The impeachment – 13 December 2019


The impeachment.   The two articles of impeachment are so anemic as to invite ridicule.

1.  "Abuse of power" by expressing concern over thievery by Ukrainians and Americans?  This is a charge?  The Washington Post has been running a series of articles based on "leaked" US Afghan IG reports and interviews with people involved in that wretched place.  These articles reveal the massive scale of the thievery that lost America enormous amounts of money taken through graft and bribery.  Was it unreasonable for this president to solicit the Ukrainian president's cooperation in trying to deal with a similar situation in that country.  He mentioned Uncle Joe Biden and his drug addled son?  Well, why not?  The younger of the two has IMO been used as the family bag man for collecting protection money.  Joe Biden himself looks to me to be a political version of Jimmy Hoffa the mobbed up Teamsters boss of long ago, but, with less charm, "a little for you, a lot for me," etc.   He was potentially a rival for the 2020 election?  He was not then a candidate.  Is every human or semi-human to be exempt from  investigation and prosecution because he MIGHT become a political rival?  The Democrats know full well this would be absurd.

2.  "Obstructing congress"  What we are seeing in the behavior of the Democratic majority in the House and minority in the senate is an attempt to seize control of the federal government using the constitutional powers to "advise and consent" on appointments and the ability to impeach in the House..  They have not yet tried to impeach federal judges appointed by the other party but IMO they will try that soon.  In this article of impeachment they claim that the president has obstructed their function by relying on the doctrine of Executive Privilege to deny them access to his present and past staff.   Trump did not invent this doctrine.  It is a well established feature of American law.  Without it no president could conduct internal policy discussions or confidential discussions with foreign leaders.  The Democrats know full well that the principal of Executive Privilege is often contested in the courts.  That is what they should have done this time, but instead they have chosen to charge the president for impeachment for claiming Executive Privilege.  They do not claim this is a violation of law.  They merely stamp their feet and scream that they are unhappy and want him gone.

This farce will end in a trial in the US Senate with the Chief Justice of SCOTUS presiding.  The Republicans control the senate and will not allow Trump to be deposed.   The senate can dismiss the charges by a simple majority vote and that is what Senator Lindsey Graham wants to see happen.  Trump does not want that.  He wants to be tried for the purpose of turning the tables on the Democrats.

I think he is correct in wanting that.  If that occurs, witnesses must be subpoenaed and examined in open court.  The Bidens must be so called to demonstrate the reasonable nature of Trump's concern over their behavior in Ukraine.  pl

This entry was posted in Current Affairs, government. Bookmark the permalink.

34 Responses to The impeachment – 13 December 2019

  1. A. Pols says:


  2. Enrico Malatesta says:

    I don’t think that Trump gets what he wants from the Senate – the Swamp is too deep in the US Congress.

  3. Factotum says:

    Try this theory on: Pelosi honors her pledge that any impeachment must be a bipartisan action, and as presented this call for impeachment fails 100%. She falls on her sword, does not move this forward to a House vote, and take a noble footnote place in our nation’s history.
    She pledged in 2018, facing acute opposition, she would be a one term Speaker only. And the lady is obviously aging, so this could be a her final swan song on the pubic state – refusing to bring this 100% partisan, and patently bogus, impeachment action for a House vote.
    Or in the alternative after some deep horse-trading, she passes it on to the Senate as a 100% partisan demand knowing the Senate will dismiss it outright with dispatch. She can claim a ideological victory warning her colleagues up front this was a fools errand.
    Then, Democrats will spin their Roladexes and come up with their next TDS attack. Within the next 24 hours.

  4. James Lung says:

    Just wondering. Suppose the Senate dismisses the Impeachment. Won’t the Chief Justice have to rule on the question of whether or not there is at least probable cause for the democrats’ determination that this is probable cause to Impeach?

  5. srw says:

    “The Bidens must be so called to demonstrate the reasonable nature of Trump’s concern over their behavior in Ukraine.” How about the converse. Why doesn’t Trump show/demonstrate why the Biden’s should be investigated by Zelensky. Innocent until proven guilty I have always thought.

  6. Bill Wade says:

    Am wondering if President Trump can force the trial or if he has to defer to Senator Graham’s wishes? TIA

  7. Diana C says:

    I agree that Trump should get his wish. He has endured a lot of false “reporting.” And those untruths need to be shown for what they are. I wonder if Mitch McConnell would be able to arrange that despite Graham.
    I know that Trump’s personality attracts that sort of shocked response from some people. Heck, I’m a Republican and was first also opposed to Trump because of his personality. But I’m of the opinion that the Democrats and their fawning media characters have earned a lot of the same sort negative responses and disgust on the part of the people because their personalities are pretty off-putting also.
    I’m still suffering from cognitive dissonance because Adam Schiff has somehow actually remained in his elected position. I can’t imagine a high school principal allowing someone who does “parody” to continue as a student council candidate.
    I do believe that Nancy Pelosi may be really sinking into dementia or alcoholism–just on the basis of her inability to control her dentures. To have those two criticize the character of Trump really seems strange. I feel that I’m watching a Dickens novel performed on national news each day. I can’t laugh, though, because this is happening in reality.

  8. JohninMK says:

    Given the corruption on both sides of the Senate it is probable that no-one wants an in depth trial during which unwanted facts might accidentally appear. Much better to whisk it through without it touching the sides so to speak.
    OK so Trump doesn’t get the exoneration he wants but then nothing will explode in his face. Its not a win win but then its not a lose either and it is unlikely to seriously affect his chances next November. Plus as a quid pro quo he might have got his defence spending increase and the trade bill through.

  9. turcopolier says:

    “the corruption on both sides of the Senate” OK Brit. Explain to us in detail what you think is the “corruption on both sides of the seanate.”

  10. turcopolier says:

    A conversation between two heads of state is not and should not be conducted as though the subject matter of the conversation is subject to the rules and assumptions of a court of justice.

  11. turcopolier says:

    james Lung
    No. Their vote would end the matter. The chief justice would not have a role if the senate votes not to have a trial.

  12. blue peacock says:

    That’s obvious.
    Biden on camera bragging about a quid pro quo to fire a prosecutor examining corruption at a company where Biden’s son is on the board taking a fat paycheck with no experience or expertise to have that position.

  13. blue peacock says:

    Col. Lang
    Graham has a vested interest in not having an extensive trial with many witnesses as it may uncover his own culpability in the Ukraine corruption. And of course may drag in Saint McCain too!
    His and Mitch’s argument to Trump likely would be, that with no trial they can guarantee acquittal but with a trial they can’t.

  14. turcopolier says:

    blue peacock
    There is no chance that that the senate will remove Trump from office. None!

  15. Paul Damascene says:

    An article in the Duran indicates that and why Senate Republicans may buck Trump’s wishes, as they are as deep in Ukraine corruption as any of the Dems are. Lindsay, the late John M and Sleep Joe are perhaps the most deeply planted …

  16. Dave Schuler says:

    As of today Trump’s approval rating is 43.9% and Congress’s approval rating is 24%. I gather that the House Democrats don’t realize how unpopular they are and how many Americans support “obstruction of Congress”. Are they trying to turn Trump into a national hero?

  17. Harper says:

    In the legitimate focus on the impeachment, a stunning revelation in the Horowitz report has been largely overlooked. In January 2017, the FBI conducted three interviews with the key source to Christopher Steele for his dossier. He told interviewed on all three occasions that the material he passed on to Steele was gossip and second and third-hand rumors with no proof. He even said that the sexual allegations were actually a joke and he never meant for them to be taken serious. The FBI in seeking the follow-on FISA warrant merely reported they interviewed Steele’s source and he was “cooperative and candid.” No content reported.
    In addition, Horowitz found email exchanges between FBI and CIA, in which the FBI inquired if Carter Page was a CIA source. Three times the CIA responded “yes.” But the FBI agent preparing the affidavit for the FISA renewal lied and wrote “no” to the question of Page’s CIA work. That was the false statement Horowitz referred to.
    These are serious crimes by FBI officials and they should not go unnoted in the MSM or left to be ignored. I hope that Durham is carefully reading every word of the Horowitz report for points of criminal misconduct to present to his Federal grand jury.
    You can’t fully discuss impeachment of Trump without going back to the first cause, and in this case it was clearly criminal misconduct by Federal law enforcement.

  18. Cortes says:

    b of Moonofalabama speculates
    that a bipartisan agreement exists that the Democrats can introduce the impeachment but the majority Republicans will vote it out without trial.
    An approach which seems plausible. But after nigh on four full years of a campaign against initially a candidate and for the majority of the time the holder of the presidential office involving lurid allegations might not a trial be helpful in restoring some public confidence in the body politic? And in reducing the levels of vitriol.

  19. turcopolier says:

    I have warned people against using SST as a bulletin board for other blogs. why should I not ban you?

  20. turcopolier says:

    Paul Damascene
    What is “the Duran?”

  21. Fred says:

    You mean that with the same investigative power the Obama administration had he has none of the alleged evidence on senators you allude to? What a wonderful implication from a Cyprus based media outlet founded in 2016 and run by the host of an RT political show.

  22. robt willmann says:

    Earlier today a person asked me what was going to happen in the impeachment trial, and I said that the senate will decide that after the case gets to them. The rules of procedure and rules of evidence (if any!) will be determined by the senate.
    The U.S. Constitution says in Article 1, section 3 that–
    “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.
    “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”.
    Yesterday, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (Repub. Kentucky) appeared on the Sean Hannity television show on FoxNews and said in essence that how a trial will proceed is up in the air, as he explains at the 1 minute mark until 2 minutes and 17 seconds into the video–
    McConnell, as usual, carefully maintains his position, and says that everything he does about an impeachment trial, “I am coordinating with White House counsel”. And, “There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can”.
    What McConnell is obviously doing is protecting himself no matter what the political effect of the content of the trial may be.
    He says: “We all know how it’s going to end. There is no chance the president is going to be removed from office”.

  23. Factotum says:

    Chief Justice could rule on a demurrer which would dismiss the case without a trial – failure to present prima facie elements of the underlying charge. Therefore nothing of fact is triable – case dismissed.
    Which is probably why Democrats ditched the more specific treason, bribery and extortion charges, leaving only the garbage can of “abuse of power” and “obstruction” behind. By what standards of evidence are both those remaining elements – abuse of power and obstruction — even tried, let alone judged?

  24. John Merryman says:

    I’m trying to remember the site I read it on, maybe south front, where the point was made the graft flows through these governments we give billions to, back through the various institutes and global initiatives the US politicians set up. McCain and Clinton being the two mentioned. So neither side wants it looked into too deeply.

  25. turcopolier says:

    John Merryman
    It is worse than that. Groups of current or former high level employees band together to bid on large scale development contracts. They have local partners and the loot is tremendous.

  26. Seamus Padraig says:

    Yup, exactly. Graham is basically on the same side as the Democrats on the Ukraine issue, so he doesn’t want it getting any more exposure than it’s gotten already. As he sees it, time to change the conversation …

  27. JerseyJeffersonian says:
  28. srw says:

    I am a facts based guy and think that the impeachment inquiry brought out indisputable facts by the testimony of numerous civil servants. Whether these facts justify an impeachment is in the eye of the beholder.
    1. Trump sought to have the Ukrainian President, Zelenski, open an investigation on both Biden’s by withholding military aid and a White House visit. This was for his own election benefit and not in the interests of the US. (Sounds to me like an abuse of presidential power)
    2. Stonewalled the whole impeachment investigation by withholding all requested documents and instructing his advisers, appointees, and civil servants to not testify in the inquiry. (sounds to me like obstruction of Congress)
    If you believe all this is kosher, then we have something more than an “imperial presidency”.

  29. artemesia says:

    The Biden corruption is only the tip of the iceberg of the whole Ukraine affair; Vindman’s finger-wagging comments made that clear.
    It may be — perhaps in a more perfect world — it WOULD be that case that a trial would track back to what USA – Victoria Nuland was doing in Ukraine in the first place.
    Were American interests being protected, or is US animosity toward Russia, w/ Ukraine the battle ground in fact the continuation of the Bolsheviki grudge against Russia?
    In a conversation w/ John Bathelder a few weeks ago, Russia expert Stephen Cohen said that Trump, thru Giuliani, has been attempting to bring Zelensky and Putin to a resolution of their conflicts.
    However, it is now verboten to even raise the matter of the grudges of a certain protected class. So if Trump opted for a trial, he may find himself afoul of the (spirit of) the executive order he just signed into being, or of the agenda of the U S State Dept. Monitor for Antisemitism, Elan Carr, who declared that “anti-zionism IS antisemitism.”

  30. Jack says:

    What was the evidence that the civil servants provided of the quid pro quo ? Memo from Trump or their superiors? Verbal order from Trump?
    There is indisputable evidence of Biden demanding a quid pro quo from the Ukrainians.

  31. blue peacock says:

    I’m not sure we saw the same hearings. I did not see or hear any actual evidence that Trump ordered them to withhold aid until an inquiry on the Bidens was launched. What I heard was testimony of hearsay and presumption and assumption. Not facts in the meaning of that word.
    BTW, whatever happened to the “whistleblower” who apparently began it all? No testimony, no nothing.
    Also, do you think the inquiry was fair? The Democrats decided who could be called as witnesses and neither Trump nor the Republicans could call any to rebut. Bill Clinton was afforded more courtesy by the Republicans in his impeachment inquiry. Notwithstanding while he did commit perjury, I don’t believe it met the bar of high crimes for an impeachment.

  32. Fred says:

    So all other presidents who claimed privilege were actually obstructing Congress and were subject to impeachment as will be all future presidents who claim privilege. Burisma, a Ukrainian company, can not be investigated because a Biden is on the board. Hunter has a very lucrative future ahead of him as an insurance against investigation.

  33. J says:

    I would have rather have seen they expend such energy and money in shutting down Israeli Intelligence Epstein Pedophile Blackmail Honey Trap operation. It would be great to see some backbone be shown by DOJ, FBI CI, and CIA in shutting down the Israelis putrid operation!

Comments are closed.