More than 500 law professors say Trump committed impeachable conduct

Comment:

Evidently, they cannot read.  The CONUS says "high crimes and misdemeanors".  The professors said that no crime was necessary, but the CONUS says otherwise.

You could probably get 50 million people to say that these professors are jackasses.

More than 500 law professors say Trump committed ‘impeachable conduct’ https://t.co/o3gro7nHTD

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) December 7, 2019

Extortion

The Democrats are accusing the President of extortion.  It may help to understand what the word "extortion" actually means in the legal sense.

Here is a webpage that discusses the elements of extortion.   Most of the discussion was about the acquisition of money or property of another person by force or fraud.

Nothing in this article applies to the President.  In order to be guilty of extortion, one has to force something from someone that they would not give willingly.  A mere exchange of favors ( quid pro quo ) is not extortion.  Withholding military aid is not a threat to do harm.  The refusal of help is not a threat.  The harm is coming from Russia, not the USA.  Trump wasn't threatening the Ukrainians.  It is a big stretch to say that he was.

Zelensky could have given the President a statement willingly with no strings attached.  The aid question is coincidental as it wasn't necessary to Trump's request.  Each could be separate issues entirely.

Even if you accept that these elements do apply to Trump, you still have to prove them.  The Democrats haven't even done that.

A few thoughts on the political situation

As I write this, it appears to be a "go" on the vote on impeachment articles.  Given that, here are a few thoughts on the current state of this impeachment drive.

• A lefty blogger said that they should go ahead even if the impeachment fails in the Senate.  It could have some political advantages, they seem to believe.
• Extortion seemed to be the crime cited.  If you listen to the lefties, they'll say that Trump extorted a political favor in exchange for military aid.
• The Democrats don't seem to want to argue the GOP's side of the issue.  When asked, Pelosi refused to discuss any of the GOP's objections.
• They'll probably argue that the GOP won't let them make their case if McConnell limits them in any way.  This suggests that an adverse political trial in response to their accusations could be played for advantage.

How should the GOP handle this?  I'd make the case that this is a Bill of Attainder.  Without a fair process, and without clear evidence of a crime, the Democrats are attempting to punish an individual without the benefit of due process.  The case should be summarily dismissed as a Bill of Attainder.  If it is not, then they should absolutely make sure that they don't repeat what happened in the House.

Nunes reacts to Schiff releasing his phone calls

Comment:

Way the hell over the top now.  Schiff, Pelosi, and Nadler are out of control.  Unfortunately, that may include a lot of others as well.

What does Pierre Delecto think about this?  Do these Gestapo tactics meet his approval?

Dem Senator: "Handful" of GOP colleagues considering a vote to remove Trump

Comment:

If this was an honest statement, he wouldn't be talking about it, nor telling about it.  It isn't honest because "to consider" doesn't mean to pre-judge.  It means to "think carefully".  If you are thinking carefully, you don't talk about it before you hear the case.   If you "think carefully" about it, you don't go to partisan types who have already made up their minds in advance.

In other words, if this partisan Democrat said there are a "handful" of GOP senators willing to "consider" removal, then he is lying, or they may be lying to him.

About all he could possibly have here is a GOP type who is willing to take their Star Chamber BS seriously.  Yep, there could be a few GOP types who would remove the President if they thought they could get away with it.

Dem senator says he knows 'handful' of GOP colleagues considering vote to remove Trump https://t.co/b9ScOLx58V

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) December 6, 2019

Congressional abuse of power

Comment:

Getting phone records of journalists?

From @KimStrassel: The abuse of power most media are ignoring. https://t.co/D163ZnVwnv

— Brit Hume (@brithume) December 6, 2019

Ahab has a evolved sensibility

Comment:

There was a scene in the Star Trek flick, First Contact, which reminded me of Pelosi's reaction to a reporter's question.  Like Picard in this scene, she defends her higher sensibilities.  The reporter asked if she hated Trump.

Evidently, the mention of the word "hate" really gets these liberal types.  It is always directed outward toward the "deplorables".  Naturally, when the reporter asked that question, she has a rather snippy response.  Don't mess with me, she snaps.

Captain Pelosi has to go hunt her whale. - https://t.co/f3gF6CabAH https://t.co/Q54Is5LTOC

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) December 6, 2019

Turley: Under Democrats’ ‘Abuse of Power’ Standard, Obama Could Have Been Im…

Democrats have standards?

ANALYSIS: TRUE. Turley: Under Democrats’ ‘Abuse of Power’ Standard, Obama Could Have Been Im… https://t.co/tDgAKFdhY9

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) December 5, 2019

Impeachment fail

Trump's approval ratings are nearly as high as when this Ukraine story first emerged.  Back then, the Rasmussen poll peaked at 53 percent.  It is now at 52 percent.

The impeachment drive has failed to move the polls except for a brief time.

President #Trump's daily job approval ratings for today are in! https://t.co/mazBCWoIMy @POTUS #breakingpoll pic.twitter.com/fJT03e0XYf

— Rasmussen Reports (@Rasmussen_Poll) December 5, 2019

Bill of Attainder

Updated,

12.4.19:

A Bill of Attainder is defined as a legislative act intended to punish a person without the benefit of a trial.  The Democrats are trying to push the notion that crime isn't necessary in order to impeach.  Without a crime, then it is a Bill of Attainder.

Democrat Witness: Evidence Of Crime Not Needed To Impeach Trump https://t.co/zCnI3DE77H

— Sean Davis (@seanmdav) December 4, 2019

11.26.19:

It seems that you can preserve the rule of law by actually observing it.  What a concept.

(Bill of attainder?) Levin: Impeachment Not Whatever the House of Representatives Says — ‘That’s a Lie’ https://t.co/ppAcyifEeA via @BreitbartNews

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) November 26, 2019

2.7.19:

There is a discussion about the Democrat's efforts at getting at Trump's tax records.  Someone in the comments section pointed out that this is a Bill of Attainder, which would mean that it is unconstitutional.

Actually, I think this is persuasive enough argument that it should be enough to stop them from doing this.

The Democrats are attempting many things besides this, that should be clear that they are not supporting the rule of law, as they so often like to claim.  Their allies in the GOP "establishment" are supportive of them in areas like this because it is clear that in matters relating to Trump are political, and they oppose Trump as the Democrats do.

The question is if there are enough actual conservatives in the Party, which also includes the Supreme Court, that the constitution itself can be preserved because these people are attempting to overthrow it in a number of ways.

• They are attempting to go around the Electoral College in order to elect a president because they cannot live within the current law.  This includes any such effort to create compacts between the states that mean to subvert the law.  
• For example, there are compacts with respect to the issue of AGW, which is an attempt to subvert Federal policy with regard to the defunct Paris accord.
• There are calls to "pack the courts" when one in their faction wins the White House.
• There are calls to change the number of Senators from two that we have at present to a proportional one such as the one in the House.

There is a  legal process to change the constitution if it is desired.  But the Democrats know that they cannot get the votes to do this, so they do these end runs around the constitutional government in order to get their way.  If they get away with this, then why would the Constitution matter anymore at all?  These efforts are extralegal and political and have no place if we are to be governed by the rule of law.

If we had a real opposition party...

12.4.19:

Is the Republic dying?  If so, then why?  Could it be the case that nobody is willing to defend it?

Words are not enough.  The wolf is not impressed with the sounds coming from his intended victim.

We have reached a new low in Americans politics when a documented liar and corrupt conspiracy theorist like Adam Schiff can weaponize his office to abuse people by accessing their phone records. Even attorneys defending their clients. The Republic is dying, Schiff is killing it.

— Dan Bongino (@dbongino) December 4, 2019

12.2.19:

...there would be no impeachment trial.  In fact, the trial should be of those who vote for impeachment.  The impeachment as such is nothing more than a Bill of Attainder, which is illegal.  Therefore, anybody who votes for it is a felon.

The Senate, which is controlled by the GOP, should declare this as such, and those who voted for it to be outlaws.

That would be the case if there was a true opposition party.  Since they are going to treat this otherwise, it would seem that the President is in some jeopardy.

That is why I suggested that people should organize.  It is the only way to keep these politicians honest.

We may need a second amendment solution to this problem.  The point isn't vigilantism, but to remind these politicians where sovereignty lies.  It is in "We the People", which is in the Constitution to which they gave an oath.  They act as if they are sovereign.  We don't have Kings and Royalty.  We don't have nobility.  We have the law.  They need to be reminded of that.  If they don't respect the people, it is only because of the power that they have has gone to their heads.  The power has been delegated to them  They do not own it.  It is theirs not by right nor by inheritance.  It is only in their hands because that power was given to them.  It can also be taken away.

They do not own us, not yet.  Slaves aren't allowed to have weapons.  Slaves have no say in the decisions that are made.  These politicians don't respect the people.  They are out of control.  Something has to bring them back into line.

The party of 19th-century slavery wants to bring it back.   Who will stop them?

Good stuff here

Comment:

12.4.19:

After reading this from his show notes, it seems to me that more concern should be directed at the incompetence within the government, as opposed to anything the Russians may or may not have done in 2016.  The fact is that these people wouldn't know one way or another if Russia did anything.  As Congressman Nunes said with respect to Russia--"we are flying blind".



12.3.19:

I can't imagine doing a show of an hour's length every day.  The show is good, too.  I'd say it is definitely worth posting the whole thing.

And here it is...

Nunes sues CNN

Comment:

Interesting development.

Nunes sues CNN over 'demonstrably false' Ukraine report per ⁦@ByronYork⁩ https://t.co/J9yqAtHHV5

— Sara A. Carter (@SaraCarterDC) December 3, 2019

Holy Clockwork Orange, Batman

Comment:

Did somebody glue his eyes wide open?

Schiff_withholding_transcript_that_exposes_his_prior_contact_with_whistleblower https://t.co/jwLHwTp03l

— Greg Meadows (@BootsandOilBlog) December 3, 2019

Is this that? You decide.

Comment:


Lisa Page says this is that. You decide!

This...





Now, here's "that".







Tell you what. I'm definitely convinced that one of them is a fake!

Obligatory, 12.1.19

Somewhere along the line, the US must have crossed a threshold.  This threshold is a good kind of threshold.  It's like what Rush Limbaugh used to say about the Reagan years.  During that time, the liberals did goofy things.  The goofier they became, the more their defeat was assured.

Here are a few things I can think of in the news:

1. Republicans are being accused of using the impeachment as an "offensive" weapon against Democrats, and consequently, are "bullying" Democrats.  Imagine a bad guy pulling a gun and telling his intended victim to stop bullying him.  This is so goofy that it is beyond comprehension.  If they can be this goofy, how can they be taken seriously?
2. Some UN official is out there demanding a stop to the "war on nature".  See number 1.
3. Rob Reiner said Christian evangelicals have made a pact with Putin.  This one doesn't require a signature like the one with the devil, says the Meathead.  How convenient it is not to need proof for an accusation.
4. Cuba is the most sustainably developed country in the world.  Somebody out there has a sense of humor.

Yes, the goofiness has crossed the threshold.  Things must be going pretty well.  Will Trump have a Reaganesque landslide?  Maybe not, but 40 states might be possible.