’m at a total loss.

    1. “Yeah, but who would shoot a Goldendoodle?” Turley replied. “Maybe a Shih Tzu, but not a Goldendoodle.” -JT

      SMH. What a stupid thing to say.

      1. Instead of yammer, provide a better essay. I’m not a scholar of jurisprudence.

    1. David – Jonathan Turley has already dispelled the notion that going to the Courts is obstruction. Of COURSE it’s not. That’s how disputes between the branches are resolved, through the Courts.

      An example of obstruction of Congress would be deleting emails while under subpoena. Hillary Clinton

      An example of colluding with the Russians to meddle in our election is to pay for a fake dossier provided by the Russians, composed entirely of rumors that were unsubstantiated. That dossier was then the basis of a FISA warrant. They lacked probably cause before that. The FBI used Russian misinformation to spy upon the Republican candidate, and president. See Hillary Clinton

      An example of an unethical quid pro quo is Joe Biden withholding $1 billion in US aid to Ukraine unless they fired the prosecutor within 6 hours. It was also unethical for his son to work for a company, getting paid orders of magnitude more than his total lack of experience qualified him. His only qualification was that his dad set Ukrainian policy.

      An example of abuse of power, is Congress in this impeachment effort – see the video of Jonathan Turley’s testimony.

      At some point I hope you have your Red Pill Moment. It is Democrats who are committing these wrongs, but blaming their victim for it.

      1. Seems to me that ordering employees to refuse to respond to subpoenas is Obstructing Congress. Similarly for the failure to turn over the record of the call to the Ukraine Prez, which started all this.

        But I only have my common sense, not lotsa book learning on this topic.

        1. ever heard of going to court to quash a subpoena? not squash that’s what makes yummy soup,.

          your can also just defy subpoenas and let the other guy pursue his remedies.

          you obviously never even handled a single civil suit if you think anybody just has to comply with any subpoena. sorry bro it doesnt work that way for any kind of business.

          Trump is the CEO of the executive branch with all the powers and duties that entails

          BOWING to his Lordship Schiff is not one of them

          1. Mr Kurtz, I know almost nothing about the law.

            But Congress has no independent power to compel so indictment is the sole remedy.

        2. David:

          I have told you this before. Trump is not allowed due process. He cannot call the witnesses he wants. He cannot question the witnesses he wants. There are myriad videos on YouTube of Schiff gaveling down Republicans in a purely partisan farce. Evidence shows there was no quid pro quo, yet Schiff has made a series of false and defamatory statements.

          What kind of fool would cooperate if he doesn’t have to? This is why he’s gone to the Courts. This has been explained to you, so why do you keep repeating the same thing? Are you going to just keep saying that going to the Courts is Obstruction? Because that doesn’t hold water.

          1. Karen S, the process in the House of Representatives is akin to a grand jury; the to-be-defendent doesn’t show up.

            If indicted, there is to be a trial in the Senate. Trump’s lawyers can show up then.

            1. David:

              Would you agree that you need all your evidence before the trial? Would you agree that the defendant be allowed due process, including the right to call his own witnesses, and to question witnesses in turn?

        3. David:

          In my post above, I gave you examples of colluding with the Russians and obstruction.

          Don’t ignore these inconvenient truths.

    2. David:

      #1 – Did you read this Wikipedia article in its entirety? It does not appear so.

      #2 – Are you seriously citing Wikipedia to rebut Jonathan Turley that going to the Courts is not obstruction?

      1. #1: Yes I did.

        #2: The Constitution states nothing about involving the courts. Not required.

        1. Then, Benson, if the Constitution days nothing about the courts, then the SCOTUS decision compelling Nixon to turn over the tapes must have been “unconstitutional”.
          Very good legal reasoning from you 😂, Benson. Look forward to more.

        2. In Nixon v. US (1993), SCOTUS threw out former, convicted Federal judge Walter Nixon’s suit alleging that his impeachment by the US Senate was void because they didn’t try him formally, but referred the matter to a subcommittee, then voted to accept the subcommittee’s findings. SCOTUS’s reasoning was that impeachment is not judiciable (the judiciary branch has no say in it), but its parameters are determined by Congress and Congress alone.

          So the House Democrats’ circus and show trial will not so much pass judicial review, but be found not to be judiciable at some point.

          Likewise, if the Senate cuts the Articles of Impeachment up into four-inch squares and places the squares in the stalls of their washroom for their only appropriate use, that won’t be judiciable, either. The House treated the members of the minority party with contempt, and deserve exactly the same thing from the House of Congress they do not control.

    3. David:

      This is what your Wikipedia article stated (which is no substitute for legal scholarship) “See Harvard Law Review “The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for ‘intentional, evil deeds’ that ‘drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency‘—even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws.”[1]

      So, let me get this straight. Have you abandoned the quid pro quo argument, since it is clear that the transcript showed none, and the witnesses based it all on rumors and their own assumptions? In fact, “no one on planet Earth” tied the aid to any investigation? Have you joined the movement that this is now obstruction?

      1. Can you prove that Trump did not believe that there were valid allegations of wrongdoing and criminal acts against Joe Biden? Can you prove that he thought that Biden was innocent, and an investigation was only to damage him for the 2020 election (just like the Democrats have been doing to Trump for the past 3 years with 18 false allegations and counting)?

      2. Why do you believe that going to the courts as a remedy is not only obstructioin of Congress, but an unforgivable abuse and intentional evil deed? Seriously???? Going to Court is evil? How can you type this with a straight face, or are you?

      3. Since all evidence points that there was no quid pro quo, and the Democrats’ own witnesses acknowledged that Joe Biden’s behavior was possibly wrong or unethical, do you agree that pressing on with Impeachment is an abuse of power meant to meddle in the 2020 election? Basically, Demcorats AGAIN are guilty of what they accuse Trump of doing. The evidence shows Trump is innocent. Democrats are persecuting an innocent man in order to weaken him for 2020. In essence, that is what they have accused Trump of. Biden must be a wrongfully accused man for investigating him to be an impeachable offense. Otherwise, the Democrats have become organized crime mob bosses, threatening witnesses not to cooperate in any investigation. But Biden is not wrongfully accused. Their own witnesses agreed there were serious problems in his dealings with Ukraine. Therefore, the Demcorats are abusing their power to impeach a president, in order to obstruct an investigation into their presidential candidate.

      At what point are you going to snap out of this and realize that the Democrats are the perpetrators over and over again? How can you support this kind of tyrannical abuse of power? Trump is not an enemy of the people. The Democrats are putting forward socialist candidates guaranteed to impoverish the country and make us starve. The Democrats are strong arming the President to obstruct an investigation. The Democrats are persecuting someone who has been cleared in one investigation after another, all in order to push the 2020 votes their way.

      Can you explain why you support this behavior? It’s appalling. I had a lot of problems with Trump as a candidate. And those Tweets make a lot of problems for himself. But that is NOTHING to the abuse of power we have seen over the past few years. My God, the FBI falsified a document and lied about the dossier to spy on him. This is so bad.

  7. Professor Turley is kind in calling these articles a couple of underfed chihuahuas. The obstruction charge seems to contradict the checks and balances of the three branches established by the constitution, and abuse of power charge is very elusive – if he had been more direct like Joe Biden had been, then this one might have more teeth. These articles are exceptionally weak and subject largely to the eye of the complainer rather than a clear violation of [fill in the blank].

    Pelosi, Schiff, and Nadler have proven themselves worse than the FBI as they too are not only incompetent in their attempt, but their blinding bias has obscured their reasoned judgment.

    1. If Congress determines that the President is playing rope-a-dope with the courts (which he is, “absolute immunity” is not a legal concept), then the obstruction charge is more than justified. It’s also theirs alone to determine if the President is obstructing their process. Not as a matter of legal consequence, but for the purpose of Impeachment.

      Same goes for abuse of power, but the strength of the evidence there largely depends on whether you think criminals explicitly declare their actions (“I’m going to steal this money now”) or rather speak in coded language and actions.

      1. It is not for Congress to decide. A court will decide if the executive has to comply with the subpoena, and this is not stage boxing but a legal right available. The fact that Schiff does not want to wait for a court decision is his personal problem.
        Abuse of power is a vague term with no clear definition or limits, so that will be up to the Senate to determine, if at all.
        This process is poorly managed and displays the exact example the founders were concerned about during the constitutional convention. Professor Alan Dershowitz summarized the situation well yesterday, “A majority of the House is simply making it up as they go along in the process, thus placing themselves not only above the law but above the constitution.”

          1. So you are saying that the authority of Congress is absolute and one cannot seek relief from the judicial branch?

            1. That’s exactly what he’s saying. It’s called Abuse of Power, by Congress. The opposite is when they give the president a standing ovation when he threatens he will do their job if they won’t, during a SOTU address.

              1. By ‘he’ you must mean Adam Schiff, the guy who lied to America about Russian collusion, and obstruction, and bribery, and extortion, and now Obstruction of Congress and some indefensible definition of Abuse of Power. Pelosi, Nadler and most Dems are acting like thoughtless lemmings and following Schiff.

  8. WSJ is behind a paywall so here is the entire article

    The IG, Nunes and Schiff

    The Horowitz report reveals the Democrat’s many distortions.

    Monday’s Justice Department Inspector General report on the FBI’s Trump -Russia probe is illuminating in many ways, not least the light it casts on the previous claims by politicians when they were telling the public about what they saw in classified documents. House Intelligence Chairman Adam Schiff in particular has been exposed for distortions and falsehoods.

    Americans first learned about the FBI’s abuse of the FISA process in a February 2018 memo from then House Intelligence Chair Devin Nunes. The memo disclosed that the FBI had obtained surveillance warrants from the Foreign Intelligence Surveillance Court against former Trump aide Carter Page ; that the dossier written by ex-British spook Christopher Steele and financed by the Clinton campaign had formed an “essential” part of that application; and that the FBI failed to tell the FISA court about Mr. Steele’s political and media ties.

    This was news, but Mr. Schiff and Democrats called the Nunes memo false and weeks later released a rival summary of the classified FISA evidence. Now the IG has settled the debate by confirming the details in the Nunes memo and exposing Mr. Schiff’s untruths.


    The third line of the Schiff memo reads: “FBI and DOJ officials did not abuse the [FISA] process, omit material information, or subvert this vital tool to spy on the Trump campaign.” False. IG Michael Horowitz’s report lists the many and varied ways the FBI did all of those. This includes overstating Mr. Steele’s credibility, omitting concerns about his sources, hiding exculpatory information, and even doctoring a document. The IG is concerned enough by “the extensive compliance failures” that he says he has begun “oversight” to assess FBI compliance “with policies that seek to protect the civil liberties of U.S. persons.”

    The Schiff memo also claimed that “DOJ cited multiple sources to support the case for surveilling Page—but made only narrow use of information from Steele’s sources about Page’s specific activities in 2016 . . .” False again.


    The Horowitz report says the FBI considered surveilling Mr. Page in August 2016 but decided it lacked probable cause. The bureau moved ahead with its FISA application after it received the Steele dossier on September 19, and the report says the dossier “played a central and essential role” in that decision. Mr. Horowitz says the part of the application detailing Mr. Page’s 2016 activities “relied entirely” on “information from Steele Reports.”


    Mr. Schiff also claimed in 2018 that the Justice Department was straight with the FISA court about “Steele’s prior relationship with the FBI.” In fact, the IG says that the FBI “overstated the significance of Steele’s past reporting.” And in three later applications the FBI did not tell the court that it had talked to professional contacts of Mr. Steele who said he had a “lack of self-awareness, poor judgment,” and that he “pursued people with political risk but no intelligence value.”


    Mr. Schiff claimed DOJ “met the rigor, transparency, and evidentiary basis needed to meet” FISA court standards. But Mr. Horowitz makes clear that FBI officials didn’t even tell senior Justice officials about the concerns and irregularities of its Page application. Would the court have granted warrants if it knew the whole story? We don’t know. But the IG report makes clear that about the only thing the FBI ever corroborated in the Steele report was publicly available information.

    Mr. Schiff had access to the same documents as Mr. Nunes. His decision to misrepresent the FBI’s actions shows he is willing to distort the truth for political purposes. He gets away with this because he has a willing echo chamber in the Washington press corps.

    1. Why is Schiff not sanctioned for knowingly lying/misleading the public? Obstruction?

      1. Serously? Why are Pelosi, Schiff et al. not Drawn and Quartered for the high treason of challenging the authority of the Sovereign (i.e. the Constitution and Bill of Rights) through the commission of usurpation, abuse of power, nullification of constitutional rights, freedoms, privileges and immunities, subversion, conspiracy to falsely convict another, a coup d’etat against the duly elected government and the imposition of anti-American principles of communism.

      2. IG horowitz has a liimited scope of review for his report. that is above his pay grade

        so too are the classified CIA matters that he can’t reach,— but Barr and Durham can.

        stay tuned.

  9. If Trump committed a high crime or misdemeanor, such as assassinating Trudeau with a drone strike for mocking him, then Republicans would unite with Democrats to impeach him. It would be a bipartisan effort for justice.

    The reason why Republicans do not support impeachment is not partisan. It’s not because they would look the other way if Trump committed crimes. It’s because there is no evidence that Trump committed any high crimes.

    The Democrats have managed to convince their own constituents that investigating presidential candidate Joe Biden for alleged crimes under Obama is an impeachable offense. Of COURSE more than half of America does not view this as either a crime or an impeachable offense. I am sickened that 45% are so willfully blind to partisan politics that they do.

    1. Yes he did. Obstructing Congress is a High Crime if the House of Representatives so votes.

      1. Wait. So now they are impeaching him for obstructing Congress? Not for the Ukraine phone call? How many false allegations have they cast aside at this point? It’s a high crime if the House says it’s so? That sounds like a lawless dictator!

        If you think that going to the courts is obstructing Congress, then every single president in history would be impeached. Remember all those times Obama had cases before SCOTUS?

        Do you really not understand?

        1. It’s not strictly speaking going to the courts that’s the problem. Answer me this: what is his good faith argument to block witnesses from testifying?

          Absolute immunity?

          Unlike Clinton, unlike Nixon, unlike any other President in history, Trump injects himself into Congress’ process by interfering with the investigation. His response is the wonderfully peurile “this is unfair” while folding his arms in the corner, then commanding those around him to be silent.

          Still waiting on that good faith argument from Donald J Trump. It ain’t coming, and that’s definitely not consciousness of innocence.

          1. To clarify because I know the pedants are watching: yes other Presidents have obstructed. But not in any way like this. Clinton gave blood and testified. Nixon gave tapes after losing in court, but his argument to keep the tapes secret actually had force. He also didn’t order his officials not to testify.

            Trump ORDERS those around him into silence and has no argument to do so, and that is the point.

          2. bull, Nixon objected, his claims of executive privilege were heard by SCOTUS in landmark case

            Turley’s point was Article III courts could play a role here too, but Dems were rushing it.

  10. I wonder if Judge Lance Ito could be called out of retirement to preside over the Senate trial. Sure to be a quick verdict.

      1. I think an exception should be made in this case. The Senate will probably give the same amount of consideration of the evidence as the OJ jury did. Why not have the same judge? (OJ was innocent, right?)

        1. The case against OJ was Not Proven. Unfortunately that is only a possible outcome under Scottish law, so Not Guilty was rendered.

          1. it was proven just fine. the jury nullified because of “Racism” bottom line, a harbinger of trouble to come for decades

            the defense was skillful, turned a scintilla of a doubt into something a little bigger, just enough for the jury to excuse themselves from their duty.

            the prosecutors were afraid of riots

            it was a pathetic episode altogether

      2. Under Nixon v. US (1993), the Senate isn’t even obliged to hold a trial, just as it wasn’t in Walter Nixon’s impeachment.

    1. Speaking of judges, where is the FISA judge in this and the Mueller investigation? If I had been duped by the FBI, I would want my explanation of approving the spying on Page to be on the record. This guy/gal could be made to look the patsy.

  11. The result of all the BS will be: Democrats will lose control of House. Republicans will gain in Senate as well. Trump will get re-elected.

Comments are closed.