|
|
| From | Message | ||
|---|---|---|---|
|
 Constitution Abused In Trump Impeachment Inquiry Article 2, Section 4 clearly requires a significant crime to justify impeachment. No such crime is alleged in the two Articles of Impeachment because the House Intelligence (HIC) and Judiciary committees could not establish first-hand evidence, direct facts, or material witnesses that prove any law was broken. The president received nothing of value from Ukraine. Ukraine received presidential meeting and more aid than the Obama administration on time. The chairman of the committees were obligated to adhere to the 14th Amendment due process provisions as fulfilled in established precedents afforded to Presidents Clinton, Nixon, and Andrew Johnson. Instead, inquiries on those two committees alone combined over 25 violations of these precedents. For example, the HIC denied the president's basic rights to select witnesses, see all evidence, confront all accusers, access all transcripts, have public hearings, and much more. When the president refused to participate in this corrupt, anti-American process, the Judiciary majority alleged obstruction. The dishonest inquiry threatens to transform America from a republic of laws to a democracy of mob rule. It is clearly unconstitutional. Garland Favorito Letter to Epoch Times editor December 26 - Janurary 1 |
||
|
and 3: the law give the subject if an investigation the right to "confront witnesses" --- that's reserved for the trial in the Senate. The Presidents Constitutional rights have NOT been violated. |
||
|
What Mo one said |
||
|
Splitting Hairs Without there being a "significant crime, etc.", Isn't that what you Democrats have been accusing Trump of since day one? I think so. It began with election fraud, viz Russian Collision. Nothing resulted from that except some obscure charge of obstruction of justice. This was so tenuous the AG. said there was no clear way to prosecute the president. Later, as promised with the Democratic majority of the House, Adam Schiff and the secret meetings behind closed doors and some indefinite whistleblower testimony to Quid Pro Quo, the Democratic Party decided to begin an Impeachment Inquiry. Quid Pro Quo was changed to bribery. The president broke some law somewhere! 2. Direct facts and absolute isn't required? When were the requirements of "innocent until PROVEN guilty" been changed? It has not been changed! Each and every one of these charges are unsubstantiated. 3. So when the trial finally begins the Republicans can supoeona Democrats like Joe Biden and his son Hunter. The whistleblower will be exposed, sworn testimony from the Ukrainian president will be brought forth, which will corroborate the president's side as true. Nancy Pelosi knows that they have no case and that's why she not going forward. |
