Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body initiates charges against a public official for misconduct.
Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body initiates charges against a public official for misconduct. Or in the case of Democrats, it's where they whine about perfectly legal things and demand the President be removed anyways, because they don't like him.
Biden asked OPEC/Saudi's to delay cutting production (and the resulting price increases) until after the election. Then when they did not comply, he had a tantrum and decided to hold-off on weapons contracts that they'd already agreed to, and decided to review them. They did what they impeached Trump over in Ukraine -- only this was far worse conflict of interest.
Joe Biden bragged on tape about how he abused power and used quid pro quo.
He demanded that Ukrainian government fire the prosecutor who was investigating Joe's son (Hunter Biden)'s company (Burisma Holdings: Ukrainian natural gas supplier), or Joe Biden would withhold $1B in aid to Ukraine. In Joe's words, "Son-of-a-bitch, they fired the investigator" within a couple hours.
Council on Foreign Relations
Joe Biden Brags about getting Ukranian Prosecutor Fired for looking into his son.
Burisma/Ukraine was infamous for corruption, and at the time was paying millions of dollars to Hunter Biden, despite Hunter not speaking Ukrainian, having no experience in Energy/Natural Gas, foreign policy or negotiations, and had recently been thrown out of the Navy for Drug Abuse, but they agreed to pay him millions of Dollars (as did the Chinese) -- all because his Dad was Vice President (as admitted to in an interview by Hunter Biden). This is called payola, or pay-for-play.
Trump met with newly elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky.
He discussed Ukrainian corruption, mentioned that America had interest in whether anything untoward had happened with regards to that prosecutor getting fired (since the FBI had an open investigation and this is Trump's Job as the highest law enforcement officer in the nation).
There was also discussions around Ukrainian interference in the 2016 presidential election, since a lot of Hillary's "Russian interference" claims, were actually Ukrainians or done out of Ukraine.
A Democrat operative and activist (Eric Ciaramella), illegally leaked cherry picked details of this meeting.
And of course the Democrats and their media panicked at exposing Joe Biden's corruption, and they took the position that the far left usually does of "accuse the other side of what we're doing" to obfuscate the issue.
NOTE:
Trump was NOT withholding aide (that predated him), and Zelensky was unaware of it
There was no threat of Quid Pro Quo, as Trump didn't say his support was conditional, and Zelensky said he didn't feel pressured by the meeting at all
If there was Quid Pro Quo, that's not a crime -- that's kinda the basis of all foreign policy/aid (to persuade).
Quid Pro Quot is only a crime, if you're using Quid Pro Quo to do something illegal, like Joe Biden did trying to cover up his illegal payola (pay-for-play). Trump was just doing his job as top law enforcement officer.
The FakeNews mislabeled Eric Ciaramella as a "Whistleblower" eventhough he didn't qualify under any of the legal or moral definitions of one. And used that to try to hide his identity and intent, but they leaked out anyways.
The 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 ever inaugurated, for the high crime of winning an election. They seriously said things like impeach first, we'll find the crime later. They were serious.
The House failed to call any material witnesses to confirm their claims.
The whole thing was all based on the allegations of a Democratic activist who colluded with Adam Schiff ("prosecution") and the Democrats to subvert the election.
NOTE:
All witnesses were heresay trying to presume Trumps motives or ignore what Trump actually said.
Eric Ciaramella claims were debunked by other people in the room
He and others were never examined or cross-examined by anyone but Democrat operatives, in a kangaroo court, where they staged/coordinated what they would answer in advance.
Since there was no actual crime committed, or named, the House impeached.
They impeached based on two vague non-crimes: Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress.
NOTE:
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 was executive privilege, and if Trump is guilty by not giving congress what they wanted, then every President back to Washington was guilty as well. Suddenly, the Executive Branch is beholden to the Legislative one, according to Pelosi. But not according to the founders and all prior precedent.
After they "impeached" without ever voting to do the impeachment (and ignoring the vote against it), or following any of the precedent/processes, this was so urgent, Pelosi then sat on the impeachment for a month.
Pelosi refused to hand over the articles to the Senate so they could review/try the case. This was Pelosi's abuse of power (an attempt to quid-pro-quo the Senate into giving her what she wanted before she'd turn over the articles), she wanted them to call 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.
After she relented and turned over the case as she was required to do, they did their job, ignored her request and dismissed the case as not being proven.
Finally, the Senate reviewed the investigation, respected their oath of office by rejecting those proceedings as proving nothing.
You can't pretend to care about the Constitution, while using it for toilet paper as the Pelosi impeachment had done.
Of course Democrat operatives and their media or water carriers howled at the Senate for doing it's job. But if you can break the rules because "Orangeman is bad!", then we have no rule of law.
The Democrats were shamefully dividing us, as they always do, and guaranteeing their own failure, as they often do. But there is nobody informed who has integrity that would be proud or stand behind the Scampeachment of Trump.
the Democrats and their media promised to impeach Trump from before he was in office
they kept floating Trial balloons on what he should be guilty of
most fell flat, but a Fake Quid-Pro-Quo got a partisan vote in the house and yawns in the Senate
Then the Chewbacca taking selfies with Pelosi's podium was something they thought they could pin on him. And for the emotion, irrational, and those not paying attention, it could persuade them. If by persuade we mean not change their mind in the slightest on what they already believed: that Trump is Satan.
So they rushed a case through the house without any evidence, witnesses, any allowed defense or even a good basis for impeachment -- because they wanted the charade that "he was still in office" while impeached.
Then they stalled sending it to the Senate, so they wouldn't have to face any critical thinkers or scrutiny and the Senate control switched to Democrats and they could go full Kangaroo court.
The summary of the evidence wouldn't be enough to convince a Cambodian roadside hit squad that they had a case. Let's go through the evidence:
Oh wait, there is none. They didn't present any facts that the house had used. Because the house hadn't used any to begin with -- just straight line partisan vote to convict was enough.
They hacked up some videos as "evidence"... only the videos were out of context lies that would have never been allowed in a court of law. The Trump team just offered all the context was hacked out, and the total tone changed. Each clip in the video would have been disqualified in a court for omission of exculpatory evidence. Thus, there was nothing left.
🔗 More
People This is the root for finding info on people
The Left Lies When the truth disagrees with your agenda, you can grow (change) or lie. The left usually chooses the latter.
Alt-People There's people, and then there's popular narratives that we tell about people.
TBD List all the articles that have work to be done on them.
Donald Trump A list of articles on Trump, his accomplishments, scandals (real and imagined).
Presidents This is the root for finding info on Presidents
Republicans Republicans can push buttons and throw around rhetoric too, it's just not as effective for them.
History Historical People... People articles that don't fit into other categories.
.jpg)
