As every good Communist knows, justice is a tool of the class and of the party. It is used to bolster the party and its political control over the state. Individuals may therefore be prosecuted because they presented a threat to the rule of the party, or simply because it is politically expedient to do so.
Scott Horton, Harper’s Blog, February 7, 2008
The Democrats’ three-year long coup against President Donald Trump is rapidly coming to its denouement, with the Rep. Jerrold Nadler’s House Judiciary Committee having now been given the charge to draw up articles of impeachment by Speaker Nancy Pelosi.
That Democrats would seek to impeach President Trump was apparently foreordained, but the Democrats’ attempts to invent justifications for what can only be described as a coup have told us much more about them, than they have revealed about Donald Trump’s alleged misdeeds.
What we have learned most recently is that a Democrat Congress can conduct secret warrantless searches against private citizens, against journalists and against attorneys in a completely extra-judicial attempt to pierce the attorney – client privilege.
But that should really not have surprised us – it is merely an extension of what Democrats did during the Obama years when they surveilled journalist Sharyl Attkisson and others, and used the NSA to sweep up the phone calls of an unknown number of Americans who may or may not have been associated with the Trump campaign.
We’ve also learned that Democrats don’t want your government to be run by you, or elected officials accountable to you. What they want is government by interagency consensus – meaning government by unelected, unaccountable, anonymous bureaucrats.
Thus, if one reads the charges in the Schiff report, in order to avoid impeachment a future President may not take his own counsel or the counsel of advisors of his choice; he is to be bound by the views of LTC Alexander Vindman, and the diplomats and bureaucrats who formulate “the consensus views of the interagency,” who from the shadows will make American foreign policy.
We also learned that there are two systems of justice; one for Democrats and one for us mere mortals.
During the hearings no questions regarding Joe Biden, Hunter Biden, or any of their dealings with Ukraine were allowed – even though the corrupt relationship between Joe and Hunter Biden, Ukrainian gas company Burisma and various oligarchs was the proximate cause of the controversy regarding the Trump – Zelensky phone call.
As Prof. Jonathan Turley noted in his testimony before the House Judiciary Committee, “In the current case, the record is facially insufficient. The problem is not simply that the record does not contain direct evidence of the President stating a quid pro quo, as Chairman Schiff has suggested. The problem is that the House has not bothered to subpoena the key witnesses who would have such direct knowledge. This alone sets a dangerous precedent. A House in the future could avoid countervailing evidence by simply relying on tailored records with testimony from people who offer damning presumptions or speculation.”
Five Times Democrats Didn’t Care When Obama Committed Obstruction of Justice
As with everything in DC, there is one set of rules for Dems and another set for rules for Republicans.
————————————————————-——————————————————-
Listening to Democrats make their “case” for impeaching Trump is like watching a child make excuses for why they should be able to stay up late or not have to eat their vegetables. It’s an endless evolving list of explanations and excuses. We’ve seen them allege a quid pro quo, bribery, extortion… basically whatever polled well on a given week. One fairly new angle they’ve been pushing is that the mere pushback against subpoenas is tantamount to obstruction of justice—an impeachable offense.
Professor Jonathan Turley destroyed this argument during his testimony this week before the House Judiciary Committee. “He’s allowed to do that; we have three branches, not two. If you impeach a president, if you make a high crime and misdemeanor out of going to the courts, it is an abuse of power. It’s your abuse of power,” Turley said, referring Congress. “You are doing precisely what you’re criticizing the president for doing.”
Turley also noted, “President Obama withheld evidence from Congress in Fast and Furious, an investigation — or rather moronic program — that led to the death of a federal agent. President Obama gave a sweeping argument that he was not only not going to give evidence to this body but that a court had absolutely no role in determining whether he could withhold the evidence.”
Fast and Furious is certainly the most well-known example, but there are many other examples of Obama doing what Democrats now claim to be an impeachable offense. If Democrats like Nancy Pelosi were being honest that this isn’t about politics but the rule of law and holding presidents accountable and such, they should have impeached Obama… and it’s not like they didn’t have multiple opportunities either. Here are just five instances (of many more) where Obama obstructed justice and Democrats didn’t care enough about abuse of power to impeach him. So really, they should stop pretending they give a hoot about the rule of law or our democracy or the Constitution.
RUDY NUKES DEMOCRATS: Ukrainians Find Misuse of $5.3 BILLION in US Aid During Obama Admin
AC