White House Background Outline on Rebuttal Letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Impeachment Effort…

Earlier today the White House held a background Q&A with reporters to discuss the letter they sent to Speaker Nancy Pelosi.  [You can find additional CTH information HERE]

[Transcript] – MR. GIDLEY: Thank you so much everyone. We appreciate you joining the call. This is a background briefing regarding the letter to the House Representatives. Keep in mind that this call is attributable to a senior administration official, so on background only. It is also embargoed until the conclusion of the call.

With that, I’m going to turn it over to [a senior administration official] to give you a brief overview of the letter. And then I have [senior administration officials] to answer questions after the presentation.

So, with that, I’m going to turn it over to [senior administration official].

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Thank you, Hogan. Thank you everyone for being on the call. Today, White House Counsel Pat Cipollone sent a letter to Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi, and to the chairmen of the Foreign Affairs, Intelligence, and Oversight and Reform committees of the House of Representatives, explaining the President’s and the administration’s position with respect to recent requests for information in connection with what the House has characterized as an impeachment inquiry. And the letter explains that there are legal and constitutional flaws that make what has been labeled a so-called “impeachment inquiry” invalid as a constitutional matter.

For the first time in our nation’s history, the House of Representatives is now purporting to proceed on an impeachment inquiry against the President without conducting a vote on the House floor. This has never happened in the history of the country. There’s always been, in every prior inquiry into a presidential impeachment, a vote on the House floor.

And here, the House is purporting to proceed simply on the basis of a news conference that the Speaker of the House had. And that is simply not sufficient to establish the sort of accountability to show the will of the House to embark on this that is required out of due respect for the separation of powers and for the vote of the American people that was taken in the last election.

Even more importantly, the second legal and constitutional flaw is that the House is purporting to proceed without providing any of the due process protections that have been provided in all modern presidential impeachment inquiries in the past. The House is not providing any rules to provide the President any of the basic procedural rights that would apply in any proceeding that is designed to achieve a real search for the truth.
They have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call witnesses, to receive transcripts as testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel present — all of these. And these have been in the 1970s, in the inquiries into President Nixon; in the late 1990s, the inquiries into impeachment with President Clinton. All these rights were available. It is unprecedented that they are being denied here, and it violates basic due process standards.

In addition to that, by failing to have any resolution on the House floor, the House has avoided giving even the minority on the committees the right to subpoena. So, in all prior modern presidential inquiries into presidential impeachment, the minority party has had co-equal authority to issue subpoenas to gather information along with the majority.

This is the first time ever that someone — that a House has tried to pursue such an inquiry while denying the minority that right. And it simply guarantees that this would be a one-sided inquiry, a one-sided effort by one party to gather the information that it finds favorable, without the same power on the other side to gather other information.

And that’s contrary to one of the basic tenets of our adversarial system of justice, which is that, in having an adversarial presentation of evidence — two sides trying to get at the truth — that is the best way to get at the truth of something. Again, it’s denial of basic fairness, fundamental fairness in this process.

And so, the letter explains that there are these flaws denying fundamental fairness and due process, contrary to all history and precedent in the country, and explains that the reason the Democrats are proceeding in this fashion is that this is really nothing but a political strategy.

It’s a political stratagem because the Democrats want to overturn the results of the 2016 election and they want to use impeachment as a political strategy to influence the results of the 2020 election. And this, again, is unprecedented in the history of our nation to use such a grave constitutional proceeding for such raw political ends.

It’s something that was denounced even by Chairman Nadler in the context of the Bill Clinton impeachment. He explained then that there should never be a narrowly voted impeachment, or impeachment supported by one political party and opposed by another — that that’s simply not the proper use of impeachment.

The letter goes on also to explain that there are some serious questions raised by some of the conduct of the committees — with Chairman Schiff, for example, first denying that he had any contact with the whistleblower, then having to admit that that was not true. And that these are questions that ought to be explored. But given the current procedures — the constitutionally flawed procedures that the committees have adopted, there is no opportunity either for the President or for the minority, so the Republicans in the House, to explore these issues. There’s no subpoena power for them. There’s no way for them to get access to evidence. There’s no opportunity for the President to confront witnesses at all or cross-examine them. So the entire process is flawed from the outset.

And the letter concludes by explaining that, given these constitutional flaws and the President’s obligations under the Constitution and to future occupants of the Office of the Presidency, that he cannot have his administration participate in this unconstitutional procedure, and that, under the current circumstances, at least as currently framed, that he and his administration will not participate in this process.

I think that’s a good summary of the letter, and we’d be happy to take questions.

Q Thank you. Alex Ward from Vox here. We were talking to House Democrats today who said any action along these lines could be seen as something that could lead to articles of impeachment over obstruction of justice. I’m wondering how you view those statements by Democrats.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, asserting rights under the Constitution cannot ever properly be framed as obstruction of justice. Democrats may try to spin it that way politically, they may try to make that argument politically, but that’s a political argument; it’s not a legal argument. Standing on rights and asserting rights under the Constitution, under the separation of powers and under the due process clause, is not obstruction of justice; it’s part of the constitutional system we have.

Q Hi. This is Andrew Feinberg with Breakfast Media. Thanks for doing the call. I have two questions. The first is: Aren’t you putting the due process cart before the horse here? Because the opportunity to question witnesses against the President, wouldn’t that come in a Senate trial?

And second, since Democrats took over Congress, you guys have argued that their oversight requests aren’t legitimate without a legitimate legislative purpose. You’re now arguing that the impeachment inquiry that you said — that you guys previously said that the administration would cooperate with — have the obligation to cooperate with — is illegitimate because there hasn’t been a House vote.

What’s to stop you from arguing that an impeachment inquiry, should the House take a vote, is illegitimate because not enough Republicans voted for it? I mean, isn’t the real (inaudible) you don’t see the Democratic House as having any legitimate authority over a Republican administration?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, no, that’s not accurate at all. And the answer to both of your questions, really, is grounded in precedent.

As to the first one, the ability to question witnesses in all modern presidential impeachment inquiries — even at the inquiry stage in the House — the President was afforded the ability to question witnesses. President Clinton’s counsel questioned witnesses in the House. So that’s before the Senate trial.

What is unprecedented is the denial of that ability under the current procedures that the House is pursuing right now. And in terms of oversight, you’ll see towards the end of the letter, we point out that Congress can’t have it both ways here. It can’t have — purport to be pursuing an impeachment inquiry without the requisite procedures and then try to rely on its oversight authority to be doing that.

And the precedent is that for impeachment inquiries, there is, for a presidential impeachment inquiry, a vote in the House. That’s what authorizes the inquiry to go forward. If the House wants to revert to regular order on oversight and not have an impeachment inquiry, we would be — we would respond to those requests, as we have according to the constitutionally mandated accommodation process and according to longstanding principles that have governed our approach.

Q Oh, hi there. It’s Josh Wingrove from Bloomberg. Thank you for taking the time. Can you give us sort of a practical sense of what this means? This means that all members of the administration will not testify; they will decline subpoena requests? It will not provide documents either in response to subpoenas or requests, as was the case with the Vice President? Basically, it’s just a full halt on the part of the administration. Is that correct?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: That is correct. The administration’s policy, under the current circumstances — at least as these rules are currently framed — that the administration will have a full halt because this is not a valid procedure for going forward on an impeachment inquiry.

Q Hi. This is Yamiche Alcindor with PBS News Hour. I have a question about what happens if the House does hold a vote on the impeachment inquiry. Does the White House then say that it would provide documents and allow witnesses to testify?

And then the second question is, there’s going to be criticism that this is really the President stonewalling Congress because he doesn’t like this investigation and this impeachment inquiry. Can you say — can you answer both of those things please?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I don’t want to speculate about what would happen in various hypothetical situations. You know, we’ll take this step by step. We have one concrete situation now that we’re confronting; we’ve addressed it. If the House wants to engage and alter the current circumstances, then we’ll have to evaluate that as it goes along.

And in terms of your second question, this is really a situation where the President has an obligation to the institution, to the Executive Branch prerogatives and to future occupants of the Office, to protect certain principles and not to engage in a process that we believe is constitutionally defective. And it would set a precedent then for future proceedings by lowering the bar for starting an impeachment inquiry and making it much easier to use an impeachment inquiry simply as a political tool, when it should be an extraordinary remedy that is very rarely invoked, only for the gravest of circumstances.

Q Hi, it’s Steven Portnoy from CBS News. Thanks for taking this call. Gentleman, the Constitution doesn’t have too much to say about impeachment, but what it does say, you know, is rather powerful. It seems you’re going to have answer a threshold question if this is tested in court. And that question might be: How do any of the premises you’ve put in your letter — the discussion of precedent, you cite the Alcee Hastings case in a footnote — how does any of that outweigh the Constitution’s clear statement that the House shall have the sole power of impeachment? Starting from that very simple basis, what’s the legal, not political, but the legal argument that the President can have anything to say about this at all?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, as you probably know, particularly in the area of separation of powers, the Constitution doesn’t say very much explicitly. It’s a principle that’s derived from the structure of the Constitution.

And in that area in particular, courts tend to look at the practice — the precedent of the way that branches have handled inter-branch conflicts, and treat that as gloss in many circumstances on what the Constitution requires.

So here, the fact that precedent is completely on our side, and it’s not really disputed that it’s on our side, that precedent itself provides a powerful gloss on what the Constitution requires in terms of separation of powers.

And I think both for having the vote in the House to establish that is actually the action of the House — the elected representatives of the people — that they want to embark on this course of a very grave inter-branch conflict requiring a vote — for that is consistent with case law in other areas, such as the courts have required a vote from the House to authorize as to engage in litigation, because it’s that vote from the House that shows the will of the body, the institution, to engage in an inter-branch conflict.

And on the due process clause, or due process protections, these are fundamental protections that are regarded as essential for the search for the truth under our system of laws. And to say that in one of the gravest proceedings that affect the entire nation to remove the President from office, that the Constitution doesn’t imply that there is any process protection, I think would be untenable.

Q This is Ben Tracy from CBS. Could you specifically say what is the bar for cooperation? Is it simply taking this vote? Do you feel like you will get these due process issues settled? Or do they have to meet all of these requirements you’ve outlined in this letter?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: I’m not going to try to provide particular red lines or things like that. The letter, I think, speaks for itself about flaws. We have to see what the House wants to do to try to remedy them. And as I said before, I don’t want to speculate. We’ll take it as the situations develop, and day by day as things change, be able to reevaluate.

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Moderator, we have time for one more question. Thank you.

Q Hi, this is Noah Bierman of the LA Times. You are not willing to answer what circumstances would cause you to cooperate? A lot of people will take that as, basically, an open-ended statement that you’re not going to cooperate at all and not willing to get ahead of the President, who may change his mind on a whim. Is that an accurate characterization of what’s going on here?

And how do you respond to people who are concerned about that — that this is a constitutional prerogative of Congress that is being ignored here, basically?

SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, I think by saying that we don’t want to speculate about hypotheticals or draw red lines, or predict the future, we are definitely not saying that — we’re avoiding saying that there is no way we’d ever cooperate and laying down something definite.

What we have done in this letter is explain the flaws under the current circumstances and how changes could address those flaws and what that might hold for the future. I don’t want to try to predict now because we’ll have to see how it develops.

MR. GIDLEY: Thank you very much, Moderator. Just as a reminder to all the reporters on the call, this call is attributable to a senior administration official. Again, it’s a background call attributable to a senior administration official. And, of course, the embargo is now lifted. Thank you so much for your time.

END 5:39 P.M. EDT

.

Advertisements
This entry was posted in Big Government, Conspiracy ?, Donald Trump, Election 2020, Impeachment, Legislation, media bias, Nancy Pelosi, President Trump, Press Secretary - Trump, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink.

72 Responses to White House Background Outline on Rebuttal Letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s Impeachment Effort…

  1. thedoc00 says:

    Every reporter asked the same question under the same assumption, there is NO separation of powers within the constitution and no acknowledgement that the Constitution and all its amendments applies 24/7 to every action taken by all branches of the government.

    These assumptions are also major key stones of the Democrat Effort.

    Liked by 16 people

    • Lee Moore says:

      I was just keeping score of who was asking the questions. Lefty outfit – lefty outfit – lefty outft and so on down to the bottom.

      I’ve never heard of Breakfast Media though, so I may be doing them a disservice.

      Liked by 4 people

    • Sloth1963 says:

      Much like their effort to do away with the Electoral College. More power grab.

      Liked by 9 people

    • Bubba Cow says:

      not a single honest question, all attempted gotchas
      Is this how “journalists” are trained now?

      Liked by 5 people

      • GB Bari says:

        Quite simply, yes.

        We no longer have real honest journalists working for the MSM Or most other news outlets.

        They are all – every one of them – just Leftwing activists writing biased opinion-laced articles for their editors instead of objective reports that comply with even the most basic tenets of journalism.

        Liked by 7 people

        • littleanniefannie says:

          ‘Journalists” are now held in the same esteem as ambulance chasing lawyers (think Creepy Porn Lawyer). These “journalists” are the same kind that followed Princess Diana!

          Liked by 2 people

  2. EnoughIsEnough says:

    Tonight, John Soloman is reporting that Ukraine opened their investigation on Biden in FEBRUARY! How will the Dems and their co-conspirator MSM spin that nugget? No pressure. No quid pro quo. No requesting a foreign government to investigate a political rival.

    Liked by 22 people

    • Sentient says:

      They’ll still say he requested. It was attempted arm-twisting, they’ll say.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Lee Moore says:

        I’ll just repeat a point I’ve made before, becaise it comes up again in this clip – the idea that it is important that Shokin claims in his affidavit that he was fired not for corruption or slackness about corruption, but simply because of Biden’s threat.

        Shokin’s affidavit, while interesting, is not necessary to demonstrate this point. Because it is explicit in Biden’s own video performance.

        Not only does Biden claim that he got the prosecutor fired, but he goes on to explain that the Ukrainians did not want to fire him – that they questioned his authority to make the threat. Only after his authority to make the threat was made clear to them, did they go ahead and fire the prosecutor. So there is no doubt – out of Biden’s own mouth – that the prosecutor was fired for being unacceptable to Biden, not because the Ukrainian President agreed that he was corrupt.

        This does not of course prove that Shokin wasn’t corrupt, nor that Biden was necessarily lying in claiming he though the prosecutor was corrupt. But it does nail down the actual reason why the Ukrainian President fired the prosecutor Shokin. Not for corruption, but to dodge Biden’s threat.

        Liked by 14 people

      • Unfortunately not:

        “This is something for the American Congress to …”

        Most unfortunately, “the actual American People” are now broadsided by the simple fact that “the American Congress” has not been on their side for a great many decades. They’ve never told the truth. Instead, they’ve all been leveraging their privileged positions to advance their own purely-criminal objectives … and have been laughing about it, on camera.

        Liked by 10 people

    • Eric C. says:

      Obviously, PDJT’s limo reached 88 mph.

      Liked by 2 people

    • Bogeyfree says:

      Remember now it isn’t about the call it’s all about obstruction.

      Another person sets up an unsecured private server to conduct government business, destroys 33k emails, bleach bits a government issued computer, smashes 2 government issued cell phones and then thousands of this persons emails end up on a private citizen computer and………

      NOTHING HAPPENS.

      HOW CAN THAT BE AG BARR?

      How is that equal justice for all under the law?

      It’s a disgrace!

      Liked by 16 people

    • Lester Smith says:

      What the hell is wrong with Andrew Mccarthy. Saw him on Hannity has the darkside got dirt on him. Anyway ukrainian president brought up Biden not trump Andrew. Trump asked if they could check it out. New info ukrainians been looking at the energy company’s activities for months. What to hell dumb azz.

      Liked by 1 person

      • Jim in TN says:

        Never forget, McCarthy is a Never Trumper. And associates with Never Trump National Review. And like many such recalcitrants, always, ALWAYS, includes derogatory comments when discussing Trump.

        Liked by 2 people

      • willthesuevi says:

        If McCarthy isn’t revered as the smartest guy in the room he pouts. He acts like Bill Kristol.

        Like

  3. L4grasshopper says:

    I particularly noted the complete lack of interest by the media WRT the lack of due process protections in the current fake process Pelosi is pulling. Not a one of them expressed concern over the minority party or the accused being denied basic rights.

    Liked by 14 people

    • Coast says:

      Yep, and they don’t care. What a bunch of sick people.

      Liked by 3 people

    • grlangworth says:

      This is a function of rampant ignorance of the Constitution and of the rule of law. I think the curricula of journalism courses should have fewer knitting classes.

      Liked by 3 people

    • Ma McGriz says:

      ” I particularly noted the complete lack of interest by the media WRT the lack of due process protections in the current fake process ”

      The seriousness of this can’t be understated.
      It also can’t be tolerated.

      Liked by 2 people

    • cdquarles says:

      This is not the first time I’ve seen this movie. They tried this method on President Nixon, too. See more here: https://geoffshepard.com/about-the-book/, where the book is “The Real Watergate Scandal”. They tried to deprive Nixon of his Constitutional rights, too. The Hildebeest was a part of that. Like so much else, due process for me, not for thee. These folk are tyrants. God help us if they ever get the power they seek.

      Like

  4. foo says:

    I’m glad to see Trump getting well ahead of this, as it will have to get to at least the appellate level before the judiciary finally puts a leash on Pelosi’s power grab, if not the supreme court itself.

    The real wildcard is Roberts.
    How badly is this man compromised given his horrendous “Orange Man Bad” census ruling.

    Liked by 14 people

  5. “A lot of people will take that as, basically, an open-ended statement that you’re not going to cooperate at all and not willing to get ahead of the President, who may change his mind on a whim. Is that an accurate characterization of what’s going on here?

    And how do you respond to people who are concerned about that — that this is a constitutional prerogative of Congress that is being ignored here, basically?”

    Clue ‘Ya: A helluva lot of actual American People™ aren’t buyin’ this sort of “begging-the-question doubletalk” anymore. You just don’t get to keep “setting the terms of engagement” in this profoundly important national discourse.

    Liked by 15 people

  6. delighteddeplorable says:

    What a day, what a week, and it’s only Tuesday. Thank you, Sundance, and our outstanding Legal Eagle ristvan, for providing clear, concise information about this complicated business with pertinent details carefully explained.

    That POTUS has this becomes more obvious with each maneuver and it is truly something to behold. We’ve been anticipating the Big Ugly for such a long time and it sure looks like it’s underway now. As POTUS advised, “calm down and enjoy the ride.” Yessir, will do. Hooooboy! What a ride it is!. MAGA/KAG

    Liked by 18 people

  7. CopperTop says:

    “SENIOR ADMINISTRATION OFFICIAL: Well, asserting rights under the Constitution cannot ever properly be framed as obstruction of justice.”

    That right there.

    Liked by 27 people

    • icndark says:

      Or: Defending oneself in the face of baseless and facetious allegations should never be misconstrued as obstruction of justice. To the contrary, it should be seen as the inalienable right of every human being, including and especially our VSGPDJT.

      Liked by 4 people

  8. joebkonobi says:

    Good responses by the WH. Now we get to see the swamp twist it into “Orange Man Bad”!

    Liked by 7 people

  9. Fine & Dandy, but let’s remember: once again, this is *defense*. Where’s our offense? It all hinges on that putative juridical quisling, Bill ‘Decline to Prosecute’ Barr.

    Liked by 6 people

  10. Cathy M. says:

    How transparent of them /s/

    “House Democrats are looking to prevent the whistleblower from being identified by holding the person’s testimony at a remote location and potentially changing their appearance and voice.”

    https://thehill.com/homenews/house/464738-democrats-mull-masking-whistleblower-holding-testimony-at-remote-locale-report

    Liked by 3 people

  11. alliwantissometruth says:

    Of course the White House has to respond within a legal framework, and of course the democrats tactics need to be exposed so the people can understand their disgusting actions, but I think the President needs to start putting the entire coup into perspective

    He needs to start hammering home the reality that all of this is being done not because they hate him and his politics, but because he’s threatening their criminal syndicate that brings them wealth by selling America, the American peoples birthright, resources and wealth to the globalist power brokers

    Our entire “government” is nothing more than a get rich scheme for political whores to turn tricks for their donors and globalist masters, as they sell us all down the river

    That’s why the democrats (and RINO’s) are putting this country through hell. It has nothing to do with ideology, conservative or liberal policies. It’s all about money and power for the politicians

    President Trump has brought just that up at times, but he really needs to start hammering that reality home again and again

    Dirty politics is one thing, but politicians stealing us blind and selling out our country and our children’s futures for personal profit really hits home with people

    Liked by 15 people

    • icndark says:

      I’ll admit. I’ve come to accept the fact that the “forgotten” Americans and thereby, general public DO NOT GET THIS! Not on the surface and certainly not to any Treeprer level.
      Having stated that painful and all too real FACT! Release the hounds! Damn the torpedoes! Drop that Sucker!
      Then, I don’t know…say New Year’s eve?. Request a gathering.

      Liked by 2 people

  12. Gary Lacey says:

    The coup attempt by the Democrat Party may present a problem for prosecution, how do they go forth with justice when the entire Democrat Party is culpable?

    Frankly , I have no problems about trying, convicting ad lining the bastards up against the wall and shooting them. justice served!

    Liked by 2 people

  13. jx says:

    Pelosi’s weak and pathetic response to the WH letter.

    https://www.speaker.gov/newsroom/10819-0

    Like

    • RyderLee says:

      I just read Pelosi *response* . These people Really Exhibit Cultish Behavior !
      It is Almost BEYOND my Comprehension to Believe that they All (uni-party)
      are Willing to Accept This ! It’s like they’ve had a Chip embedded in them !
      Money Money Money Power Power Power . Sickening and Scary!

      Liked by 1 person

  14. Julia Adams says:

    Did I hear Hannity and Solomon correctly? Are they conditioning their viewership to a big let down on the FISA warrants? No charges because it’s too hard to get Democrats convicted? Well, here we go again. The President facing an impeachment proceeding for talking to foreign leaders but the Obama Administration who spied on the Trump Campaign all will skate free? I should have known this is coming because Samantha Powers is out there saying she is considering Warren’s seat after she wins the election. Isn’t that how Gillibrand got Hillary’s senate seat. These people are insane

    Like

  15. Fishelsea says:

    James Clapper throws Obama under the bus, saying he and brennan shouldn’t be investigated for doing what Obama told them to do. Clapper appeared visibly shaken.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Zy says:

      Clapper is just the START of pointing to the other guy or gal which will play a big part in these events. It’s human nature.

      Like

      • Ackman419 says:

        Clapper will fold. He’s clearly the dumbest perp in all of this. Well, maybe Farkas is.
        I don’t think Brennan will roll. That troll is not human anymore. He probably does the whole flame on the palm exercise to help him gain transcendency.

        Liked by 4 people

  16. cthulhu says:

    One important point that keeps getting elided again and again and again. “Obstruction of Justice” is a crime — but none of these people are pursuing Justice in the first place. “Obstruction of Congress” is not a crime; “Obstruction of FBI” is not a crime; “Obstruction of partisan bickering” is not a crime; “Obstruction of RESIST” is not a crime; “Obstruction of political railroading” is not a crime.

    So, it is reasonable to ask oneself: “what are the characteristics of a process that pursues Justice?” Well, to begin with, both sides may freely pursue the Truth and have equal access to it once attained. That’s what makes Schiff’s “I’ll have secret depositions, selectively edit and/or misquote them, and appear on television spreading lies and innuendo” especially annoying. Obstructing Schiff is not “Obstruction of Justice.”

    Pursuing Justice would also mean that everyone concerned should be able to clarify points within the given body of knowledge. That’s why Pelosi’s “anyone with a (D) after their name can demand anything while threatening subpoenas, but Republicans can just sit this out. Obstructing these fake and unlawful faux-subpoenas is not “Obstruction of Justice”.

    I could go on, though this letter is eight pages of similar material. My comment is that they’re going to have to get to brass tacks as to the underlying issue — and that issue is that they are attempting to claim that obstruction of noxious partisan behavior is “Obstruction of Justice” — when Justice is the farthest thing from their minds.

    Liked by 6 people

  17. ATheoK says:

    “Even more importantly, the second legal and constitutional flaw is that the House is purporting to proceed without providing any of the due process protections that have been provided in all modern presidential impeachment inquiries in the past. The House is not providing any rules to provide the President any of the basic procedural rights that would apply in any proceeding that is designed to achieve a real search for the truth.”

    The simple summation of democrat actions in the house is a perfect example of where a simple majority is harshly applied as ‘Tyranny of the Majority”.
    Just a taster of how the democrats plan to apply a next democrat administration. All a government despotic force with opponents getting prosecuted into bankruptcy and imprisonment.

    Voting for any democrat, no matter how rational they may seem this next election is a vote against America.

    Liked by 7 people

  18. joe kersh says:

    I see a flaw in logic here. The biggest flaw is that justice has nothing to do with impeachment. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal trial. The constitution says what has to happen, not how it happens. If the Democratic party had a 2/3 majority in both houses of congress, Trump would no longer be president. Proof is not required. All that is required is the vote.
    Taking everything into consideration, in my opinion, this is a monkey s–t throwing contest, like most politics.

    Liked by 1 person

    • Exactly and this is why since the Dems in the House are following no precedent then neither does the President have to follow any precedent which he is not. Good for him.

      Like

    • arze says:

      Except no president has ever been removed by a vote of the Senate. Thus it is impossible to say with any certainty anything, as that is unknown. And even if the Chief Justice of Supreme Court presiding over a Senate Trial is a “potted plant”, that in and of itself inserts judiciary into this and thus also become a judiciary process.

      As for these reporters, my sense is they were glad to have this opportunity, even if they did not make the most of it.

      Three Questions they could have been asked in the public interest, instead of their own, could have been as follows:

      1] Do you think Hillary Clinton was responsible for digging up the 2007 Liz Warren interview, to smear Warren and pave the way for another Clinton candidacy? [answer would have been: keep digging and let us know what you find]

      2] What evidence do you have that VP Biden sought a corrupt quid pro quo viz. Ukraine and would that evidence be turned over to the House? [answer would have been, we aren't speculating on hypotheticals]

      3] What other precedents can you share to buttress argument that House cannot go forward with out a vote that was not stated in the letter to speaker Pelosi? [I would have liked this question asked, as it would have had the possibility of providing some actual news]

      I don’t know if Congress has the votes to pass a resolution. Since Pelosi hasn’t brought that to the floor, it would appear she does not have the votes.

      And without the votes, this is a waste of time.

      Enough Democrats — a few dozen — that rightly care more about being reelected are now calling the shots on this, whether the press wants to report that or not.

      The press don’t dare interview them. Why? Simple: the press wants an impeachment [which is sick], and thus don’t want to force the issue, knowing full well that to do so would only further alienate the Democrats from going along with Pelosi’s latest fantasy.

      On another note: let’s get ALL of the JFK material still being hidden by the government out in the open, for all of us to read and see.

      No “impeachment” of Pres. Trump should go forward without ALL of the JFK assassination material.

      Let’s examine all the similarities of that removal of a president from office, with the current effort, and of course, note the obvious similarity: CIA up to their eyeballs in it.

      Like

  19. Laurie Walker says:

    I was surprised that the whole letter was political. Then I remembered the whole impeachment inquiry is political. This is going to the Supreme Court. Unbelievable!

    Like

  20. Rob says:

    The simple answer for the jerk from CBS News is that, yes, the Constitution says the **House** shall have the sole power of impeachment – NOT the **Speaker of the House.**

    Which is one of the points of the letter. Precedent shows that the Speaker does not have the power to unilaterally declare an “impeachment”. Only a VOTE by the **House** makes it clear that this is the **House** exercising its power of impeachment.

    Liked by 1 person

  21. Rhoda R says:

    And the bottom line irony of all of this is that there STILL has been no crime, high or otherwise, that has been identified.

    Liked by 1 person

  22. littleanniefannie says:

    For a while, the Democrat Party has tried to normalize lawlessness. Now, they are trying to make lawlessness a virtue. The American people have already heard the Democrats’ own words – ‘Muh Russia, ya know.’ The Democrats’ actions threaten our national security, violate our Constitution and undermine the integrity of our elections. The Committees’ letters are only the latest attempt to cover up their betrayal of our democracy, and to insist that they are above the law.

    “This letters are manifestly wrong, and is simply another unlawful attempt to hide the facts of the Obama Intelligence Community and their collusion with foreign agencies to fabricate a witch hunt coup. Despite the House’s endless “investigations”, we see a growing body of evidence that shows that Adam Schiff abused his position and violated his responsibilities of fairness and honor while being joined by Nadler, Cummings and Engel.

    “The House should be warned that continued efforts to hide the truth of the House’s abuse of power from the American people will be regarded as further evidence of conspiracy to overthrow a legally elected President.

    “Madame Speaker, you and your fellow conspirators are not above the law. You will be held accountable.”

    Liked by 3 people

    • This is how the Dems will govern if ever they gain power in the Senate and the White House. Lawlessness! They are not going to follow the guidelines of the Constitution. They have proven that already. Power hungry socialists. Our Constitution means nothing to them.

      Liked by 1 person

  23. Soldier/Cop/Grunt, Retired says:

    Dear Nancy Letter

    Nancy, Adam, and Gang: Suggest all you guys need to go out and get Donald a big fruit basket,a country ham, anything…. you think the President may like enough to at least let you guys form up in the parking lot at the White House and render your apologies. His letter telling each of you to “Sod Off” has done more than you know. For your information, one again the President has saved your behinds (well, not your actual behinds,Adam [know how you will blow any little remark out of sight]). But, once again the President’s actions are the only reason an army of veterans have not ascended on DC and started the process of cleaning the swamp. Our very first action was to be sorting through all elected members of Congress. Those found complicit in any manner in the impeachment fiasco (to include those hiding under their desks) were to be loaded on buses and sent to California with instructions providing that if they ever leave the state it had best be on a sailboat (must consider climate change/global warming you know) bound for China. Have a nice day.

    Soldier/Cop/Grunt, Retired

    Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s