Scampeachment in the House

From iGeek
Jump to: navigation, search

House Scampeachment:

  • House had a vote and said they didn't want to impeach. So Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler went around the legal process and set up a mock trial ("impeachment inquiry"), where they violated all Constitutional norms, in order to "impeach" without any due process afforded the President, or vote, to assuage their radical element that had been demanding impeachment since before Trump was even inaugurated, for the high crime of winning an election. (They seriously said things like impeach first, we'll find the crime later).
  • While the House failed to call any material witnesses to confirm their claims (all were here say trying to presume Trumps motives and ignore what he actually said), the whole thing was all based on the allegations of a Democratic activist name Eric Ciaramella that colluded with Adam Schiff and the Democrats to subvert an election. The far-left media mislabeled Eric as a Whistleblower: but he doesn't actually meet the legal qualifications of being one, and they would have never, ever, afforded a Republican operative the same courtesy. Based on that DNC activists debunked claims, who was never examined or cross-examined, the house impeached.
  • Since there was no actual crime committed, or named, the House impeached based on two vague kinda-crimes: Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress.
    • Abuse of Power (called maladministration by the founders) was pretty much excluded at the time and warned against, especially if it was just for governing in a way that the party didn't like (like this case). They wanted something more specific, and they warned that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was too vague and might be abused (as it was in this case), but for nearly 250 years Congress showed better judgement than the Democrats did here. If you can impeach based on vague and undefined "abuse of power", then we collapse into a parliamentary form of government, where opposing congresses will waste all their time impeaching (vote of no confidence) based on petty acts, and the Presidency as it exists collapses.
    • Obstruction of Congress, as used, is not a crime: this is a normal executive privilege, and if Trump is guilty by not giving congress what they wanted, then every President back to Washington was guilty as well.
  • After they "impeached" without ever voting to do the impeachment inquiry (and ignoring the vote against it), and failing to call any material witnesses (all opinion), and the summary of their case was Trump almost did what they (Obama/Biden) did first (Read: Basis for Scampeachment). Pelosi then sat on the impeachment for a month, refusing to hand over the articles to the Senate so they could review/try the case. This was Pelosi's abuse of power, and attempt to quid-pro-quo the Senate into giving her what she wanted: which is credibility and more time and attention by calling witnesses that the House had not. But the Senate's job is only to try the case they were given, not to do the investigation that the house failed to do. So they ignored, and dismissed the case as not being proven.

Mock Process

  • Congress takes a vote on whether to impeach, and it loses 364-58 (+2 Democrats hid and voted "present"). Since voting on it would make Democrats accountable, Pelosi sets up a system to go around that and not have another vote, they invented the unprecedented idea of an impeachment "inquiry", which is impeachment without the process of impeachment (presumption of guilt, and no rules/norms). (This is similar to the scam of making Nixon an unnamed co-conspirator, so that the Democrats could slander him and he couldn't cross examine their witnesses or mount any defense against the slurs against his name, that were shown false, decades after he was driven out).
  • Prior impeachment hearings you had a special counsel that was appointed by the department of justice who oversaw this phase of the impeachment, since the Democrats have refused to name a crime/scope the President is guilty of, or even vote on an impeachment, the DOJ can't/won't create a special counsel. (You are barred by law and oath of office from just fishing for crimes).
  • The problem is that when the Democrats put their "witnesses" up, they get eviscerated as the partisan deep-state frauds that they are (like happened with Mueller), and they don't hold to scrutiny. So Pelosi played politics, as she always does, and created this process so they would have no accountability for slandering the President in a non-impeachment impeachment (e.g. scampeachment).
  • While others impeachments had a defined scope in writing, this does not.
  • The others had established rules and procedures, named in advance, this does not.
  • The others tried to have credible process, people running it, and look non-partisan. This was the antithesis of that with partisan hacks like Schiff running part of it after he was caught lying a few dozen times about having irrefutable evidence on Russia that he was did not.
  • In the past subpoena power was granted to both parties, not in this case.
  • In the past, counsel could cross examine witnesses and present evidence, or hear what was being said. Not in this case.

This impeachment (scampeachment/shampeachment) is where the Democrats and their media impeached Trump because they don't like him or his politics, spun the facts around like a centrifuge, misinformed anyone that listened to them -- and despite their best efforts to Kavanaugh Donald Trump, the lost big time: both with the law, and with voters, and it will go down in history as an embarrassing time for the country. The mainstream medias coverage was 100% biased in favor of the Democrats, but the informed and critical thinkers could see through that. more...


📚 References