Tag: Federalist Papers
Dem-Ukraine Impeachment Corruption
An intro by John R. Houk
The Democratic Party is as corrupt as many of the Ukrainian oligarchs courted to depose President Trump. Giuliani ignored and vilified by the Dems and their propaganda machine MSM touches on some Dem-Ukrainian corruption. THEN Mark Alexander has some Original Intent thoughts on Impeachment.
Your generosity is always appreciated:
Support this Blog HERE. Or support by getting in
the Coffee from home business – OR just buy some healthy coffee.
Blog Editor: Rather than capitulate to Facebook censorship by abandoning the platform, I choose to post and share until the Leftist censors ban me. Recently, the Facebook censorship tactic I've experienced is a couple of Group shares then jailed under the false accusation of posting too fast. So I ask those that read this, to combat censorship by sharing blog and Facebook posts with your friends or Groups you belong to.
Giuliani Says He's Uncovered 'Two Major' Money-Laundering/Bribery Schemes Involving Joe Biden, Obama Admin
By Megan Fox
From right to left, Vice President Joe Biden, Secretary of State John Kerry and Treasury Secretary Jacob Lew, Friday, Sept. 25, 2015, on the South Lawn of the White House in Washington. (AP Photo/Andrew Harnik)
Rudy Giuliani went on Fox News with Laura Ingraham on Monday and dropped a huge bomb onto former Ukranian Ambassador Marie Yovanovitch and Joe Biden.
"What I uncovered, there are two major schemes," said Giuliani. "One for 7.5 billion and the other one for 5 billion in money laundering that went on all through the Obama administration, part of it involved Joe Biden, the bribery part." Giuliani went on to implicate American law enforcement at the very top for not investigating what he says is corruption.
"It's a disgrace that he's not under investigation in America, maybe because our law enforcement is too afraid, but the reality is it's a complete defense for the president. When the president of the United States was asking the president of the Ukraine to investigate, he was asking him to investigate crimes at the highest level of both governments….he's being impeached for doing the right thing."
Giuliani also tweeted on Tuesday that "Yovanovitch needed to be removed for many reasons most critical she was denying visas to Ukrainians who wanted to come to the US and explain Dem corruption in Ukraine. She was OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and that's not the only thing she was doing. She at minimum enabled Ukrainian collusion."
Yovanovitch needed to be removed for many reasons most critical she was denying visas to Ukrainians who wanted to come to US and explain Dem corruption in Ukraine. She was OBSTRUCTING JUSTICE and that's not the only thing she was doing. She at minimum enabled Ukrainian collusion.
— Rudy Giuliani (@RudyGiuliani) December 17, 2019
Democrats have accused Giuliani of forcing Yovanovitch out for political reasons. He says that's garbage. "I didn't need her out of the way, I forced her out because she's corrupt. I came back with a document that will show unequivocally that she committed perjury when she said she turned down the visa for [Ukrainian prosecutor] Mr. Shokin because of corruption. The fact is on the record…the reason given is because he'd had an operation and hadn't recovered yet. The operation was two years before. There's documented evidence that she committed perjury."
These documents, according to Giuliani, were turned over to the State Department and included four other witness statements corroborating the allegations.
"I have 4 witnesses who will testify that she personally turned down their visas because they were going to come here and give evidence either against Biden or against the Democratic Party," Giuliani told Ingraham. "There's no question she that she was acting corruptly in that position and had to be removed. She should have been fired if the State Department weren't part of the Deep State."
Giuliani first heard about Yovanovitch's deception from former Rep. Pete Sessions and a "number of congressman" who told him what Yovanovitch was up to. "When I interviewed witnesses they told me she was specifically holding up visas in order to obstruct the investigation of collusion in the Ukraine and specifically to obstruct the Biden investigation. I have that testimony under oath. I gave it to the State Department, they never investigated a single witness. When they say she's innocent, it's innocent without investigation. It is a cover-up."
Giuliani says he has audio recordings to back up his story that also implicate Barack Obama in the scandal. "I also have tape recordings with Ukrainian officials including career prosecutors who say that during the Obama era the corruption in Ukraine became substantially worse and that she [Yovanovitch] was a contributor to the corruption."
Senior officials in the White House are reportedly worried about Giuliani and his insistence on being vocal about Democrats' involvement in Ukrainian corruption. He doesn't care. "Joe Biden was involved in a multi-million dollar corrupt scheme along with a number of other Democrats. It's never been resolved. They've never been held to account. As long as those issues remain between the U.S. and Ukraine we really can't fight corruption in the Ukraine and the fact is that there are numerous Ukranian witnesses that want to come to the U.S. and explain how much during the Obama administration Ukraine was corrupted by Americans."
The question now should be, why haven't our State Department and Department of Justice launched an official investigation into what happened to billions of dollars of American aid money that was sent to Ukraine? Why doesn't anyone in our government seem to want to know where it went? "I have a report from the Ukrainian accounting office in 2017 showing that 5.3 billion dollars in aid seems to have been wasted," Giuliani said. "Our State Department under Yovanovitch went to the police and told them not to do the investigation… because our embassy was involved in wasting a great deal of that money by giving it to NGOs and when I was asked 'do the NGOs have a political bent?' They were left of left."
Giuliani reports that he has been trying to get anyone in law enforcement to look at his evidence and no one will. "I am willing to show this to anybody who wants to pay attention to it. So far law enforcement has been afraid to look at it." Obviously, it's time for Giuliani to release the evidence to the press. PJ Media reached out to Giuliani's office and offered to publish this evidence, but have not heard back yet.
Watch the interview below.
VIDEO: Giuliani admits to forcing out Yovanovitch: 'She's corrupt'
[Posted by Fox News
3.9M subscribers – Dec 16, 2019
Trump's personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani returns to Fox News claiming he has proof that impeachment is a 'cover-up' and explains why he was recently in Ukraine. … MORE TO READ]
Megan Fox is the author of "Believe Evidence; The Death of Due Process from Salome to #MeToo." Follow on Twitter @MeganFoxWriter
The Impeachment Theater of the Absurd
Ironically, by claiming he needs more witnesses, Schumer is admitting that the House impeachment case is insufficient!
By Mark Alexander
"The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." —U.S. Constitution, Article II, Section 4 (1789)
Dems Want Impeachment Cuz Don't Trust Voters
In Federalist No. 65, Alexander Hamilton outlined the Senate's powers of impeachment, noting: "Where else than in the Senate could have been found a tribunal sufficiently dignified, or sufficiently independent? What other body would be likely to feel confidence enough in its own situation, to preserve, unawed and uninfluenced, the necessary impartiality between an individual accused, and the representatives of the people, his accusers."
In 1788, our Founders anticipated that future senators should possess at least a modicum of decency, such that they would be able to judge articles of impeachment on the merits of such charges.
But Hamilton also noted that impeachment would "agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused." He concluded, "In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt."
The partisanship that attended the impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury (for which he was disbarred) was but a mere shadow of the all-consuming hatred the Democrat Party has for Donald Trump — a partisan hatred fanned and fueled nationwide by their shameless Leftmedia publicists.
And it's within this disgraceful climate that the House of Representatives will vote today, on partisan lines, to refer articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial.
In preparation for that show trial, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell declared, "I think we're going to get almost entirely partisan impeachment. I would anticipate an almost entirely partisan outcome in the Senate as well."
He added, "Everything I do during this, I'm coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this."
Laughably, McConnell's transparency led a demand from Sen. Chuck Schumer that he "recuse himself" from the entire impeachment proceeding: "Do the American people want Mitch McConnell not to be an impartial juror in this situation? I would ask every one of our Republican colleagues, 'Do you want someone who proudly says they are not impartial to be on a jury, judging high crimes and misdemeanors, serious charges against the president of the United States?' And I would ask every one of my Republican Senate colleagues, 'Are you impartial jurors or are you like Mitch McConnell, proud not to be?'"
McConnell responded to Schumer, "I am not an impartial jury. This is a political process. There's not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision."
Of course, the list of those who most arguably should be recused because of conflict of interest or lack of impartiality starts with the most biased members of the Senate — those Demo candidates hoping to unseat Trump: Sens. Elizabeth Warren, Bernie Sanders, Amy Klobuchar, Cory Booker, and Michael Bennet.
Hypothetically, a non-voluntary recusal would require a motion by one senator and would be decided by Chief Justice John Roberts, presiding. His ruling would then be appealed for a full floor vote. But if such a dubious claim were made and a vote called, it would likely result in a domino effect — 99 more votes, with the Republican majority ultimately prevailing by recusing each minority member, one by one.
None of that should happen in the Senate.
Corrupt Dems Reason Electoral College Exists
But weeks before these howls for McConnell's recusal, I contemplated this recusal issue as House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler displayed his historic, long-seething hatred for Trump while presiding over Rep. Adam Schiff's contrived impeachment charges — charges that were devoid of any evidence of "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
By "historic," I don't mean since the 2016 election, but since Nadler was in the New York State Assembly 35 years ago.
Back then, their dispute started when Nadler opposed Trump's development of blighted sections of New York, becoming his arch adversary. So contentious was their antipathy for each other that in Trump's 2000 book, The America We Deserve, he singled out Nadler as "one of the most egregious hacks in contemporary politics."
After Trump's election, Nadler posted on his official website a manifesto for the resistance detailing a plan for how to dispose of Trump: "We cannot wait four years to vote Mr. Trump out of office, as members of the GOP Senate and House Majorities have already stated that they will facilitate the Trump agenda. … So we must do everything we can to stop Trump and his extreme agenda now."
Nadler called for "fierce battles against every regressive action he takes — from personnel appointments to his legislative program — in order to thwart or at least slow them down [and expose] his Republican enablers in Congress, voting them out of office in 2018, with the goal of taking back either the House or the Senate for Democratic control."
"To achieve this," insisted Nadler, "we must keep our eyes on two important goals: depressing Trump's public support and dividing the Congressional GOP from him and from each other."
And Democrats want McConnell to recuse himself?
If the head of the Judiciary Committee were held to a standard even remotely similar to that of a judge, Nadler's vitriolic animus toward Trump would have been grounds for recusal, or even impeachment if necessary. Indeed, a legitimate process would've seen Nadler ousted before the first day's testimony.
In his opening statement last month, Nadler declared: "We cannot rely on an election to solve our problems."
In other words, Nadler and his fellow congressional Democrats cannot rely on the will and the wisdom of the American people. Clearly, they had no intention of doing so — even before Trump took office.
The evidence of their slo-mo coup d'état to take down Trump is now emerging, most notably with the exposure last week of the felonious FBI/FISA fiasco. A handful of Demo deep-state operatives in the FBI and CIA used that subterfuge to seed the Mueller investigation charade, which led to the current double-standard impeachment inquisition parade.
And recall what Nadler said about the impeachment of Bill Clinton in 1998: "We must not overturn an election and remove a president from office … without an overwhelming consensus of the American people. There must never be a narrowly voted impeachment or an impeachment supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other."
So, after Nadler's predictable party-line committee vote, we now await the next episode of this political theater — a House vote that will most assuredly be a "narrowly voted impeachment … supported by one of our major political parties and opposed by the other."
For his part, on the eve of the House vote, Trump issued a letter to Speaker Nancy Pelosi Tuesday that included the following key points in his typical rhetorical form:
"This impeachment represents an unprecedented and unconstitutional abuse of power by Democrat Lawmakers, unequaled in nearly two and a half centuries of American legislative history. The Articles of Impeachment introduced by the House Judiciary Committee are not recognizable under any standard of Constitutional theory, interpretation, or jurisprudence. They include no crimes, no misdemeanors, and no offenses… Your first claim, 'Abuse of Power,' is a completely disingenuous, meritless, and baseless… The second claim, so-called 'Obstruction of Congress,' is preposterous and dangerous. … Even worse than offending the Founding Fathers, you are offending Americans of faith by continually saying 'I pray for the President,' when you know this statement is not true… Speaker Pelosi, you admitted just last week at a public forum that your party's impeachment effort has been going on for 'two and a half years,' long before you ever heard about a phone call with Ukraine. … Before the Impeachment Hoax, it was the Russian Witch Hunt. … You are the ones interfering in America's elections. You are the ones subverting America's Democracy. You are the ones Obstructing Justice."
Mark Alexander Quote on Pelosipalooza
Trump continued: "By proceeding with your invalid impeachment, you are violating your oaths of office, you are breaking your allegiance to the Constitution, and you are declaring open war on American Democracy. … You and your party are desperate to distract from America's extraordinary economy, incredible jobs boom, record stock market, soaring confidence, and flourishing citizens. Your party simply cannot compete with our record. … Any member of Congress who votes in support of impeachment — against every shred of truth, fact, evidence, and legal principle — is showing deeply they revile the voters and how truly they detest America's Constitutional order. … Our Founders feared the tribalization of partisan politics, and you are bringing their worst fears to life."
And that, fellow Patriots, adequately sums up this sorry affair. And the House vote comes in the same week we learned about the politically motivated FISA court abuses that seeded the whole effort to undermine Trump's presidency.
The House of Representatives has initiated impeachment proceedings more than 60 times since 1789. Of the 19 federal officeholders or officials who've been brought up on impeachment charges, only eight have been convicted — all federal judges. Of the two presidents tried in the Senate — Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton — both had the charges dismissed after the Senate failed to meet its two-thirds majority requirement for conviction.
The Demo charges against Trump will also be dismissed, for the reasons outlined by the president in his letter to Pelosi. But the trivialization of impeachment removes the already low bar on constitutional Rule of Law, creating a menacing threat to Liberty.
In order to keep the Demos' Trump/Russia/Ukraine narrative on life support after the Senate vote, Schumer will continue to claim that Trump is guilty, but that Republicans wouldn't allow his witnesses to prove it. Those would be the same witnesses that the House could have called in its hearings — but didn't in order to provide Schumer his "witness denial" layup. Ironically, by claiming he needs more witnesses, Schumer is admitting that the House impeachment case is insufficient!
In Federalist No. 69, Alexander Hamilton described impeachment as a pressure release valve in order to avoid the "crisis of a national revolution." But this round of impeachment, if it were to actually succeed, would most assuredly set up a "crisis of a national revolution."
P.S. Patriots, the most cost-effective investment you can make to ensure the future of Liberty is to support The Patriot Post. We're the Web's most influential grassroots journal for promoting freedom and challenging the dominant Leftmedia narrative. We rely 100% on the voluntary financial support of Patriots like you, so please support our Year-End Campaign today. Thank you.
Semper Vigilans Fortis Paratus et Fidelis
Pro Deo et Libertate — 1776
Copyright © 2005-2019 PJ Media All Rights Reserved.
Copyright © 2019 The Patriot Post. All Rights Reserved.
Author oneway2dayPosted on December 19, 2019 Categories Activism, Conservative, Conspiracy/Secret Society, Constitution, Courts, Crime, Democrats, Elections, Foreign Policy, Left Wing, News and politics, Organizations, RepublicansTags Constitutional Law, Dem-Ukraine Corruption, Donald Trump, Federalist Papers, FISA Abuses, Impeachment Coup, Joe Biden, Marie Yovanovitch, Mark Alexander, Obama Corruption, Originalism, Rudy GiulianiLeave a comment on Dem-Ukraine Impeachment Corruption
The First Freedom
Justin Smith captures the essence of SCOTUS joining the American Left to destroy Christianity in a stealthy slow whittling manner.
Sent: 7/4/2015 1:41 PM
"Natural law – God's law – will always trump common law. God will have the final word in this matter." – Alveda King, a Christian leader and Martin Luther King, Jr.'s niece
The Supreme Court's recent egregious and error-filled ruling in Obergefell v. Hodges, favoring homosexual marriage, has seriously endangered the liberty of all Americans, through its gross distortions of the documents fundamental to American liberty. This ruling, facilitated by five Progressive Justices acting like oligarchs, created through judicial decree a previously non-existent "constitutional right" to sin-based "gay marriage," and it showed all Americans that they can never again trust in the rulings of the Court, when Liberty hangs in the balance.
The First Freedom — Religious Liberty — is currently in crisis, because the many activist federal judges and "conservative" Justices, like Anthony Kennedy, are willing to move Left, even if they must defy the Constitution. Too many conservatives have refused to stand in defense of religious liberty, and they follow rules that Democrats ignore, as these Progressives unfold their Machiavellian plan. If religious liberty can be undone by decree, and the people allow it, then so too can every other liberty be undone.
The Framers of Our Constitution thought that Congress's "power of instituting impeachments," explained by Alexander Hamilton in the Federalist Papers, would be an "important constitutional check" and would provide "a complete security against the justices' deliberate usurpations of the authority of the legislature." [The Essential Federalist Papers; Edited by Steve Straub; The Federalist Papers Project; 10/3/13; Federalist 81- pg. 24 of document – pg. 25 of PDF] But, with Congress currently lacking will and backbone, any prospect of impeachment is virtually non-existent and still offers no remedy.
In March of 1788, Robert Yates, a New York judge, published the 'Anti-Federalist Papers' under the name "Brutus." [You can find the text to all Brutus Anti-Federalist essays HERE.] He noted that the Supreme Court would favor the increase of federal power at the expense of the states [Blog Editor's opinion: These Brutus essays are must reads to ascertain Justin Smith's exegesis of Robert Yates' on SCOTUS, the States and Legislature – XI, XII, XIII and XV], just in the manner we now see state laws defining marriage as only between a man and a woman recently eradicated. Brutus also worried that SCOTUS could use its interpretive "principles, whatever they may be" to explain its own power and define that of the legislative branch through the threat of having its laws declared unconstitutional; so the precedent of Obergefell v. Hodges portends terribly evil events surrounding any future legislation on abortion or marriage.
Justice John Roberts' dissent proves the truth of Brutus's words:
"The majority's ruling is an act of will, not legal judgment. The right it announces has no basis in the Constitution … The majority expressly disclaims judicial 'caution' and omits even a pretense of humility, openly relying on its desire to remake society according to its own 'new insight' into the 'nature of injustice.'" [Entire Roberts Dissent]
Isn't it curious and sickening that homosexuality, considered a mental disorder throughout the 1970s by the American Psychiatric Association and considered perverted and criminal by society until this century, is now supposedly acceptable, with homo-marriage "a constitutional right"?
Obergefell v. Hodges effectively nullified the votes of 50 million Americans, representing 60% of votes cast on the matter to date, and negated their affirmation that marriage is between one man and one woman. Thus, five Black Robes — the Court — trampled on the constitutional authority of the American people and our elected representatives to make marriage policy.
In part, Justice Antonin Scalia's scathing dissent stated [Search Page: "SCALIA, J., dissenting"]:
"The five Justices … have discovered in the 14th Amendment a 'fundamental right' overlooked by every person alive at the time of ratification, and almost everyone else in the time since. They see what lesser legal minds … John Marshall Harlan, Oliver Wendell Holmes, Jr., Learned Hand … Hugo Black … could not. ,,, These Justices know that an institution [marriage as defined as being between one man and one woman] as old as the government itself, and accepted by every nation in history until fifteen years ago, cannot possibly be supported by anything other than ignorance and bigotry. … The stuff contained in today's opinion has to diminish this Court's reputation for clear thinking and sober analysis."
Any honest reading of the First Amendment's "free exercise" clause would conclude that Christians cannot be forced to violate their conscience through compulsory participation in, or recognition of, "gay marriages"; however, while the First Amendment guarantees the freedom to "exercise" religion, the majority opinion in Obergefell v. Hodges omits any mention of the free exercise clause, suggesting only that the Keepers of the Faith may continue to "advocate" and "teach" our views of marriage.
Without a doubt, a total purge of America's Judeo-Christian principles and values is underway in the public square and our education systems, and this "gay marriage" and sodomite deviancy nonsense is nothing more than a move to force Christ's faithful, under penalty of law to abandon Biblical Truth and accept sexual sin in their midst, with the endgame essentially being the silencing of all Christian dissent: I will not let them silence me.
Pat Buchanan recently asked (in 'Quo Vadis'),
"Does moral truth change? Are the Ten Commandments and Christian tradition and Natural law as defined by Aquinas just fine for their time, but not for ours?"
Todd Starnes (Fox News Radio) recently reported that Linda Barnette, from Grenada County-Mississippi, left her County Clerk position after 24 years of service, rather than issue marriage licenses to homosexuals. She wrote, "I choose to obey God rather than man," in her one paragraph resignation letter. Unfortunately, the Court Clerk of Rutherford County, my home, did not have the same moral compass, resolve and strength of conviction, issuing homosexual "marriage licenses" immediately.
This homo-marriage ruling comes straight from Hell's abyss, even though it supposedly still protects religious liberty. Aside from creating new furious debate, this ruling will also increase Christian persecution, through Leftist Progressive lawsuit abuse against Christian individuals, like Cynthia and Robert Gifford, who recently appealed a $13,000 fine they received for refusing to host a "gay wedding" at their privately owned Liberty Ridge Farm (Albany, NY) in June, as they argue that the lower court did not consider their constitutional freedoms and religious beliefs.
More than equality under the law — more than toleration — the "gay" community wants to force all Americans to validate their immorality. And, as such, Christians must refuse to comply with any ruling that forces us into any unwanted association with homosexuals, and we must demand that Congress restrains the Court by defunding it, if necessary: America — do not obey this rogue Court's ruling.
Christians must tell the truth and fight back hard, if they don't want to become second class citizens. Tell about a nation founded on Religious Freedom and rights that don't end the moment we leave church, and fight for the 70% of Americans who claim to be Christians. Tell about the raw hatred for Christians that is driving the illiberal Progressives to crush religious freedom just as Marx and Engels mandated, and fight for religious freedom acts in all fifty states in order to counter today's open warfare on Christians by the Left.
By Justin O Smith
All links as well as text embraced by brackets are by the Editor.
Author oneway2dayPosted on July 6, 2015 July 6, 2015 Categories UncategorizedTags Antonin Scalia, Brutus, Christian Morality, Constitution, Federalist Papers, Immoral Acceptance, John Roberts, Judicial Tyranny, Justin Smith, Linda Barnette, Pat Buchanan, Same Sex Marriage, SCOTUSLeave a comment on The First Freedom