HOUSE DEMOCRATS VOTE TO
IMPEACH TRUMP
By
Dr. Stephen Jones: Dec 19, 2019
Blog Post Date: 12-20-2019
Here
is the final result of last night’s impeachment vote.
It
was essentially a partisan vote, with all Republicans voting “no” and all but 2
or 3 Democrats voting “yes.”
A High Standard for
Impeachment
This
was precisely the nightmarish situation that our founders tried to avoid.
First, they set the standard very high so as to make only very serious crimes
like treason and bribery worthy of impeachment.
Article
II, Section 4 reads:
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.
Treason
itself was defined in Article III, Section 3,
Treason against the United States, shall consist
only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them
Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the
Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open
Court.
Even
murder is not an impeachable offense, since not even a congressman could be
charged with murder if it were done on the floor of the House. (Believe it or
not!) The biggest weakness of this provision comes over the definition of
“Enemies.” This is why Congress insists on defining Russia as an “Enemy.” It
was also behind the “Trading With the Enemies Act" of 1919 and its
extension in 1933, when it defined all US citizens as “enemies.” This has
allowed the new Socialist “Democracy” and their intelligence agencies
opportunity to subvert the constitution’s intent and to enslave and oppress the
people.
Article
IV, Section 4 reads:
The United States shall guarantee to every State in
this Union a Republican Form of Government.
Apparently,
this was later interpreted to mean that the United States itself (federal
government) was allowed to change itself into a Democracy. Only the individual
states themselves were guaranteed a Republican form of government.
Division of Power: House and
Senate
Our
founders split up the power by giving the House the power to draw up Articles
of Impeachment. Article I, Section 2 says,
The House of Representatives shall choose their Speaker
and other Officers; and shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.
In
1813 the Judiciary Committee was established and was given the power to do any
impeachment investigations. This was largely breached in 2019 when Speaker
Pelosi assigned the House Intelligence Committee, under Adam Schiff, to hold
the hearings. Only when these were completed was this passed on to the
Judiciary Committee under Jerry Nadler to give it the appearance of legitimacy.
The
White House and Republican House members saw this unprecedented rule change as
an abuse of power. But since the Constitution itself did not say anything about
which particular committee was supposed to call for such hearings, the
Democrats were able to use this loophole for their own partisan advantage.
Other
rule changes, however, were more problematic, as they did not allow the
participation of White House lawyers, nor did they give Republicans the right
to call their own witnesses. This caused Trump to refuse to allow any of his
cabinet members to testify, invoking executive privilege, which has since been
upheld by the courts.
Nonetheless,
all but three of the House Democrats voted to impeach Trump on the grounds of
“Obstruction.” It is not likely that this charge will be validated by the
courts.
The
founders also gave the Senate the sole power to try the case, and even this was
to be presided over by the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court to limit
partisanship and ensure that all is done in a Constitutional manner. This is
found in Article I, Section 3, Clause 6:
The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.
When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the
President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And
no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the
Members present.
This
Constitutional provision was another attempt to limit partisanship in the event
that the party controlling the House did not like a president from an opposing
party. Yesterday’s impeachment vote shows the wisdom of this provision,
although the Democrats are trying to spin this as Republican partisanship in
the Senate.
What
the House Democrats have done is to set a precedent, whereby any time in the
future, when a president from one party does anything that the House majority
party dislikes, it is guaranteed that the House will impeach him. This
breakdown in our federal government, if not corrected immediately, could mean
that the House will always spend more time impeaching than in legislating. This
would subvert the very purpose of congress.
Fortunately,
our founders foresaw such possible problems and split power between the House
and Senate. The partisanship of the House Democrats has put the Senate
Republicans in the mood to engage in the same partisan behavior in return. It
would be better to treat the Articles of Impeachment seriously, just to avoid
such a partisan precedent.
Two Articles of Impeachment
Even
though the House Democrats, at the beginning, charged Trump with treason and
bribery over his telephone call with the Ukrainian president last July, those
charges were mysteriously dropped when the Articles of Impeachment were
actually drawn up. The Articles charged the president with (1) Abuse of power,
and (2) Obstruction of Congress.
Article 1
“Using the powers of his high office, President
Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the
2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course
of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly
announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election
prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential
election to his advantage.
This
is based solely on Trump’s use of the word “us” when he asked Zelensky to “help
us out” in investigating possible crimes committed by Joe Biden (while he was
Vice President). Though the context in the transcript shows quite clearly that
he was referring to “us” as the USA itself, the Democrats chose to interpret
“us” as Trump’s re-election campaign.
If
the president had actually meant “us” in the way that the Democrats took it,
why was he so eager to release the telephone transcript? Surely he would have
known better! This Impeachment Article relies upon an unintended interpretation
of a single word, which, at best, was obscure. No “witnesses” (by their own
admission in the hearings) had any first-hand knowledge of any crime. The only
reason they were allowed to testify was because the House Democrats changed the
rules to allow hearsay.
The
main whistleblower’s identity was concealed in order to hide the fact that he
was one of Adam Schiff’s own office staff. Another’s testimony was what he read
in the New York Times. By those standards, I could have qualified as a witness,
too! It was surreal and little more than a circus to entertain their
constituents.
Even
if Trump had done exactly what the Democrats have charged, it would hardly rise
to the level of treason or bribery, in spite of these claims. But all previous
presidential impeachments have failed because their impeachment articles have
not risen to the level needed to actually impeach a president.
Andrew
Johnson was impeached in 1865 for firing his Secretary of War, even though any
president has the right to fire a cabinet member. Clinton was impeached for his
use of the word “is” when giving false testimony about his sex life in the Oval
Office with Monica Lewinsky. Nixon resigned before impeachment for spying on
the Democrats in the Watergate scandal, but even that hardly rises to the high
levels of Treason and Bribery that the founders intended.
Pelosi’s Delaying Tactic
Now
that the impeachment vote has been taken, Nancy Pelosi is now considering a new
tactic. She is thinking of burying the Articles of Impeachment instead of
passing them off to the Senate for trial. Here is an article that speculates on
her political reasons:
No one questions the political prowess of Nancy
Pelosi. So what was the purpose of impeaching a President if she knows it will
be dismissed in the Senate? What if she does not submit the impeachment
request to the Senate until after Donald Trump is reelected? At that point, she
could claim that his election was invalid because he was still under a pending
House impeachment….
If this premise is correct and the 2020 re-election
of Trump is thrown into question, who will be in charge until this is resolved?
After the expiration of Trump’s first term in January, both Trump and Pence
would not hold office. The Constitution then appoints the Speaker of the
House to be President.
Would
she really try to become president in that way? Could she do so without causing
a civil war? Probably not. The article below tells us why:
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) appears to
be considering an
idea Democrats have floated for several days of holding back the articles of
impeachment to exercise leverage over the Senate and the president.
She declined formally to transmit the articles to
the Senate on Wednesday evening after the House voted to impeach President
Donald Trump.
Unfortunately for them, the Senate can act,
regardless — and would vote to acquit.
That’s because the Constitution is absolutely clear
about the Senate’s authority. Article I, Section 3 says: “The Senate shall have
the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”
That is all….
If Pelosi refuses to submit the articles of
impeachment to the Senate, McConnell can convene the Senate anyway, summon the
Chief Justice, and swear in the Senators as jurors. Democrats can boycott, but
they can’t stop the trial.
McConnell can then propose to dismiss the charges or
even hold a vote to acquit the president.
Pelosi can hide the articles of impeachment in Adam
Schiff’s basement forever, and it won’t make a bit of difference.
Case closed.
What
a mess we are in! Who could have guessed how the Babylonians would thrash
around as their beloved Babylon collapses before their eyes. It is a painful
process, but we need to view these events as evidence of the end of an age and
the end of a long-standing rule of the beast empires in Daniel 7.
There
is no need to fear, since God will do what He will do, regardless of what men
do and regardless of our opinions of what God is doing. We may misunderstand
everything, but this will have little or no effect on the outcome of the divine
plan.
TRUMP IS NOT YET IMPEACHED
OFFICIALLY
Dec
20, 2019
This
is one for the Supreme Court, no doubt.
Although
the House Democrats voted to impeach president Trump on December 18, Nancy
Pelosi has refused to make it official by presenting the Articles of
Impeachment to the Senate for trial. Does that mean Trump is yet under no
impeachment restrictions?
In
the past, the House has always presented the paperwork to the Senate promptly,
and until the trial has ended with an acquittal, the president has not been
allowed to sign anything into law nor to appoint anyone to political or
judicial positions.
But
what happens when the Speaker of the House refuses to follow through and to
make the impeachment official?
Speaker
Pelosi’s stated motive is that she wants first to see the rules for the
impending trial that Senate leader, Mitch McConnel, will establish. What? Is
she trying to negotiate with the Senate to make rules that favor her own
interests? What if McConnell had done this last summer when the House made up
its own rules for the investigation?
Would
not that be classed as interference? What gives the Speaker of the House any
authority to influence what the Senate does?
McConnell
does not seem to be in any mood to cave to Pelosi’s interference. In fact, it
seems likely that the Senate does not even need to be given those Articles of
impeachment to hold a trial. If that is the case, Pelosi has no power to delay
that trial.
Since
this is unprecedented in US history, it seems likely that this question will
have to be decided by the Supreme Court, along with the very legality and constitutionality
of the House’s impeachment itself. In other words, by refusing to allow Trump’s
witnesses and lawyers to defend him or to question his accusers, as was always
allowed in the past, did the House violate his constitutional rights?
If
this goes to the Supreme Court, they may nullify the impeachment altogether.
The
point is, there has been a lot of prophecy in the past saying, “Trump will never be impeached.” I
have questioned this statement, because it calls into question the definition
of impeachment. Do these prophecies apply to the House impeaching Trump, or to
the Senate convicting him?
Pelosi
has brought up a third scenario by her unprecedented political antics. It might
be that even though the House votes for impeachment, it will never become
official, either because the paperwork will never be given to the Senate, or
because the Supreme Court will nullify it.
It
may be, too, that Pelosi is trying to make it impossible for Trump to appoint a
replacement for Supreme Court Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who is said to be in
serious ill health. She does not want to retire, because her replacement would
no doubt have a different legal philosophy. The Supreme Court could be turned
“conservative” for a generation.
SOMETHING BIG IS COMING
Dec
20, 2019
The
day after the House voted to impeach the president, Q posted on December 19 in
Post #3728,
POTUS was not harmed in any way today other
than on paper (history books).
Sometimes you must sacrifice yourself for the greater good.
“I will gladly take all those slings and arrows for you.” – POTUS
But, even that, can be undone.
The enormity of what is coming will SHOCK THE WORLD.
Pray.
Q
Sometimes you must sacrifice yourself for the greater good.
“I will gladly take all those slings and arrows for you.” – POTUS
But, even that, can be undone.
The enormity of what is coming will SHOCK THE WORLD.
Pray.
Q
Q
seems confident that this impeachment vote came as no surprise but was actually
planned for and accounted for ahead of time.
I’m
not sure what he means by: “But, even that, can be undone.”
If
he means that the impeachment vote can be undone, then this either means that
the Senate can simply acquit POTUS, or perhaps this suggests that Pelosi may
never actually submit the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. Then, too, the
Supreme Court might rule that the House violated the constitutional rights of
POTUS.
There
is nothing to do but grab some popcorn, sit back, and “watch the show,” as Q
often says.
In
Post #3738, dated December 19, Q follows up by posting an article about how
Admiral Rogers disclosed FISA abuse in March of 2016 shortly after it happened.
He posted,
Something BIG is coming.
Q
Q
This
could very well hint that the “BIG” event soon to come will involve the ex-FBI
director, James Comey, or “James 8. Corney” as one official DOJ document calls
him. (See 3rd paragraph on the report at the link below.)
This
“typo” is obviously intentional, but by whom is unclear. It is meant to be
read: James ate corn and
refers to earlier Q drops that picture cornfields and ripened corn.
Corn
that is ripe for harvesting and eating is the DOJ code for arresting James
Comey.
Will
the Comey Report be released? I do not think that he will be arrested and charged officially prior to the
release of the report investigating him. That is why I think the “BIG” event
that Q anticipates has to do with the Comey report itself. But I may be wrong.
Who knows?
