Show Posts

This section allows you to view all posts made by this member. Note that you can only see posts made in areas you currently have access to.

Messages - TheFederalist

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 196
"one of the candidates"  ;D

One involved in a criminal conspiracy robbing more than a billion dollars from US tax payers to pad his families holdings. Yes, One of the candidates. One that should have and would have been investigated earlier, if not for the corruption of the Democrats.

You're asking a different question in your poll than the media is asking of these Republicans. Trump didn't ask Ukraine for help with his campaign. He asked him about a legal matter involving one of the candidates, a legal issue if true that could send all parties involved to prison.

My answer is, No it is not appropriate for a President to seek foreign help with their campaign. Of course you're problem is understanding the difference. Mainly because you're delusional and it hurts your delusional argument.

Foreign Policy / Re: Trump abandons the Kurds in Syria
« on: October 09, 2019, 01:13:48 PM »
In case you are not aware, the Kurds do not have their own country, and Turkey has begun buying military hardware from Russia

Even notorious Trump bootlicker Graham gets it.  Too bad our pathetic Trumpists don't.

Turkey is a member of NATO. The US should have exited the region under Obama.

Foreign Policy / Re: Trump abandons the Kurds in Syria
« on: October 09, 2019, 11:25:27 AM »
any Trump supporters care that our kurd allies are going to be slaughtered?

Which one is a NATO member, Turkey or the Kurds?

So now you want to change the subject?  Trump is currently losing to every Democratic front runner.  It’s likely to only get worse as he continues to unravel and make desperate moves like the last couple of days.

We'll have to wait and see.  8)

"unconstitutional impeachment inquiry"

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5: The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

What happened to your tag line about Clinton being president?

There is no legal basis for their claims.  They can claim it is unconstitutional, and that noise will convince those like yourself who want something they feel they can cling to, but there’s no validity to it.  The letter makes mostly political points, rather than legal ones, along with a lot of whining.

Does anyone really give a shit? Democrats can vote to impeach in the House and they're still not going to get two thirds in the Senate to convict. Trump is still going to win 2020, Biden's pay for play schemes with Hunter and Ukraine gas will sink his campaign. Second up, The lying Warren which will be easy to beat. If Clinton couldn't get the job done, There is no way Warren will. Biden was the only hope of the Democratic party, in order to secure the Independents.

Impeachment of Donald J Trump / Re: 58% now support Impeachment Inquiry
« on: October 09, 2019, 12:26:48 AM »
So what was the point again?

The polls suggested otherwise.

"unconstitutional impeachment inquiry"

Article I, Section 2, Clause 5: The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment.

The letter addresses this and what areas of their actions are unconstitutional.

Impeachment of Donald J Trump / Re: 58% now support Impeachment Inquiry
« on: October 08, 2019, 10:01:26 PM »
Yeah...?  So, she beat Sanders?


Impeachment of Donald J Trump / Re: 58% now support Impeachment Inquiry
« on: October 08, 2019, 09:09:09 PM »
The polls in the 2016 election were generally correct.  They predicted Hillary to win the popular vote by 3% on average, and she won it by about 2%.  Some of the state polls however did somewhat underestimate Trump’s support in those states.  A few of the ones that were expected to go for Hillary by a thin margin ended up going to Trump, but not by much.

They also suggested Clinton was going to beat Sanders for the nomination.... Pretty sure Clinton got the nomination.

The rest of the pages can be found at the above link or in the attached text file.

Page three

Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and
Page 3

history of the Nation, 4 and lacks the necessary authorization for a valid impeachment
proceeding. 5

         The Committees' inquity also suffers from a separate, fatal defect. Despite Speaker
Pelosi's commitment to "treat the President with fairness," 6 the Committees have not established
any procedures affording the President even the most basic protections demanded by due process
under the Constitution and by fundamental fairness. Chairman Nadler of the House Judiciary
Committee has expressly acknowledged, at least when the President was a member of his own
party, that "[t]he power of impeachment ... demands a rigorous level of due process," and that
in this context "due process mean[ s] ... the right to be informed of the law, of the charges
against you, the right to confront the witnesses against you, to call your own witnesses, and to
have the assistance of counsel. "7 All of these procedures have been abandoned here.

        These due process rights are not a matter of discretion for the Committees to dispense
with at will. To the contrary, they are constitutional requirements. The Supreme Court has
recognized that due process protections apply to all congressional investigations. 8 Indeed, it has
been recognized that the Due Process Clause applies to impeachment proceedings. 9 And
precedent for the rights to cross-examine witnesses, call witnesses, and present evidence dates
back nearly 150 years. 10 Yet the Committees have decided to deny the President these
elementary rights and protections that form the basis of the American justice system and are
protected by the Constitution. No citizen-including the President-should be treated this

     Since the Founding of the Republic, under unbroken practice, the House has never undetiaken the solemn
     responsibility of an impeachment inquiry directed at the President without first adopting a resolution authorizing
     a committee to begin the inquity. The inquiries into the impeachments of Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill
     Clinton proceeded in multiple phases, each authorized by a separate House resolution. See, e.g., H.R. Res. 581,
     I 05th Cong. (1998); H.R. Res. 525, I 05th Cong. (1998); III Hinds' Precedents §§ 2400-02, 2408, 2412. And
     before the Judiciary Committee initiated an impeachment inquiry into President Richard Nixon, the Committee's
     chairman rightfully recognized that "a[n) [inquiry] resolution has always been passed by the House" and "is a
     necessary step." III Deschler's Precedents ch. 14, § 15.2. The House then satisfied that requirement by adopting
     H.R. Res. 803, 93rd Cong. (1974),
     Chairman Nadler has recognized the importance of taking a vote in the House before beginning a presidential
     impeachment inquiry. At the outset of the Clinton impeachment inquiry-where a floor vote was held-he
     argued that even limiting the time for debate before that vote was improper and that "an hour debate on this
     momentous decision is an insult to the American people and another sign that this is not going to be fair." 144
     Cong. Rec. HI 0018 (daily ed. Oct. 8, 1998) (statement of Rep. Jerrold Nadler). Here, the House has dispensed
     with any vote and any debate "t {II/,
6    Press Release, Nancy Pelosi, Transcript of Pelosi Weekly Press Conference Today (Oct. 2, 2019).
7    Examining the A/legations ofMisconduct Against IRS Commissioner John Koskinen (Part II): Hearing Before
     the H. Comm. on the J11diciG1J', 114th Cong. 3 (2016) (statement of Rep. Jerrold Nadler); Background and
     HistoJJ' ofImpeachment: Hearing Before the Subcomm. on the Co11stitutio11 of the H. Comm. on the Judiciary,
     105th Cong. 17 (1998) (statement of Rep, Jerrold Nadler).
8    See, e.g., Watkinsv. United States, 354 U.S. 178,188 (1957); Quinnv. United States, 349 U.S. 155,161 (1955).
9    See Hastings v. United Stales, 802 F. Supp. 490, 504 (D.D.C. 1992), vacated on other grounds by Hastings v.
     United States, 988 F.2d 1280 (D.C. Cir. 1993).
     See, e.g., III Hinds' Precedents § 2445.

Page two

Speaker Pelosi, and Chairmen Engel, Schiff, and
Page 2

         For his part, President Trump took the unprecedented step of providing the public
transparency hy declassifying and releasing the record of his call with President Zelenskyy of
Ukraine. The record clearly established that the call was completely appropriate and that there is
no basis for your inquiry. The fact that there was nothing wrong with the call was also
powerfully confirmed by Chairman Schiffs decision to create a false version of the call and read
it to the American people at a congressional hearing, without disclosing that he was simply
making it all up.

        In addition, information has recently come to light that the whistleblower had contact
with Chairman Schiffs office before filing the complaint. His initial denial of such contact
caused The Washington Post to conclude that Chairman Schiff"clearly made a statement that
was false. "2 In any event, the American people understand that Chairman Schiff cannot covertly
assist with the submission of a complaint, mislead the public about his involvement, read a
counterfeit version of the call to the American people, and then pretend to sit in judgment as a
neutral "investigator."

         For these reasons, President Trump and his Administration reject your baseless,
unconstitutional efforts to overturn the democratic process. Your unprecedented actions have
left the President with no choice. In order to fulfill his duties to the American people, the
Constitution, the Executive Branch, and all future occupants of the Office of the Presidency,
President Trump and his Administration cannot participate in your partisan and unconstitutional
inquiry under these circumstances.

I.        Your "Inquiry" Is Constitutionally Invalid and Violates Basic Due Process Rights
          and the Separation of Powers.

        Your inquiry is constitutionally invalid and a violation of due process. In the history of
our Nation, the House of Representatives has never attempted to launch an impeachment inquiry
against the President without a majority of the House taking political accountability for that
decision by voting to authorize such a dramatic constitutional step. Here, House leadership
claims to have initiated the gravest inter-branch conflict contemplated under our Constitution by
means of nothing more than a press conference at which the Speaker of the House simply
announced an "official impeachment inquiry."3 Your contrived process is unprecedented in the

     Glenn Kessler, Schiff's False Claim His Committee Had Not Spoken to the Whistleblower, Wash. Post (Oct. 4,
     20 I 9).
3    Press Release, Nancy Pelosi, Pelosi Remarks Announcing Impeachment Inquiry (Sept. 24, 2019).

Page one of text of the letter linked above:

                                         THE WHITE HOUSE

                                             October 8, 2019

The Honorable Nancy Pelosi                               The Honorable Adam B. Schiff
Speaker                                                  Chairman
House of Representatives                                 House Permanent Select Committee on
Washington, D.C. 20515                                   Intelligence
                                                         Washington, D.C. 20515
The Honorable Eliot L. Engel
Chairman                                                 The Honorable Elijah E. Cummings
House Foreign Affairs Committee                          Chairman
Washington, D.C. 20515                                   House Committee on Oversight and Reform
                                                         Washington, D.C. 20515

Dear Madam Speaker and Messrs. Chairmen:

       I write on behalf of President Donald J. Trump in response to your numerous, legally
unsupported demands made as part of what you have labeled-contrary to the Constitution of the
United States and all past bipartisan precedent-as an "impeachment inquiry." As you know,
you have designed and implemented your inquiry in a maimer that violates fundamental fairness
and constitutionally mandated due process.

         For example, you have denied the President the right to cross-examine witnesses, to call
witnesses, to receive transcripts of testimony, to have access to evidence, to have counsel
present, and many other basic rights guaranteed to all Americans. You have conducted your
proceedings in secret. You have violated civil liberties and the separation of powers by
tlu·eatening Executive Branch officials, claiming that you will seek to punish those who exercise
fundamental constitutional rights and prerogatives. All of this violates the Constitution, the rule
of law, and eve1y past precedent. Never before in our history has the House of
Representatives-under the control of either political party-taken the American people down
the dangerous path you seem determined to pursue.

        Put simply, you seek to overturn the results of the 2016 election and deprive the
American people of the President they have freely chosen. Many Democrats now apparently
view impeachment not only as a means to undo the democratic results of the last election, but as
a strategy to influence the next election, which is barely more than a year away. As one member
of Congress explained, he is "concerned that ifwe don't impeach the President, he will get
reelected." 1 Your highly partisan and unconstitutional effort tlu·eatens grave and lasting damage
to our democratic institutions, to our system of free elections, and to the American people.

1   Interview with Rep. Al Green, MSNBC (May 5, 2019).

Pages: [1] 2 3 4 5 ... 196