Law Enforcement Today: It’s time to impeach Nancy Pelosi for “obstruction of Congress”


Do you support Trump
YES
NO
Created with Online Quizmaker

WASHINGTON, D.C. – The irony of Nancy Pelosi’s move to impeach Trump for “Obstruction of Congress” is arguably that it’s exactly what she herself is now doing.

In the impeachment debacle of President Trump, the first “political” impeachment in history, Democrats in the House cited two “violations:”

Article I was “Abuse of Power.”

Article II was “Obstruction of Congress.”

Neither one of these articles rise to the level of “high crimes and misdemeanors” and therefore are not impeachable offenses, but I digress.

Let us address the second article, “obstruction of Congress.” While the president has a constitutional basis for the conduct that House Democrats are calling “obstruction,” the Speaker of the House, Nancy Pelosi, has no such basis.

Let’s look at some of the rhetoric that was emanating from the hot air chamber of the Democrat caucus. For weeks, Democrats such as Adam Schiff, Jerry Nadler, and Pelosi herself insisted that President Trump was a threat to our “national security,” that “elections themselves are threatened by enemies foreign or domestic,” and that, “if we do not act now, we would be derelict in our duty.”

Indeed, the most serious legal action that a legislative body in the United States can take against the duly elected president was undertaken in weeks. By contrast, the impeachment inquiry against Bill Clinton took over two months from the time it started until Clinton was impeached by the House.\

Yet, Pelosi has now said that she wasn’t prepared to deliver the articles of impeachment to the deciding body, the US Senate, and said that she had not yet decided who the House “managers” in the Senate would b

omplaining that the trial in the Senate will not be ‘fair.”

They had no such reservations when Schiff ran roughshod over Republicans in the inquisition before the House Intelligence Committee. Schiff decided who would be allowed to testify, had autocratic authority over questions asked, and even actively advised witnesses as to their testimony when questioned by Republicans. Apparently for Democrats, “fair” is a one-way street.

When Democrats speak of fairness, they are talking about fairness to them, in this case the “prosecution.” They have so much faith in their case being “rock solid” that they want to be able to call additional witnesses in the trial before the Senate.

So, President Trump, who is, according to the House a “clear and present danger” and a “threat to national security” isn’t as much of a threat as Democrats were making him out to be.

Pelosi has now said that she will not send over the articles of impeachment to the Senate until after she and the rest of the House Democrats enjoy their Christmas recess. Hopefully, President Trump doesn’t go “rogue” during that two-week period of time.

Nowhere does it say that the House gets to demand how the process works and who can testify. That is the sole responsibility of the Senate under the Constitution.

The Constitution also allows the Senate to hold a trial as soon as an impeachment takes place in the House. This is not subject to the interpretation of left-wing college professors or liberal talking heads on cable news.

In fact, Pelosi herself is currently obstructing the Senate by refusing to transmit the impeachment articles to that body.

This means one of two things. Either Pelosi knows that the impeachment is doomed to defeat in the Senate (obvious since Republicans have the majority and it is extremely unlikely that a sufficient number can be turned in order to reach a 2/3 threshold), or she never intended to transmit the articles in the first place.

Democrats in one form or another have been seeking to impeach President Trump since he was inaugurated, if not before. Pelosi herself admitted that they have been working on impeachment for 2-1/2 years.

Why would Pelosi not send the articles to the Senate? She may feel she doesn’t have to.

Since this impeachment has all the makings of a political impeachment, which the founders warned against, instead of a legal impeachment, Pelosi may feel that just the fact that Trump was impeached will make for good sound bites for Democrats in next year’s election.

In the case of the president, who can cite text and precedent in resisting congressional subpoenas, Pelosi’s obstruction is unlawful and unprecedented. One could easily claim that Pelosi herself is guilty of obstruction of Congress, by interfering with the Senate’s duty to adjudicate the articles the House passed.

Based on precedent set by the House, apparently the intent or possibility of committing an action is sufficient to hold an elected official in contempt. Nadler himself alluded to this during the House impeachment debate, stating,

If this is the new standard Pelosi and the Democrats have set, then she too can be held accountable for trying to undermine the Constitution or her intention to do so.

In some ways, it would be nice to see Mitch McConnell and the Republicans actually hold a trial in the Senate, and subpoena the so-called “whistleblower,” Adam Schiff, the Bidens, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, John Brennan, and the rest of the deep-state cabal that conspired to overturn an election that was an electoral landslide for President Trump.

McConnell will likely tire of the Democrat grandstanding and just dismiss the impeachment. It would be nice however to add a cherry on top—charging Pelosi with Contempt of Congress for stonewalling the ability of the Senate to try the case.

As we reported last night, holding back those articles of impeachment could easily backfire.

Joel Pollak of Breitbart reported that Pelosi appears to be considering an idea Democrats have floated for several days of holding back the articles of impeachment to exercise leverage over the Senate and the president.

Her move is not only a violation of Constitutional procedures, but could result in the Senate acquitting the President without a formal trial.

Unfortunately for Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat House Majority, the Senate can act regardless — and would vote to acquit.

“That’s because the Constitution is absolutely clear about the Senate’s authority. Article I, Section 3 says: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments’…”
The Chief Justice presides over a trial involving the president, but the Senate makes the rules.

And the Senate is controlled by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who regards what the House has done with contempt.

Politico outlined Democrats’ new idea, citing constitutional lawyer Laurence Tribe (but, interestingly, not the Constitution itself).

Pelosi hopes to pressure McConnell into holding a “fair trial” — this, after she and her party broke every relevant House rule and precedent, and several Amendments in the Bill of Rights, all in the name of their “sole Power of Impeachment.”

They forget that a “fair trial” applies to the accused, not the accuser, and has since 1215.

Set aside, for the moment, that holding onto the articles of impeachment would contradict everything Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the Democrats have said for weeks about the “urgency” of impeachment.

Do you support Trump
YES
NO
Created with Quiz Maker Online

They needed to stop him before he could “cheat in the next election,” we were told — that’s why the House could not wait for the courts to rule on the White House’s resistance to stop congressional subpoenas.

All of that would be exposed as a lie.

During parts of the hearings controlled by the Democrats, phrases like “the President is an ‘existential threat’ to national security” and that the President must be removed immediately because of “the impact on our world” and “we have to do this right now for our grandchildren” were uttered ad nauseum by both politicians and left-leaning news sources.

Now this delay by Pelosi seems to contradict their “hair on fire” attitudes toward the President and show the transparency of their farce of a process.

Three factors are glaringly true:

If Pelosi refuses to submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, McConnell can convene the Senate anyway, summon the Chief Justice, and swear in the Senators as jurors. Democrats can boycott, but they can’t stop the trial.
McConnell can then propose to dismiss the charges or even hold a vote to acquit the president.
Pelosi can hide the articles of impeachment in Adam Schiff’s basement forever, and it won’t make a bit of difference.
Case closed.

In a related matter, it is truly astonishing that a huge majority of liberals believed that by the act of passing Articles of Impeachment in the House of Representatives, President Trump would be removed from office.

This isn’t now, nor has it ever been true, or the way things work. Former President Bill Clinton was impeached by the house and didn’t leave office. And he was found guilty of a crime.

Former President Richard Nixon resigned from office near the end of his term. He was also found guilty of a crime.

President Trump hasn’t been found guilty of anything – in fact, the articles are so vague, the chance of him being convicted even in a Democrat-majority Senate is close to impossible. Even then, he doesn’t have to leave office.

That’s one of those “what if” scenarios that doesn’t exist – we have a Republican-controlled Senate and 67 votes are required to convict.

In all fairness, there’s enough exculpatory evidence of fraud and bias displayed by Democrats to take a conviction effort and shoot it in the proverbial foot.

And next comes the results of the Durham investigation. It’s likely that 2020 will be a good year for patriots.

If this is the new standard Pelosi and the Democrats have set, then she too can be held accountable for trying to undermine the Constitution or her intention to do so.

In some ways, it would be nice to see Mitch McConnell and the Republicans actually hold a trial in the Senate, and subpoena the so-called “whistleblower,” Adam Schiff, the Bidens, James Comey, Andrew McCabe, John Brennan, and the rest of the deep-state cabal that conspired to overturn an election that was an electoral landslide for President Trump.

McConnell will likely tire of the Democrat grandstanding and just dismiss the impeachment. It would be nice however to add a cherry on top—charging Pelosi with Contempt of Congress for stonewalling the ability of the Senate to try the case.

As we reported last night, holding back those articles of impeachment could easily backfire.

Joel Pollak of Breitbart reported that Pelosi appears to be considering an idea Democrats have floated for several days of holding back the articles of impeachment to exercise leverage over the Senate and the president.

Her move is not only a violation of Constitutional procedures, but could result in the Senate acquitting the President without a formal trial.

Unfortunately for Speaker Pelosi and the Democrat House Majority, the Senate can act regardless — and would vote to acquit.

“That’s because the Constitution is absolutely clear about the Senate’s authority. Article I, Section 3 says: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments’…”
The Chief Justice presides over a trial involving the president, but the Senate makes the rules.

And the Senate is controlled by Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY), who regards what the House has done with contempt.

Politico outlined Democrats’ new idea, citing constitutional lawyer Laurence Tribe (but, interestingly, not the Constitution itself).

Pelosi hopes to pressure McConnell into holding a “fair trial” — this, after she and her party broke every relevant House rule and precedent, and several Amendments in the Bill of Rights, all in the name of their “sole Power of Impeachment.”

They forget that a “fair trial” applies to the accused, not the accuser, and has since 1215.

Set aside, for the moment, that holding onto the articles of impeachment would contradict everything Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) and the Democrats have said for weeks about the “urgency” of impeachment.

They needed to stop him before he could “cheat in the next election,” we were told — that’s why the House could not wait for the courts to rule on the White House’s resistance to stop congressional subpoenas.

All of that would be exposed as a lie.

During parts of the hearings controlled by the Democrats, phrases like “the President is an ‘existential threat’ to national security” and that the President must be removed immediately because of “the impact on our world” and “we have to do this right now for our grandchildren” were uttered ad nauseum by both politicians and left-leaning news sources.

Now this delay by Pelosi seems to contradict their “hair on fire” attitudes toward the President and show the transparency of their farce of a process.

Three factors are glaringly true:

If Pelosi refuses to submit the articles of impeachment to the Senate, McConnell can convene the Senate anyway, summon the Chief Justice, and swear in the Senators as jurors. Democrats can boycott, but they can’t stop the trial.
McConnell can then propose to dismiss the charges or even hold a vote to acquit the president.
Pelosi can hide the articles of impeachment in Adam Schiff’s basement forever, and it won’t make a bit of difference.
Case closed.

In a related matter, it is truly astonishing that a huge majority of liberals believed that by the act of passing Articles of Impeachment in the House of Representatives, President Trump would be removed from office.

This isn’t now, nor has it ever been true, or the way things work. Former President Bill Clinton was impeached by the house and didn’t leave office. And he was found guilty of a crime.

Former President Richard Nixon resigned from office near the end of his term. He was also found guilty of a crime.

President Trump hasn’t been found guilty of anything – in fact, the articles are so vague, the chance of him being convicted even in a Democrat-majority Senate is close to impossible. Even then, he doesn’t have to leave office.

That’s one of those “what if” scenarios that doesn’t exist – we have a Republican-controlled Senate and 67 votes are required to convict.

In all fairness, there’s enough exculpatory evidence of fraud and bias displayed by Democrats to take a conviction effort and shoot it in the proverbial foot.

And next comes the results of the Durham investigation. It’s likely that 2020 will be a good year for patriots.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *