There are a large number of lies and bizarre legal theories encapsulated in Nadler's report that supposedly provides the legal framework for impeachment. Oddly that report doesn't contain any references to the only witnesses Nadler allowed in his kangaroo court; the four legal scholars.
However the most troubling and egregious concept advanced by Nadler's hyper partisan document is that a President can be impeached even if they didn't abuse their power so long as when they were legally using their power they harbored bad thoughts.
The report says:
"That said, impeachable abuse of power can be roughly divided into two categories: engaging in official acts forbidden by law and engaging in official action with motives forbidden by law. As James Iredell explained, “the president would be liable to impeachments [if] he had ... acted from some corrupt motive or other.”"
That's right the Democrats are going full thought police. It doesn't matter if what Trump did was a legal use of his power as President. What matters is that he might have been thinking thoughts that are forbidden by law; in reality thoughts that Democrats don't like.
It would be interesting to see what laws declare that one's thoughts are criminal absent any actual criminal act but like most of what is in the report we must simply trust what the Democrats say.
Even Hate Crime laws require that the evil thoughts be acted on in order to be criminal so what the report is saying is truly revolutionary; if a racist white man helps an old Black woman cross the street he's guilty of a crime because his thoughts were unacceptable even though his actions were fully legal.
Democrats have used this reasoning before as part of their plot to deny we the people the right to pick our leaders. Trump issued an Executive Order on immigration and a Federal judge ruled that it was unConstituional even though if Hillary had issued the exact same order it would have been Constitutional.
The dishonest judge reasoned that Trump's motives weren't acceptable and hence the executive order wasn't legal. But we are governed by what the laws and executive orders say not what the person who issued them was thinking so clearly there is no basis for caring about what a President's intent was so long as the words he put in his executive order spell out nothing illegal.
Clearly it takes little effort to postulate that Trump wasn't thinking what leftists want him to think when he does anything and hence it's easy to block his authority by simply declaring that his thoughts weren't right. Hence it's an ideal tool for dishonest judges and Democrats to use to prevent Trump from exercising the power that we the people gave him.
The idea of condemning people for their thoughts is one that's universally present in repressive dictatorships and Communist regimes. That Democrats are advocating it is strong evidence that they are interested in ruling over us not representing us.
If we can be convicted for our thoughts there is no one who a prosecutor couldn't convict. After all how does one prove that one never thought "unacceptable" thoughts? And just who decides what thoughts are permissible?
The fact that Democrats have been reduced to this level of publicly acknowledging their tyrannical instincts in their quest to overturn the 2016 election shows that they know that they don't have any actual basis for impeachment.
Despite all the lies that Democrats and the #FakeNews media are spreading not one of the Democrats handpicked witnesses testified to having first hand knowledge of any crime committed by Trump. The closest they came was Ambassador Sondland saying that there was a quid pro quo. But when questioned not only did Sondland admit that he simply presumed that to be the case but that Trump had directly told him that Trump didn't want a quid pro quo.
That's why Nadler has to claim that Trump is a crook not because Trump did anything crooked but because what Trump was thinking when doing something perfectly legal isn't acceptable to Nadler.
It's also why Schiff denied Trump any chance to defend himself and why Nadler didn't call any fact witnesses when Trump had a chance to defend himself. The Democrat's case is simply nonexistent.
What's clear upon reading this report is that this impeachment is nothing more than a raw political act by the Democrats in order to increase their power over we the people. Using the reasoning in this report every future Republican President will be impeached if the Democrats have enough votes in Congress.
After all according to Democrats every Republican is a white nationalist, racist, bigot who hates the poor. Hence in the minds of Democrats everything Republicans think is impermissible so finding a reason to impeach any Republican President under Nadler's rules would be easy.
Democrats want a one-party system, which is why Democrats in California tried to keep Trump off the ballot, but they'll settle for making up a single edged impeachment sword which can only be used against Republicans.
We have clear and public knowledge that Obama, Biden, and 3 Democrat Senators engaged in activity that the Democrats have accused Trump of and Democrats say that those actions were legal.
We know for a fact that Obama offeredto do what Putin wanted if Putin helped Obama get reelected and that when Putin did help Obama Obama canceled a missile defense system that Putin wanted canceled.
However the most troubling and egregious concept advanced by Nadler's hyper partisan document is that a President can be impeached even if they didn't abuse their power so long as when they were legally using their power they harbored bad thoughts.
The report says:
"That said, impeachable abuse of power can be roughly divided into two categories: engaging in official acts forbidden by law and engaging in official action with motives forbidden by law. As James Iredell explained, “the president would be liable to impeachments [if] he had ... acted from some corrupt motive or other.”"
That's right the Democrats are going full thought police. It doesn't matter if what Trump did was a legal use of his power as President. What matters is that he might have been thinking thoughts that are forbidden by law; in reality thoughts that Democrats don't like.
It would be interesting to see what laws declare that one's thoughts are criminal absent any actual criminal act but like most of what is in the report we must simply trust what the Democrats say.
Even Hate Crime laws require that the evil thoughts be acted on in order to be criminal so what the report is saying is truly revolutionary; if a racist white man helps an old Black woman cross the street he's guilty of a crime because his thoughts were unacceptable even though his actions were fully legal.
Democrats have used this reasoning before as part of their plot to deny we the people the right to pick our leaders. Trump issued an Executive Order on immigration and a Federal judge ruled that it was unConstituional even though if Hillary had issued the exact same order it would have been Constitutional.
The dishonest judge reasoned that Trump's motives weren't acceptable and hence the executive order wasn't legal. But we are governed by what the laws and executive orders say not what the person who issued them was thinking so clearly there is no basis for caring about what a President's intent was so long as the words he put in his executive order spell out nothing illegal.
Clearly it takes little effort to postulate that Trump wasn't thinking what leftists want him to think when he does anything and hence it's easy to block his authority by simply declaring that his thoughts weren't right. Hence it's an ideal tool for dishonest judges and Democrats to use to prevent Trump from exercising the power that we the people gave him.
The idea of condemning people for their thoughts is one that's universally present in repressive dictatorships and Communist regimes. That Democrats are advocating it is strong evidence that they are interested in ruling over us not representing us.
If we can be convicted for our thoughts there is no one who a prosecutor couldn't convict. After all how does one prove that one never thought "unacceptable" thoughts? And just who decides what thoughts are permissible?
The fact that Democrats have been reduced to this level of publicly acknowledging their tyrannical instincts in their quest to overturn the 2016 election shows that they know that they don't have any actual basis for impeachment.
Despite all the lies that Democrats and the #FakeNews media are spreading not one of the Democrats handpicked witnesses testified to having first hand knowledge of any crime committed by Trump. The closest they came was Ambassador Sondland saying that there was a quid pro quo. But when questioned not only did Sondland admit that he simply presumed that to be the case but that Trump had directly told him that Trump didn't want a quid pro quo.
That's why Nadler has to claim that Trump is a crook not because Trump did anything crooked but because what Trump was thinking when doing something perfectly legal isn't acceptable to Nadler.
It's also why Schiff denied Trump any chance to defend himself and why Nadler didn't call any fact witnesses when Trump had a chance to defend himself. The Democrat's case is simply nonexistent.
What's clear upon reading this report is that this impeachment is nothing more than a raw political act by the Democrats in order to increase their power over we the people. Using the reasoning in this report every future Republican President will be impeached if the Democrats have enough votes in Congress.
After all according to Democrats every Republican is a white nationalist, racist, bigot who hates the poor. Hence in the minds of Democrats everything Republicans think is impermissible so finding a reason to impeach any Republican President under Nadler's rules would be easy.
Democrats want a one-party system, which is why Democrats in California tried to keep Trump off the ballot, but they'll settle for making up a single edged impeachment sword which can only be used against Republicans.
We have clear and public knowledge that Obama, Biden, and 3 Democrat Senators engaged in activity that the Democrats have accused Trump of and Democrats say that those actions were legal.
We know for a fact that Obama offeredto do what Putin wanted if Putin helped Obama get reelected and that when Putin did help Obama Obama canceled a missile defense system that Putin wanted canceled.
We also know for a factthat Joe Biden bribed the Ukraine government with US tax dollars to end an investigation into a corrupt company, Burisma, that had paid the Biden family $3.1 million.
Finally we know for a factthat 3 Democrat Senators wrote to Ukraine demanding that Ukraine reopen investigations into people connected with Trump or else.
Democrats would never stand for Republicans using the reasoning in Nadler's report against Democrats just as they would never stand for Nunes releasing Schiff's phone records even though they endorse Schiff releasing Nunes's phone records.
Irrespective of your views on Trump if we let the Democrats enshrine in law the idea that the government can judge those who oppose Democrats based on our thoughts we will never be safe and we will lose our other freedoms quickly.
Democrats would never stand for Republicans using the reasoning in Nadler's report against Democrats just as they would never stand for Nunes releasing Schiff's phone records even though they endorse Schiff releasing Nunes's phone records.
Irrespective of your views on Trump if we let the Democrats enshrine in law the idea that the government can judge those who oppose Democrats based on our thoughts we will never be safe and we will lose our other freedoms quickly.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment