Scampeachment

Democrats in the House invented charges around Ukraine, to impeach Trump. The fraud failed in the Senate. Democrats in the House invented charges around Ukraine, to impeach Trump. They claimed asking Ukraine to help the FBI out with an investigation is Quid Pro Quo (it isn't), that's a crime (it isn't), and Trump not helping the Democrats sham is obstruction/abuse of power, it isn't (Co-equal branches), and those aren't high crimes. The fraud failed in the Senate. ℹ️ Info           ~ Aristotle Sabouni Created: 2019-10-24

Right as COVID was infecting the nation, the Democrats were distracting us with claims that politely asking the Ukranians to help the FBI with an open investigation, was a quid pro quo crime. Despite Trump, Urkraine, and all investigations showing that there was zero quid pro quo (no tit for tat was asked, and it wasn't a crime if he did). Then Pelosi went around the established process when she failed a house vote, and set up an illegal sham for impeaching Trump. And when Trump refused to go along, they shifted the charges to obstruction/abuse of power. (It wasn't, since Executive is a co-equal branch, and Executive priviledge, or the 5th Amendment would cover him).

Lowlights

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.

Mock House 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. He was "unnamed" even if people mentioned that it was the President. Those allegations were later shown false, decades after he was driven out of office by an illegal process. 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.

Media Bias

The mainstream medias coverage was 100% biased in favor of the Democrats, but the informed and critical thinkers could see through that.

• 2019 Guardians of the year - Time has descended to adding a DNC propaganda rag. A bunch of fraud witnesses and activists came forward with disinformation, in a Scampeachment, using here-say and lies (nothing that would hold up in court), and Time celebrates them, because they were working with the DNC to undermine our democracy. All because Orangeman is bad!
• 2019.10.22 Lynchgate - Trump tweets the secret tribunal Scampeachment that violates all historical norms (doing it without a formal vote, not being able to confront/cross-examine witnesses, behind closed doors, etc), is a political lynching. Just because that's what it is. The pearl-clutching Democrats are outraged, because while they say worse, Trump is a Republican! They can't use those words.
• 2019.12.18 Merry Impeachmas - WaPo reporters blasted for ‘Merry Impeachmas’ dinner photo where they accidentally exposed how biased (FakeNews) they are, celebrating the Scampeachment put on by partisan Democrats. Not an ounce of objectivity or common sense. As someone retorted "Democracy dies over chips & guac."
• 2020.01.30 No Christian Case for Trump - The Atlantic's Peter Wehner wrote a hit piece against Trump and supporters over Trump's legal/ethical behavior with regards to Ukraine. Wehner is a never Trumper, the Atlantic is part of the far left resistance, and the piece omits major context (lie of omission) that kind of destroys the idea that Wehner is ethical or making an ethical argument.
• Eric Ciaramella - Eric Ciaramella is the alleged "Whistleblower" that collaborated with Adam Schiff to fabricate evidence, which lead to the charges for impeachment. The scandal is that Eric worked with the Schiff staff to fabricate a coup against a sitting President. When caught, the media pretended that he's protected under whistleblower status (it doesn't apply to him).
• Excuses for Scampeachment - Some dishonest partisans are trying to invent excuses for why the laws shouldn't apply to Democrats or Trump. All of them make them look petty, shallow and dishonest to the informed, as no rational human believes they would be making the same arguments against their own side, or if they weren't #NeverTrump'ers or part of the #Restance (to rule of law). Arguments include:

1. "This has national security issues, thus this secret process is justified" - even though they won't name what the national security issues are (beyond really hating Trump), or what the crime(s) is/are, and they aren't doing just the minimum parts behind closed, but the whole thing behind closed doors. (And then they're selectively leaking to libel a President, without releasing transcripts so we can see what was actually said). So this is not the same thing at all, to the honest or informed.
   • It also ignores the context of a secret whistleblower who was caught colluding with the Democrats in advance, and the Democrats had lied about it, which would mean any honest investigation would have to explore that, and recuse anyone involved, instead of putting them in control of running the investigation. If your goal is credibility, and not mocking the rule of law.
2. "This is the process since Trey Gowdy / Benghazi hearings" - this lie pretends that impeaching the President, with unlimited scope and no crime, is the same as the normal investigative duties of the congress, to see who ordered what, which lead to the deaths of many Americans, and we had people on tape lying about it, and the scope was clearly defined. Anyone with a triple digit IQ knows those aren't the same thing, so the only people that would use this argument are dumb or dishonest.
3. "But the Clinton impeachment had some witness called in secret" - not before there was a vote on impeachment (and both sides were allowed to attend, unlike this one where the Democrats are excluding many more, before a vote was taken to impeach). And the President's folks were allowed in the room and to cross examine the witnesses, and the Republicans weren't cherry-picking leaking out of context parts to sabotage Clinton, like the Democrats have been doing.

• Robert Reich on Scampeachment - Senate Republicans did their job and acquitted Donald Trump of the non-crimes that the Congress failed to charge him with. So Reich lambasted them by whining about the electoral college and pretending popular vote should matter more that our Constitutional system. In Russia maybe he's right, but here? Not so much.

Conclusion

Ignoring the facts is called a lie of omission at best... or partisan hackery at worst. And a few excuses for why it's OK to violate our system of justice, doesn't change that. Anyone that defends this process is defending making our nation ungorvernable, divisive, and rooting for civil war.

If Trump was guilty, then all Democrats belong in prison.

---

🔗 More

Fake News While the term goes back 100 years, the history is summed up well by Sharyl Attkisson.

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).

Issues These are issues that people fight over... current events or consistent divisions.

Impeachments Impeachment is the process by which a legislative body initiates charges against a public official for misconduct.

🔗 Links

Impeachment vote:

• https://www.politico.com/story/2017/12/06/trump-impeachment-vote-fail-282888
• https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/congress/house-vote-impeachment-resolution-against-trump-n1030791

Tags: FakeNews  TBD  Trump  Issues  Impeachments