Difference between revisions of "Scampeachment"
|Line 18:||Line 18:|
[[Category:Issues]] [[Category:Trump]] [[Category:FakeNews]]
[[Category:Issues]] [[Category:Trump]] [[Category:FakeNews]]
Latest revision as of 09:54, 1 February 2020
This impeachment (scampeachment/shampeachment) is where the Democrats and their media impeached Trump because they don't like him or his politics, spun the facts around like a centrifuge, misinformed anyone that listened to them -- and despite their best efforts to Kavanaugh Donald Trump, the lost big time: both with the law, and with voters, and it will go down in history as an embarrassing time for the country. The mainstream medias coverage was 100% biased in favor of the Democrats, but the informed and critical thinkers could see through that. 
Scampeachment : 9 items
Senate on Scampeachment - When hyper-partisans in the House, use unusually partisan rules, to do a mock investigation, violate someone's civil rights (to face their accusers, provide a defense, see the evidence, and so on), then the Senate and NO politician that took an oath of office, should respect the proceedings. In fact their oath of office demands that they ignore it, as this violates the spirit (if not letter) of the Constitution. So the Senate will ignore Pelosi's Scampeachment. Then the Democrats and their press will blame the partisanism of the Senate. (Which is the norm: democrats accuse the other side of what they are doing). Whereas if the congress did their jobs, and followed the procedural norms, and they could find any "evidence" (not here-say of partisans), it would be far harder for the Senate to ignore. So the Democrats are dividing us, as they always do, and guaranteeing their own failure, as they often do.
Scampeachment in the House - House Scampeachment:
- House had a vote and said they didn't want to impeach. So Pelosi, Schiff and Nadler went around the legal process and set up a mock trial ("impeachment inquiry"), where they violated all Constitutional norms, in order to "impeach" without any due process afforded the President, or vote, to assuage their radical element that had been demanding impeachment since before Trump was even inaugurated, for the high crime of winning an election. (They seriously said things like impeach first, we'll find the crime later).
- While the House failed to call any material witnesses to confirm their claims (all were here say trying to presume Trumps motives and ignore what he actually said), the whole thing was all based on the allegations of a Democratic activist name Eric Ciaramella that colluded with Adam Schiff and the Democrats to subvert an election. The far-left media mislabeled Eric as a Whistleblower: but he doesn't actually meet the legal qualifications of being one, and they would have never, ever, afforded a Republican operative the same courtesy. Based on that DNC activists debunked claims, who was never examined or cross-examined, the house impeached.
- Since there was no actual crime committed, or named, the House impeached based on two vague kinda-crimes: Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress.
- Abuse of Power (called maladministration by the founders) was pretty much excluded at the time and warned against, especially if it was just for governing in a way that the party didn't like (like this case). They wanted something more specific, and they warned that "High Crimes and Misdemeanors" was too vague and might be abused (as it was in this case), but for nearly 250 years Congress showed better judgement than the Democrats did here. If you can impeach based on vague and undefined "abuse of power", then we collapse into a parliamentary form of government, where opposing congresses will waste all their time impeaching (vote of no confidence) based on petty acts, and the Presidency as it exists collapses.
- Obstruction of Congress, as used, is not a crime: this is a normal executive privilege, and if Trump is guilty by not giving congress what they wanted, then every President back to Washington was guilty as well.
- After they "impeached" without ever voting to do the impeachment inquiry (and ignoring the vote against it), and failing to call any material witnesses (all opinion), and the summary of their case was Trump almost did what they (Obama/Biden) did first (Read: Basis for Scampeachment). Pelosi then sat on the impeachment for a month, refusing to hand over the articles to the Senate so they could review/try the case. This was Pelosi's abuse of power, and attempt to quid-pro-quo the Senate into giving her what she wanted: which is credibility and more time and attention by calling witnesses that the House had not. But the Senate's job is only to try the case they were given, not to do the investigation that the house failed to do. So they ignored, and dismissed the case as not being proven.
Excuses for Scampeachment - Some dishonest partisans are trying to invent excuses for why the laws shouldn't apply to Democrats or Trump. All of them make them look petty, shallow and dishonest to the informed, as no rational human believes they would be making the same arguments against their own side, or if they weren't #NeverTrump'ers or part of the #Restance (to rule of law). Arguments include:
- "This has national security issues, thus this secret process is justified" - even though they won't name what the national security issues are (beyond really hating Trump), or what the crime(s) is/are, and they aren't doing just the minimum parts behind closed, but the whole thing behind closed doors. (And then they're selectively leaking to libel a President, without releasing transcripts so we can see what was actually said). So this is not the same thing at all, to the honest or informed.
- It also ignores the context of a secret whistleblower who was caught colluding with the Democrats in advance, and the Democrats had lied about it, which would mean any honest investigation would have to explore that, and recuse anyone involved, instead of putting them in control of running the investigation. If your goal is credibility, and not mocking the rule of law.
- "This is the process since Trey Gowdy / Benghazi hearings" - this lie pretends that impeaching the President, with unlimited scope and no crime, is the same as the normal investigative duties of the congress, to see who ordered what, which lead to the deaths of many Americans, and we had people on tape lying about it, and the scope was clearly defined. Anyone with a triple digit IQ knows those aren't the same thing, so the only people that would use this argument are dumb or dishonest.
- "But the Clinton impeachment had some witness called in secret" - not before there was a vote on impeachment (and both sides were allowed to attend, unlike this one where the Democrats are excluding many more, before a vote was taken to impeach). And the President's folks were allowed in the room and to cross examine the witnesses, and the Republicans weren't cherry-picking leaking out of context parts to sabotage Clinton, like the Democrats have been doing.
Eric Ciaramella - Eric Ciaramella is the alleged "Whistleblower" that collaborate with Adam Schiff (Sean Misko on his staff) to fabricate evidence, which lead to the charges for impeachment. The fact that there was no undue pressure, quid pro quo, and it is not a crime if there was, is all beside the point. The real Scandal is that Eric worked with the Schiff staff to fabricate a coup against a sitting President. But those on the left hate Trump so much that they'll ignore this, and defend even mentioning Eric Ciaramella's name, under the debunked theory that he's a whistleblower, when he does not fit the legal or moral definition of one.
Basis of Scampeachment - Background:
- Joe Biden bragged on tape about how he abused power and used quid pro quo, to demand that Ukrainian government fire the prosecutor who was investigating Joe's son (Hunter Biden)'s company (Burisma Holdings: Ukrainian natural gas supplier), or Joe Biden would withhold $1B in aid to Ukraine, and "Son-of-a-bitch, they fired the investigator" within a couple hours.
- Burisma/Ukraine was infamous for corruption, and at the time was paying millions of dollars to Hunter Biden, despite Hunter not speaking Ukrainian, having no experience in Energy/Natural Gas, foreign policy or negotiations, and had recently been thrown out of the Navy for Drug Abuse, but they agreed to pay him millions of Dollars (as did the Chinese) -- all because his Dad was Vice President (as admitted to in an interview by Hunter Biden). This is called payola, or pay-for-play.
- Trump on hearing of this, and meeting with newly elected Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, and discussed the problems with Ukrainian corruption, mentioned in the meeting that America had interest in whether anything untoward had happened with regards to that prosecutor getting fired, and previously documented issues with Ukrainian interference in the 2016 presidential election. (This is Trump's Job as the highest law enforcement officer in the nation).
- When told of the meeting/ask, by a Democrat operative and activist (Eric Ciaramella), the Democrats and their media panicked at exposing Joe Biden's corruption, and they took the position that the far left usually does of "accuse the other side of what we're doing" to obfuscate. So they claimed that despite Trump NOT withholding aide, Zelensky saying he didn't feel pressured, and evidence of Joe admitting on tape to something questionable, that Trump was guilty of doing what Joe admitted to doing. And they tried to impeach Trump over that. And in order to prevent any transparency, they mislabeled Eric Ciaramella as a "Whistleblower" (though he didn't qualify under any of the legal or moral definitions of one), in order to hide his identity, biases, and prevent his arguments from having to face any scrutiny on intent.
2020.02.05 Reich on Scampeachment - Poor little mini-Marx is a mad little munchkin. Not only was he kicked out of the lollipop guild, but the Senate Republicans did their job and acquitted Donald Trump of the non-crimes that the Congress failed to charge him with. So Reich lambasted them by claiming something about 18 million votes, that the other side had fewer votes supporting them that's why they held the majority and that the U.S. no longer qualifies as a democracy. All of those were moronically wrong in a way that only a Democrat could type with an enraged face. A few basic counter-arguments: Trump is polling in the majority, the Senate Republicans couldn't convict based on vague non-crimes (since actual high crimes or misdemeanors weren't mentioned in the indictments), and we are not, nor have ever been, a Democracy... we are a constitutional REPUBLIC. You have to be a civics retard on the short bus (no pun intended) to not laugh at the errors in Reich Rants. So as usual, Mini-Marx comes up short. In this case, short of achieving rationality.
2020.01.30 No Christian Case for Trump - The Atlantic Peter Wehner wrote a hit piece against Trump supporters who excuse his legal/ethical behavior with regards to Ukraine and attacks Wayne Grudem for defending that behavior. But Wehner is a never Trumper, the Atlantic is part of the far left resistance, and the piece omits major context (lie of omission) that kind of destroys the idea that Wehner is ethical or making an ethical argument. The best arguments made are addressing and deconstructing the opponents strongest points, not evading them or mischaracterizing them with straw men and reductio ad absurdum arguments, as Wehner did. The Atlantic was just the vehicle of disinformation, as is too often the case.
2019.12.18 Merry Impeachmas - Scampeachment put on by partisan Democrats. Not an ounce of objectivity or common sense. Then she doubled down when caught and claimed that she was deleting the tweet because people were "misinterpreting" it, to mean exactly what she meant. As someone retorted "Democracy dies over chips & guac."
2019.10.22 Lynchgate - Trump tweets the secret tribunal Scampeachment that violates all historical norms (doing it without a formal vote, not being able to confront/cross-examine witnesses, behind closed doors, etc), is a political lynching. The wokescold Democrats are outraged, other than half a dozen Democrats (including Joe Biden) saying that (or worse) about Clinton's more above-board and justified impeachment, on the house floor, and the Democrats media using the term (or worse) when it suits them, this time is different... because a Republican used it... with more justification. If Democrats didn't have double standards, they wouldn't have any standards at all.
Ignoring the facts is called a lie of omission at best... or partisan hackery at worst. And a few excuses for why it's OK to violate our system of justice, doesn't change that. Anyone that defends this process is defending making our nation ungorvernable, divisive, and rooting for civil war.