Posts

Here’s an In-Depth History Lesson on Impeachment That Dems and the Media Won’t Want You to See

/0 Comments/in , /by

In their drive to impeach President Donald Trump, Democrats are throwing out all previous historical precedent and shutting the president and the American people out of it, says LevinTV host Mark Levin.

“This is the first time in American history that we have a rogue speaker of the House and a small-majority Democrat Party in the House of Representatives that’s trying to drag our country in a different direction,” Levin explained on Sunday night’s episode of Life, Liberty & Levin on Fox. “They have rejected, completely and utterly, the background of the impeachment process when it comes to presidents of the United States.”

The best-selling author and former Reagan administration official meticulously went over the history of the previous three presidential impeachment processes in American history in order to illustrate how much House Democrats have departed from that historical guidance in their efforts to oust and undermine President Trump.

In addition to failing to hold a full House vote on the matter, Levin explained, minority party members of investigating committees have not been given the same investigative powers as they were during previous impeachment efforts. These same process concerns were also laid out in a letter from the White House last week, explaining why the “Executive Branch cannot be expected to participate.”

To make his point, Levin referred to a House Judiciary Committee resolution from former President Bill Clinton’s impeachment in October 1998, in which top committee Democrats were given those powers and the inquiry was authorized by a vote of the whole House before it began.

“That’s not happening today,” the host remarked. “The Democrats are the only ones who can issue subpoenas and call witnesses and cross-examine and all the rest of it.”

The 1998 document also explains that the committee found it necessary to have its investigation authorized by a House vote because “the issue of impeachment is of such overwhelming importance, the Committee decided that it must receive authorization from the full House before proceeding on any further course of action,” as well as the fact that the same historical precedent was set by the House’s impeachment efforts against Presidents Andrew Johnson and Richard Nixon.

In contrast, Levin said, the current impeachment effort announced by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., has afforded none of the same due process.

“This isn’t the way America does things; this isn’t the way our Constitution’s intended to work,” Levin concluded. “The Democrat Party has hijacked the House of Representatives. It doesn’t speak for the full House, because the full House hasn’t spoken. The Democrat Party is pushing this impeachment. This is a Democrat Party impeachment, as I’ve been saying, a silent coup effort. This is why they dispense with all the traditions involving the last three presidents who went through this process.”

Watch:

(For more from the author of “Here’s an In-Depth History Lesson on Impeachment That Dems and the Media Won’t Want You to See” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Hoaxblower Set to Be Exposed — Again?

/8,260 Comments/in , , /by

By Breitbart. The New York Times reported that, along with the intelligence officer “whistleblower” being a registered Democrat and having a “professional relationship” with a 2020 Democrat, there remains a third redacted reason critics could accuse him of “potential bias” when submitting his complaint to the Intelligence Community inspector general.

The Washington Examiner’s Byron York reported Tuesday that the intelligence officer “whistleblower” had a “professional relationship” with a 2020 Democrat presidential candidate and was a registered Democrat, which critics could use to accuse the “whistleblower” of bias against President Donald Trump and his administration.

However, the New York Times‘ Nicholas Fandos also reported Tuesday that there remains a third reason that the “whistleblower identified” that could “be used to accuse him of potential bias against Mr. Trump.”

Intelligence Community Inspector General Michael Atkinson suggested in his initial review of the complaint that there are some indications of “an arguable political bias on the part of the complainant in favor of a rival political candidate.”

The third indication remains a secret to the public; however, the others, like his party affiliation and history with a presidential candidate, could shed light on the intelligence officer’s motivations to submit a whistleblower complaint regarding President Donald Trump’s phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. (Read more from “Hoaxblower Set to Be Exposed — Again?” HERE)

________________________________________________

OPINION: Who Does the Whistleblower Know?

By PJ Media. I’ve grown increasingly curious — hell, let’s say suspicious — about the most recent incarnation of the three-year effort to find a case for impeaching Trump. This is, of course, the House Permanent Select Committee on Intelligence (HPSCI) and the Democrat members’ “impeachment investigation.”

Take it as read that we now know the Ukrainian investigation of Burisma — the Ukrainian gas company for which Biden apparently interceded while in office, and where Hunter Biden had a very well paid sinecure — started long before Trump’s controversial call; that the President of Ukraine has said on the record he didn’t feel he was pressured at all by Trump’s call; and that Biden admitted on video using aid to Ukraine to pressure the then-government to fire the prosecutor that was investigating the company. . .

Now, look at the really just astonishing irregularity of the “impeachment inquiry”: not just refusing to take it to the floor of the House, but the secrecy, the selective cherry-picking of releases, and the plan to prevent Republican members — not to mention the nation — from learning anything about either WB1 or WB2.

I think the most plausible inference is that the whistleblowers are connected to Biden’s campaign, or to the DNC, and were shaken by the possibility of Biden and Crowdstrike being investigated because they know there is something there to be found. (Read more from “Who Does the Whistleblower Know?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump White House to Democrats on Impeachment: We’re Not Cooperating, so Come and Get Us

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By Townhall. The Trump White House is throwing down the gauntlet. They’ve had it. After three years of being under siege by the Democrats and their allies in the media, the Trump administration is done playing nice. No one from the administration is going to cooperate. In the meantime, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has declared the president will be held accountable. The White House flat-out told Democrats to go pound sound with their impeachment inquiry. . .

The letter is eight pages and outlines why this impeachment inquiry is a total circus. House Democrats executed this impeachment push based off of a July phone call Trump had with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, where it was alleged in a whistleblower report that Trump had threatened to withhold military aid unless Zelensky opened a corruption probe into Hunter Biden. The transcript refuted all of that; there is no quid pro quo. The report is based on second-hand accounts. This person, who is reportedly a CIA agent and registered Democrat, never listened in on the call. They also worked with a 2020 candidate. Need I say more about the shoddiness of this attempt? It’s a witch hunt that is fueled by Trump Derangement Syndrome of the most extreme sort (via The White House):

For example, you have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. You have conducted your proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by threatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. All of this violates the Constitution, the rule of law, and eve1ypastprecedent. Never before in our history has the House of Representatives-under the control of either political party-taken the American people down the dangerous path you seem determined to pursue.

Put simply, you seek to overturn the results of the 2016 election and deprive the American people of the President they have freely chosen. Many Democrats now apparently view impeachment not only as a means to undo the democratic results of the last election, but as a strategy to influence the next election, which is barely more than a year away. As one member of Congress explained, he is “concerned that if we don’t impeach the President, he will get reelected.” 1 Your highly partisan and unconstitutional effort threatens grave and lasting damage to our democratic institutions, to our system of free elections, and to the American people.

[…]

For the foregoing reasons, the President cannot allow your constitutionally illegitimate proceedings to distract him and those in the Executive Branch from their work on behalf of the American people. The President has a country to lead. The American people elected him to do this job, and he remains focused on fulfilling his promises to the American people. He has important work that he must continue on their behalf, both at home and around the world, including continuing strong economic growth, extending historically low levels of unemployment, negotiating trade deals, fixing our broken immigration system, lowering prescription drug prices, and addressing mass shooting violence. We hope that,in light of the many deficiencies we have identified in your proceedings, you will abandon the current invalid efforts to pursue an impeachment inquiry and join the President in focusing on the many important goals that matter to the American people.

(Read more from “Trump White House to Democrats on Impeachment: We’re Not Cooperating, so Come and Get Us” HERE)

____________________________________________________

Giuliani: No Administration Officials Will Testify or Provide Documents to Impeachment Probe Unless Adam Schiff Is Removed as House Intel Committee Chairman

By The Blaze. Rudy Giuliani, President Donald Trump’s personal lawyer, said that he will not testify before House investigators as part of Democrats’ ongoing impeachment efforts against the president unless Rep. Adam Schiff (D-Calif.) is removed as chairman of the House Intelligence Committee, and the House votes in full on taking up the impeachment probe.

In an interview with the Washington Post published Tuesday, Giuliani said that he wouldn’t appear before the House Intelligence Committee and “can’t imagine” Trump administration officials would do so either.

“The position I’m stating is now the position of the administration,” Giuliani told the newspaper. “I wouldn’t testify in front of that committee until there is a vote of Congress and [Schiff] is removed.”

The former New York City mayor referred a soon-to-be-released letter that the Trump administration has sent to Congress regarding the legitimacy of the impeachment inquiry. Reports about such a letter broke late last week. In the letter, the White House reportedly made the argument that it doesn’t have to cooperate with impeachment probe demands until the House formally votes to launch an inquiry.

The chairmen of the three House committees that have subpoenaed Giuliani have given him until Oct. 15 to respond to them, but he says he’s ready to challenge them on the summons. (Read more from “Giuliani: No Administration Officials Will Testify or Provide Documents to Impeachment Probe Unless Adam Schiff Is Removed as House Intel Committee Chairman” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Second Ukraine Whistleblower Comes Forward; Attorney for Impeachment ‘Whistleblowers’ Actively Sought Trump Admin Informants

/0 Comments/in , , /by

By The Blaze. The attorney representing the whistleblower who filed a complaint against President Donald Trump revealed Sunday that he is now representing a second whistleblower with “firsthand knowledge” of some of the allegations against the president.

Attorney Mark Zaid confirmed to ABC News anchor George Stephanopoulos that the second whistleblower has firsthand knowledge of some of the allegations outlined in the first complaint. Like the first whistleblower, Zaid’s newest client is also an intelligence official. . .

The development is significant particularly because a second whistleblower could cast further doubt on Trump’s denials that he did anything wrong.

The New York Times first reported Friday that a second whistleblower was weighing whether to file his own complaint. According to the Times, the official had firsthand knowledge that corroborated information contained in the first complaint.

Zaid told the Washington Examiner on Sunday that the second whistleblower has not filed an official complaint because he “doesn’t need to.” Indeed, the Times reported that government officials who meet with inspectors general are “protected by federal law that outlaws reprisals.”

(Read more from “Second Ukraine Whistleblower Comes Forward” HERE)

____________________________________________________

Attorney for Impeachment ‘Whistleblowers’ Actively Sought Trump Admin Informants

By Breitbart. Mark Zaid, the activist attorney representing the so-called whistleblower at the center of the impeachment movement targeting President Donald Trump, says he is representing a second so-called whistleblower who spoke to the Intelligence Community’s inspector general about Trump’s phone call with the Ukrainian president.

Missing from the avalanche of news media coverage about Zaid’s two anonymous clients rocking the nation’s capital is that at the beginning of Trump’s presidency Zaid co-founded Whistleblower Aid, a small nonprofit that blasted advertisements around D.C. actively seeking whistleblowers during the Trump administration.

Whistleblower Aid is heavily tied to far-left activist organizations and Democratic politics.

ABC News broke the story on Sunday about the existence of the second so-called whistleblower speaking about Trump’s call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky. (Read more from “Attorney for Impeachment ‘Whistleblowers’ Actively Sought Trump Admin Informants” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Called for Romney’s Impeachment in Tweet, but Could That Actually Happen?

/0 Comments/in , /by

You never quite know when President Trump might fire off a tweet, targeting House Speaker Nancy Pelosi, D-Calif., or House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff, D-Calif. . .

The conventional argument is that no, House members and senators cannot be impeached. That’s true for the most part – even though the House did impeach Tennessee Sen. William Blount – twice – in the 18th Century. But we’ll come back to that in a minute.

Article I, Section 2 of the Constitution grants the House “the sole Power of Impeachment.” Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution awards the Senate “the sole Power to try all Impeachments.” Then, Article II, Section 4 of the Constitution articulates who is eligible for impeachment: “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.” . . .

It was determined that a “civil Officer” is someone subject to presidential appointment and Senate confirmation – like a cabinet official or a federal judge. That’s why the House has impeached various federal judges over the years, Supreme Court Justice Samuel Chase (who bore the nickname “Old Bacon Face”) and Secretary of War William Belknap. In other words, House members and senators aren’t “civil Officers,” and thus, exempt from impeachment.

There’s no mechanism in the Constitution for a voter “recall” as is possible for some state officeholders. The president, vice president, House and Senate members serve a fixed term. However, Article I, Section 5 of the Constitution grants the House and Senate authority to “punish its Members for disorderly Behaviour, and, with the Concurrence of two thirds, expel a Member.” (Read more from “Trump Called for Romney’s Impeachment in Tweet, but Could That Actually Happen?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Democrat Rep: We’re Considering Jailing the President’s Allies If They Don’t Comply With Impeachment Inquiry

/0 Comments/in , /by

Rep. Rashida Tlaib (D-MI), one of the key members of the progressive Congressional “squad,” reiterated a claim Sunday that Democrats are quietly considering jailing allies of President Donald Trump if they do not comply with the House’s impeachment inquiry.

Tlaib told local Detroit news program, Deadline Detroit, that Democrats, who have issued a number of subpoenas to Trump friends, family members, and administration officials, have discussed detaining those who don’t show up to testify, the Hill reports.

“There have been actual serious conversations about what the logistics would look like … if we did have to force someone through a court order to come before the Congressional committee,” she said.

Congress typically negotiates with potential witnesses who receive subpoenas but have concerns about testifying. Jailing those who refuse to comply with a demand for testimony would be a novel approach, which Tlaib acknowledged: “This is pretty uncharted territory for many of us and even for Congress.”

This isn’t the first time Tlaib has talked about jailing ideological opponents, particularly those allied with the president, who could have information as to whether Trump discussed a deal with Ukrainian officials, returning cancelled foreign aid if Ukrainian prosecutors pursued Hunter Biden, son of former Vice President Joe Biden, and investigated an energy corporation that placed Hunter Biden on its board. (Read more from “Democrat Rep.: We’re Considering Jailing the President’s Allies If They Don’t Comply With Impeachment Inquiry” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Harry Reid Praises Trump as ‘a Very, Very Smart Man’

/0 Comments/in , /by

Harry Reid had high praise for President Trump calling him “smart” and hard to beat in a recent appearance.

“I used to think that Donald Trump was not too smart. I certainly don’t believe that anymore,” the former Senate majority leader told David Axelrod in an interview preview that aired Friday on CNN. “I don’t think he’s intellectually a powerhouse, but he is basically a very, very smart man. No matter what the subject, any argument he involves himself in, it’s on his terms.”

The 79-year-old Nevada Democrat said the Democratic presidential contenders should not be under the illusion that Trump would be beaten easily in 2020.

In August, he warned that his party’s presidential candidates were taking far-left positions that were hurting their chances of beating Trump. He specifically pointed to “Medicare for all” and decriminalized border crossings as two potentially hazardous positions for Democrats.

Reid held his Nevada Senate seat from 1987-2017 and was the leader of the Democratic conference from 2005 to 2017. He announced he would not be running for reelection in 2016 after an injury left him blind in one eye. Sen. Chuck Schumer from New York is now the leader of the Senate Democrats. (Read more from “Harry Reid Praises Trump as ‘a Very, Very Smart Man'” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

What Are the Chances Trump Wins?

/0 Comments/in , /by

With the Democrats’ impeachment inquiry picking up steam and the White House digging in, people’s outlook on the 2020 election is beginning to shift — at least it is in the gambling world.

Though he remains the favorite to win, again, oddsmakers show Trump’s chances slipping with the impeachment effort escalating. On the other side of the aisle, Massachusetts Senator Elizabeth Warren is enjoying some significant positive movement, while former Vice President Joe Biden — who’s quickly becoming the former frontrunner — saw his chances drop sharply, and Sen. Bernie Sanders’ odds plummeted post-heart attack.

According to odds and sports betting line site OddsShark as of Tuesday, Trump’s odds dropped somewhat — from +110 to +125 — since the Democrats first announced their impeachment inquiry on Sept. 25. After falling from +110 to +120 the first week the inquiry was announced, Trump’s odds remained the same the following week before dropping to +125 this week as the impeachment battle ratcheted up on both sides. . .

Sports Betting Dime (SBD) presents similar numbers. The betting line site gives Trump slightly better odds: +110, which the site notes are “990 points better than his next closest competitor.” As of Oct. 10, Warren moved up to +230 from the previous week, similar to OddsShark’s listing. Biden is likewise way down at +700, Yang is again in a distant third at +1500, and Sanders’ odds are at a grim +2000. Though OddsShark shows Clinton officially off the board, SBD still gives her +2500 odds. . .

The shifting outlook on the 2020 election has been significantly impacted by the Democrats’ impeachment campaign. Recent polling shows momentum in favor of impeaching the president. A Fox News Poll released this week shows a dramatic increase in those saying they believe Trump should be impeached. (Read more from “What Are the Chances Trump Wins?” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Trump Ambassador’s Lawyer Says He’ll Defy Administration and Testify to Dems’ Impeachment Probe

/0 Comments/in , /by

Despite the Trump administration’s efforts to stop him, United States Ambassador to the European Union Gordon Sondland will testify in House Democrats’ impeachment probe against President Donald Trump next week, his lawyers says.

In a Friday morning statement, an attorney for Ambassador Sondland said, “Notwithstanding the State Department’s current direction not to testify, Ambassador Sondland will honor the Committees’ subpoena, and he looks forward to testifying on Thursday.” The statement adds that the diplomat “has no agenda apart from answering the Committees’ questions fully and truthfully.”

Earlier this week, Sondland was scheduled to voluntarily give testimony to a trio of House Committees but was blocked from doing so at the last minute by the Trump administration.

“I would love to send Ambassador Sondland, a really good man and great American, to testify,” President Trump said of the decision, “but unfortunately he would be testifying before a totally compromised kangaroo court, where Republican’s rights have been taken away, and true facts are not allowed out for the public to see.”

The chairmen of the relevant committees responded later that day with a subpoena for Sondland’s testimony and documents related to the investigation.

Sondland’s attorney says that while his client can provide testimony to the impeachment investigation, the subpoenaed documents are another matter entirely. The ambassador “respects the Committee’s interest in reviewing all relevant materials,” the statement explains, “however, federal law and State Department regulations prohibit him from producing documents concerning his officials responsibilities.”

The White House, however, has unequivocally stated that it will not cooperate with the impeachment probe in a letter sent out Tuesday night. Chief among the reasons it listed is the fact that the probe was announced without an authorizing vote of the full House of Representatives, as has been done in past presidential impeachment cases.

Sondland is a key figure in the controversy surrounding President Trump’s communications with Ukrainian government officials. In testimony given last week, former U.S. envoy to Ukraine Kurt Volker told lawmakers that he consulted with Sondland in August about a proposed anti-corruption statement to be given by Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.

According to the testimony and a corresponding text message, Volker and Sondland discussed whether or not the statement should mention Burisma — the energy company that employed former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter — and allegations of interfering in the 2016 elections. Volker testified that the statement was ultimately scrapped. (For more from the author of “Trump Ambassador’s Lawyer Says He’ll Defy Administration and Testify to Dems’ Impeachment Probe” please click HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE

Donald Trump: Hunter Biden Couldn’t Recognize a Gas Tank

/0 Comments/in , /by

President Donald Trump continued attacking Joe Biden’s son Hunter Biden on Friday, during a political rally in Louisiana.

“He doesn’t know what a gasoline tank looks like,” Trump said, explaining that Biden’s son knew nothing about energy despite earning up to $83,000 a month for sitting on a board of a corrupt energy company in Ukraine.

Trump also ripped Hunter for leaving China with $1.5 billion in investments from the bank of China despite knowing “nothing.”

He also mocked the news broadcasts for repeatedly saying that Trump’s claims of corruption were “totally unsubstantiated” … at Biden’s request.

“It’s not unsubstantiated, he took a fortune out of Ukraine, knew nothing, took a fortune out of China,” he said. (Read more from “Donald Trump: Hunter Biden Couldn’t Recognize a Gas Tank” HERE)

Follow Joe Miller on Twitter HERE and Facebook HERE