Examining the political implications following the President’s initial impeachment filing germane to the ongoing coup d’etat against him.
Earlier today, President Trump’s counsel released the full transcript of the his initial impeachment filing. HERE is a link to that response.
For clarity, this article isn’t intended to delve into the granular aspects of the impeachment evidence cited in the filing or the nature of the forthcoming impeachment. Rather, it’s to glean meaning from the response’s contents so as to provide a basis whereby we might be able prognosticate what we might see regarding the ongoing coup d’etat and it’s players.
Here are the major takeaways as I see them:
- The opening paragraph was a succinct recapitulation of the past 3-plus years, “The Articles of Impeachment submitted by House Democrats are a dangerous attack on the right of the American people to freely choose their President. This is a brazen and unlawful attempt to overturn the results of the 2016 election and interfere with the 2020 election—now just months away. The highly partisan and reckless obsession with impeaching the President began the day he was inaugurated and continues to this day.”
- The very next line drops the hammer the biggest nail in the board, “The Articles of Impeachment are constitutionally invalid on their face.” This is perhaps the single most relevant and significant line in the entire response. It identifies the crux of the issue in the simplest of terms. Namely, it’s that the entirety of this scam impeachment fails to even near the legal requisite threshold for a legitimate constitutional process; much less meet it. A worthy Senate representative of the people and giving fidelity to the rule of law would move to dismiss these articles immediately. That won’t happen and we all know why.
- Trump’s counsel paints a convincing and accurate picture depicting that the House’s articles are grossly inadequate to predicate the removal of a duly elected president.
- Considering the previous two points, we can expect some level of Senate shenanigans from Republicans (Murkowski, Collins, Romney, Sasse and potentially others); however, it ought not to matter given the likelihood of an all-but-guaranteed shortage on the requisite votes (two-thirds majority or 67.)
- Trump’s counsel makes a convincing argument that the House’s efforts at impeaching him actually make the case for his exoneration.
- Trump’s counsel identified how the first article failed to meet the constitutional threshold for impeachment germane to “high Crimes and Misdemeanors,” thus advising that evidence of such has never been established.
- Trump’s counsel delineates between the Presidents positions, rooted in evidence like publication of call transcripts corroborated by Ukrainian leadership, and the reliance upon second-hand, hearsay evidence inadmissible in any US court of law.
- Trump’s counsel hinges the entirety of the scam impeachment on an “entirely illegitimate and one-sided process.”
- Trump’s counsel tugged on an incredibly important constitutional issue to SCOTUS. Namely, the separation of powers. Counsel identified the clear threat that such an unconstitutional process would have on the future of the separation of powers and the impact it would have on the president’s constitutional authority to be exercised in representation of the will of his voters.
- Trump’s counsel specifically identified impropriety and perhaps illegality on the part of the House Intelligence Chair, Adam Schiff. Counsel drew attention to his fraudulent and fabricated account of the President’s conversation with Ukrainian leadership, which was subsequently delivered to the American people in a House hearing.
- In the second article, Trump’s counsel establishes that there is no evidence of any crime to have been committed.
- Trump’s counsel identifies the House’s rampant abuse of investigative authority by targeting the Trump Umbrella with subpoenas following the 25 July transcript release.
- Trump’s counsel identifies instances of the House manipulating subpoena power by filing baseless ones only to withdrawal them upon declaratory judgement being sought for the validity of the subpoena.
- In the conclusion, Trump’s counsel draws attention to the House’s ongoing effort to literally seize the President’s constitutionally afforded authority and powers.
- Trump’s counsel hits a home run in the final line of the conclusion, “In order to preserve our constitutional structure of government, to reject the poisonous partisanship that the Framers warned us against, to ensure one-party political impeachment vendettas do not become the “new normal,” and to vindicate the will of the American people, the Senate must reject both Articles of Impeachment. In the end, this entire process is nothing more than a dangerous attack on the American people themselves and their fundamental right to vote.”
Here’s the moonshine: There will be enough Senate shenanigans to rule-out any immediate dismissal thus guaranteeing a dog and pony show of a Senate trial. It’s reasonable to believe that the trial could see some unexpected twists, turns and developments. No matter the course it takes, all roads will lead to the same destination – acquittal and a 2020 landslide victory.
[…] in the Presiden’t initial impeachment response yesterday? Schiff’s. (Here are the MAJOR TAKEAWAYS from the President’s […]
[…] SUPPORT ARTICLES: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 […]
[…] JAN 20: ARTICLE: Major take-aways from Trump’s initial […]
[…] immediately surfaces. Not surprisingly and relative to Trump’s first impeachment, I called-out Sasse long ago saying, “we can expect some level of Senate shenanigans from Republicans (Murkowski, Collins, […]