Posts
On Thursday, when it became obvious that the Democrats had as much chance of impeaching the president as Joe Biden has at being able to keep his hands in his pockets, Speaker Pelosi made the bizarre claim, in words and flying hands, that President Trump "cannot be acquitted," because the Senate trial lacks the witness testimony and documents [the Democrats should have subpoenaed in the House].
The San Francisco [where homelessness is considered a status symbol] Democrat attacked President Trump's impeachment defense team. Because they did their jobs, Pelosi said they've "disgraced themselves." Technically, had they not done their jobs they would have disgraced their profession. But Speaker Pelosi even suggested that they deserve disbarment over their trial remarks.
The comments came hours before Sen. Lamar Alexander (R-TN), said he would not back efforts by Democrats to have witnesses testify at the Senate trial – all but sealing an appropriate acquittal for Trump, who is his own worst legal client.
Pelosi, who appears to be showing signs of senile dementia, challenged whether that acquittal would be valid, in remarks that seemed a bid to undermine any Trump claim of victory.
If an acquittal is invalid, then so is the impeachment. You can't have it both ways, but that's how the Democrats operate.
"He will not be acquitted," Pelosi insanely said during her weekly news conference, according to Politico. “You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial. You don’t have a trial if you don’t have witnesses and documentation and all of that. Does the president know right from wrong? I don't think so.”
 |
| A Poli Grip fail |
Democrats have been seeking to have former national security adviser John Bolton, and possibly others, testify at the trial. But they don't want Hunter Biden to testify because he is too relevant as the catalyst of this entire charade.
Bolton, who was fired in September, is reportedly willing to provide testimony that could bolster the Democrats’ arguments that Trump abused his power by seeking a quid-pro-quo deal with Ukraine.
It is probable that Trump did seek a quid pro quo with Ukraine but what he did was not impeachable--he just should have admitted it in the first place. He could have said, "Sure, I told Ukraine to investigate Burisma back in 2016. I was even concerned the Bidens were doing something untoward. At least I didn't hire someone to get fake information from Russia to hurt my chances in 2016 like Hillary did. Sue me."
Anyway, Pelosi and her kinetic dentures made combative comments about Trump’s legal team.
"I don't know how they can retain their lawyer status, in the comments that they're making," Pelosi, turning her back and reaching for her Poli Grip, told reporters. "I don't think they made the case. I think they disgraced themselves terribly in terms of their violation of what our Constitution is about and what a president's behavior should be."
Pelosi also accused other Trump allies of attempting “to dismantle the Constitution” in order to shield the president from conviction and removal from office over two articles of impeachment that the Democrat-controlled House approved in December.
Pelosi talking about the U.S. Constitution--as if the Democrats have been religiously abiding by it--is almost as funny as Eric Swalwell farting on camera with Chris Matthews and then pretending it was his coffee cup.
“Some of them are even lawyers,” Pelosi said. “Imagine that you would say — ever, of any president, no matter who he or she is or whatever party -- if the president thinks that his or her presidency ... is good for the country, then any action is justified — including encouraging a foreign government to have an impact on our elections."
She purposely misinterpreted Harvard Professor Alan Dershowitz's explanation by suggesting that a president can break any law as long as he says it's for the good of the nation. He never said, nor implied that, he said this: “If a president does something which he believes will help him get elected in the public interest, that cannot be the kind of quid pro quo that results in impeachment.” It does not imply that the "something" can be illegal, but the left would like you to believe that this is what he meant.
She and her frenetic hands and moving dentures went on and cited the Founders, as if they would have approved of the Democrats' political impeachment hoax.
When Rep. Hakeem Jeffries (D-NJ) was asked whether or not Hillary Clinton would have been impeached if she had won the election, due to her using the Russian-generated Steele dossier to hurt Trump's chances, he claimed that it was not impeachable because she paid for it.
So if Trump gave Zelenski a dollar, all would be fine with the Democrats.
Yeah sure.
After Dershowitz was wrongfully attacked, he pushed back on Twitter:
“I did not say or imply that a candidate could do anything to reassure his reelection, only that seeking help in an election is not necessarily corrupt, citing the Lincoln and Obama examples. Critics have an obligation to respond to what I said, not to create straw men to attack.”Dershowitz elaborated further during an appearance on Fox News’ “Hannity.”
"The point I was making was about the senators," Dershowitz said on "Hannity." "What I said [was] if you have mixed motives if you are in the public interest and you're trying to help the public, but you're also trying to get re-elected, according to [Rep. Adam] Schiff and [Rep. Jerry] Nadler, that's a crime.
President Trump and other Republicans argued that Pelosi slowed down the impeachment process, at least in part, because she realized the Democrats’ chances of winning a conviction of Trump in the Senate to be weak because it was without merit.
But all is well in the nation today and by Wednesday, all should be even better when the acquittal is likely to be given.
Please consider following this blog, and remember, every time you click on an ad, an angel gets its wings.
Tweet
No comments:
Post a Comment