WHAT DOES MCCONNELL’S PROCLAMATION MEAN WHEN HE SAYS HE DOESN’T HAVE ENOUGH VOTES TO BLOCK WITNESSES AND WHAT ARE THE IMPLICATIONS FOR THE PRESIDENT?
There’s a difference between verification and confirmation and “I told you so,” the latter of which is unbecoming and something I work to avoid. No one appreciates the “I told you so guy” and it takes no real genius to prognosticate after the fact. All of that said, I may avoid avoiding “I told you so” this time. Why?
Here’s why. You could see this construct coming from a mile away. Here’s where we are as forecast by three obvious developments:
- The Left calling for Trump’s impeachment before he was even inaugurated and continuing to call for it after the current impeachment is brought to close; whatever that may look like.
- Early after the Democrats took back the House in 2018, rules changes immediately began to occur and we reported on them: House rules, impeachment rules, whistleblower rules (not a function of the House), etc. That’s early evidence of the broader construct being put into place.
- The House committee chairmen actually signed a Memorandum of Understanding agreeing to attack the Trump Umbrellas with their investigative and subpoena power.
- The predication for impeachment has been a fluid concoction of made-up versions of “Orange Man bad” that have been dressed-up to look like “muh Russia,” “muh Mueller” and “muh Ukraine.” And don’t forget about “muh 25th Amendment waiting on the sidelines.
- With no real crimes or impeachable offenses available to the miscreants on the left, a strategy shift was required.
- The House’s shifted strategy equated to submitting intentionally weak and improperly predicated Articles of Impeachment. By doing so, the House opened portals of debate and disagreement to entangle impeachment and shift the focus to rules, evidence and witnesses; which are ALL A FUNCTION OF THE HOUSE. The net effect is to shift the sole onus of the power to impeach (investigate and make an effective case) to the Senate, which bears the sole onus to serve as the trial venue or court for impeachment. IT IS EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL FOR THE SENATE TO CALL FOR ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE OR WITNESSES THAN WHAT THE HOUSE PROVIDED IN ITS ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT AS BOUND BY THE CONSTITUTION. Subsequently, it would require a rules change from McConnell.
- I’ve written extensively and I’ve seen the argument nowhere else as to why Pelosi executed an unexpected 180-degree turn from driving impeachment and forcing it through at breakneck speed to holding onto the articles for a month before finally transmitting them to the Senate. Why? FOR WHAT WAS SHE WAITING? I’ve speculated that she was waiting for former National Security Director John Bolton’s book transcript to be situated and available. Why? IT SERVES AS THE RATIONALE AND JUSTIFICATION (just look at the timing of it – designed to inflict the most severe damage to the impeachment process) for the EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL PROCESSES involving additional evidence and witnesses.
That brings us to the current moment whereby last night, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared that he does NOT have the votes to block the movement to allowing more EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL witnesses and evidence.
Here’s the relevant and critical aspect of this all – AT A POINT, MCCONNELL IS COMPELLED TO ISSUE A RULES CHANGE AN PRESENT EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL WITNESSES AND EVIDENCE, YOU CAN CONSIDER THE IMPEACHMENT TRAP FULLY SET, PLACED AND READY.
Ask yourself these questions:
- Why did we identify “Republican” Senators like Romney, Collins, Murkowski, et al., early in this process? – They are Globalist imposters not aligned with Americans or this President. We knew their role and you’re seeing it now – calling for EXTRA-CONSTIUTIONAL PROCESSES IN AN UNCONSTITUTIONALLY AND IMPROPERLY PREDICATED IMPEACHMENT.
- What happened to the substantial evidence that House Intelligence Committee Chairman boasted about and that allowed for the transmittance of the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate? – They never had a properly predicated impeachment case and we knew it all along. What they did have is the construct I’ve been outlining for you for a while now.
- Why is the focus now on EXTRA-CONSTITUTIONAL issues germane to impeachment rather than the CONSTITUTIONAL PREDICATION issues that make this construct the fraud it is? – It’s precisely because of my contention that the improperly predicated articles, by design, create portals to shift the onus of the House to the Senate and with the net effect of laundering all of the Democrats political talking points and campaign fodder through the federal apparatus (impeachment) so as to weaponize it all in an attempt to disenfranchise tens of millions of Americans and steal another election. If successful, this effort will go on for months and months and well past 2020.
- Do the Democrats have a bombshell witness who is prepared to emerge and completely upend or shift the impeachment process in an unrecoverable direction? – That is a legitimate concern, which is precisely why it’s called an IMPEACHMENT TRAP.
Where does all of that leave us:
- McConnell pulls off a miracle (it’s possible – there’s emerging information counter to McConnell’s proclamation, which could be a distraction strategy anyway) and prevents any extra-constitutional processes and ends impeachment.
- Witness reciprocity is agreed to thereby limiting the number of witnesses and controlling the length of impeachment but still permitting extra-constitutional processes.
- Unmitigated extra-constitutional processes are permitted via rules changes from McConnell and this process drags-out EXACTLY AS DESIGNED RELATIVE TO THE INTENT OF THE ORIGINAL, BROADER CONSTRUCT.
None of it will matter, though. So long as the President doesn’t walk directly into the trap, he’ll emerge victoriously and in landslide fashion relative to 2020.
For the time being though, it behooves us all to pay close attention to the proceedings because AN IMPEACHMENT TRAP, AS PLANNED, DESIGNED AND DEVISED, lies in wait and therefore, careful navigation is required.