Adam Schiff Perfectly Lays Out The Case For Impeachment

The Trumpty Dumpty Report

In a time of deceit, telling the truth is a revolutionary act- George Orwell

No legacy is so rich as honesty-William Shakespeare

Let us not become the evil we despise.

Perception can be more powerful than reality

Here is Alexander Hamilton’s impeach clause:

Alexander Hamilton, Federalist, no. 65, 439--45

7 March 1788

This is the opening paragraph----

“A well constituted court for the trial of impeachments, is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated POLITICAL, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties, more or less friendly or inimical, to the accused. 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.”

Unfortunately, this paragraph doesn’t appear to apply to this Republican White Nationalist cult of senators who lick the boots of their authoritarian-ish leader. These RWN senators are NOT sufficiently independent, nor are they acting impartial when their Senate majority leader—Moscow Mitch structured the rules to benefit his crime boss cult leader.

“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 The Atlantic article called The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’

The constitutional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial, written by Frank O. Bowman lll, Professor at the University of Missouri School of Law wrote,

“The history of the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” and of how it entered our Constitution establishes beyond serious dispute that it extends far beyond mere criminal conduct. The practical reasoning is in some ways more important: A standard that permitted the removal of presidents only for indictable crimes would leave the nation defenseless against the most dangerous kinds of presidential behavior.”

“In the Federalist Papers, Alexander Hamilton made the larger point that impeachment is directed at “political” offenses that “proceed from … the abuse or violation of some public trust.” He was echoed by the foremost of the first generation of commentators on the Constitution, Justice Joseph Story, who observed in his 1833 treatise Commentaries on the Constitution that impeachable conduct is often “purely political,” and that “no previous statute is necessary to authorize an impeachment for any official misconduct.”

Thus, one point on which the founding generation would have been clear was that “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was not restricted to indictable crimes.”

“Of the 11 articles of impeachment returned against President Andrew Johnson in 1868, nine involved technically criminal violations of the Tenure of Office Act, but the last and most significant two articles alleged general abuses of presidential authority.”

“… “[H]igh Crimes and Misdemeanors” is a phrase that reaches far beyond crimes to embrace “exceeding the powers of the office in derogation of those of another branch of government,” “behaving in a manner grossly incompatible with the proper function of the office,” and “employing the power of the office for an improper purpose or personal gain.”

What this description of ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ says is that to impeach a president is not the same as a crime heard in a criminal court. The abuse of presidential authority is clearly impeachable, as was stated in Trump’s articles of impeachment. Adam Schiff, the House of Representatives impeachment manager, stated very clearly that Trump is guilty of abuse of his power in order to manipulate a foreign leader to help him gain power over an adversary who is running against him in the next election, and to use government departments and officials, as well as public citizens, such as Ghouliani and Parnas, and others, to execute his diabolical and dangerous plan.

Watch Adam Schiff’s fantastic argument for impeaching Donald Jerk *ff Trump from office. "It was a perfect call!"

                      

    Another story is that Tulsi Gabbard is suing Hillary Clinton for $50M for being called a Russian Asset. How hilarious!!! We sure would love to see this argued out in a courtroom. Here are the definitions of “Asset”.

“There are different categories of assets, including people who:

•Willingly work for a foreign government for ideological reasons such as being against their government, but live in a country that doesn't allow political opposition. They may elect to work with a foreign power to change their own country because there are few other ways available.

•Work for monetary gain. Intelligence services often pay good wages to people in important positions that are willing to betray secrets.

•Have been blackmailed and are forced into their role.

•Do not even know they are being used (so called "useful idiots"). Assets can be loyal to their country, but may still provide a foreign agent with information through failures in information safety, such as using insecure computers or not following proper OPSEC procedures during day-to-day chatting.”

As has been written by various people, such as Malcolm Nance, The Cretin is an Idiot/Useful Asset. It is very possible that others in the Republican White Nationalist Party could fit this definition, as well. We have learned that there have been people, who were convicted of crimes resulting from their actions performed on behalf of The Cretin could be seen as Idiot or Useful Assets.

   Could Tulsi Gabbard be defined as a “Useful Asset”? Is this what Clinton meant by a Russian Asset?

    We are watching our democracy subverted for authoritarianism. The Republican White Nationalist Party members have jumped on this anti-democracy train driven by their cult leader in the White House headed toward Moscow. Just maybe there are members of the Democratic Party who are also jumping on this train, too.

“Better to remain silent and be thought a fool than to speak and to remove all doubt.” Abraham Lincoln