no propaganda please Loc: moon orbiting the third rock from the sun

White House unleashes official response to articles of impeachment, with serious warning
'Abuse of power theory collapses at the threshold because it fails to allege any violation of law'
WND Staff By WND Staff
Published January 20, 2020 at 1:35pm


Lawyers for President Trump on Monday submitted to the U.S. Senate a brief that asserts House Democrats are relying on "constitutionally deficient" articles of impeachment and warning that the "theories" on which they rely would "do lasting damage to the separation of powers under the Constitution."

The Democrats' work product, the brief charges, is the result "of an unprecedented and unconstitutional process that denied the president every basic right guaranteed by the Due Process Clause and fundamental principles of fairness."

"The Senate should reject the articles of impeachment and acquit the president immediately," the White House lawyers say.

The document was submitted by White House counsels Jay Sekulow and Pat Cipollone in response to articles of impeachment passed in a partisan v**e led by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi.

TRENDING: New photos of grinning Bill Clinton with sex s***e and Epstein's pimp on 'Lolita Express'

The articles of abuse of power and obstruction of Congress center on a whistleblower's complaint that President Trump threatened to withhold U.S. aid to pressure the Ukrainian president to announce an investigation of a "political rival."

The White House argues the aid was delivered by the deadline, there was no announcement of an investigation and there is legitimate concern about possible corruption by Joe Biden and his son H****r.

H****r B***n received $83,000 a month from the Ukrainian natural gas company Burisma while his father was the overseer of Ukraine policy. Further, Joe Biden publicly boasted of threatening to withhold $1 billion in U.S. aid if Ukraine's president did not fire the country's top prosecutor, who was investigating Burisma at the time.

'Affront to the Constitution'

The Senate trial is scheduled to begin Tuesday. A supermajority of 67 senators is required to convict, which is unlikely with Republicans holding a 53-seat majority.

"The articles of impeachment now before the Senate are an affront to the Constitution and to our democratic institutes," the lawyers told the Senate. "The articles themselves – and the r****d process that brought them here – are a brazenly political act by House Democrats that must be rejected. They debase the grave power of impeachment and disdain the solemn responsibility that power entails.

"All that House Democrats have succeeded in proving is that the president did absolutely nothing wrong."

The accusations are "flimsy" and do not include any allegation of a violation of the law, much less "high crimes and misdemeanors," as required by the Constitution," they said.

"They do not remotely approach the constitutional threshold for removing a president from office."

First, the filing explains, the articles "do not identify any impeachable offense."

"House Democrats' 'abuse of power' theory collapses at the threshold because it fails to allege any violation of law whatsoever," they contended.

Further, "House Democrats' concocted theory that the president can be impeached for taking permissible actions if he does them for what they believe to be the wrong reasons would also expand the impeachment power beyond constitutional bounds. It would allow a hostile House to attack almost any p**********l action by challenging president's subjective motives."

And there can be no question about the president's ignoring or disregarding "United States foreign policy," because it is the president, not hired bureaucrats, who sets that policy.

The Democrats' theory of obstruction of Congress article is "frivolous and dangerous," the brief says.

The president relied on executive privilege and the opinion of the DOJ's Office of Legal Counsel in his decision to withhold the testimony of his counselors, the lawyers argue.

The House subpoenas "had no legal force."

And, the brief argues, "defending the separation of powers is not an impeachable offense."

Law professor Jonathan Turley, they point out, told the House Judiciary Committee, "Basing impeachment on this obstruction theory would itself be an abuse of power ... by Congress."

And the House never authorized an impeachment inquiry, which was pursued only by Democrats.

The brief alleges corruption by the Democrats.

"The goal was to impeach the president, no matter the facts. House Democrats' impeachment crusade started the day the president took office. As Speaker Pelosi confirmed in December 2019, her party's quest to impeach the president had already been 'going on for 22 months … [t]wo and a half years, actually.'"

"The moment the president was sworn in, the Washington Post reported partisans had launched a campaign to impeach him. The current proceedings began with a complaint prepared with the assistance of a lawyer who declared in 2017 that he would use 'impeachment' to effect a 'c**p.'"

woodguru

What the white house is doing is not unleashing, it is spewing garbage, the rhetoric is so far away from the reality of the constitution it's ridiculous.

Pariahjf

Not many people have actually read the Constitution.

Seth

The Constitution gives the president sole authority over foreign policy, except in the signing of treaties or actual declarations of war.

Considering that the Constitution is essentially Pelosi's employee handbook, she sure hasn't read it herself... Or she's simply a liar.

I think it's both.

Wonttakeitanymore

U are obviously confused as to the real perps!!

Lt. Rob Polans ret.

Why is it incumbent on the Senate to prove Congress's case?

Seth

It's not. The House is Constitutionally required to build a case the same way a prosecutor does, compile evidence and witness testimonies, etc, then bring the entire package to the Senate with the Articles of Impeachment.

The Senate then tries the case the same way as a court of law.

Noodler & Schitt are bringing a half baked case to the Senate that proves no high crimes or misdemeanors, in fact nothing that any sane or honorable body would submit, and Pelosi is expecting the Senate to do the work, as McConnell put it, that the House should have done.

Constitutionally, it is within the purview of the Senate to simply v**e yea or nay based on the slipshod lack of a compelling case the House has brought them, which amounts to little more than a joke. Anything more than that will be a kind of charity to the Democrats, even though the results will be the same -- no removal, not even close.

Pelosi is full of hippopotamus feces when she says that the Senate not doing the House's job would constitute a "cover up."

Essentially, the Democrats have made themselves look pretty stupid over this lame impeachment fiasco, but they're so out of touch with the average American that they haven't a clue.

They will, though, on 3 November.

Pariahjf

The American public wants to see the evidence-----that's only fair.

Seth

The Democrats were Constitutionally bound to produce and show that evidence before v****g for articles of impeachment. They failed to do so because there was no actual impeachable evidence.

It's not the Senate's job to do the House's job, only to try the case based on what the House has submitted.

McConnell is well within his Constitutional authority to try the case however he wants, including requiring the "mysterious" whistleblower to testify.

If you truly believed that the American people have the right to see the evidence, you should have said so during the sham House investigation to see if they actually had a case before v****g to impeach.

However, I have yet to meet a single "liberal" who gave a damn about "the evidence" while the House was v****g, strictly along party lines, to impeach.

Now that the ball's in the court of the GOP's Senate majority, everyone wants to "see the evidence."

Pariahjf

Since I am an Independent v**er, I just want to see wh**ever it is they have. Let the people decide. I give not one crap about either of the other parties agendas.

Seth

What will be viewed is the Democrats' case vs the president's defense. If the Republicans call the witnesses Adam Schitt refused to allow, I don't believe the trial will be very long.

Pariahjf

If that's the case, why didn't Trump allow his folks to testify to prove his innocence? That's what anyone with a logical brain would do...

EmilyD

Because Trump is not supposed to prove his innocence. He is innocent until proven guilty according to the Bill of Rights. It is the House's job to gather evidence - NOT the Senate's.

Pariahjf

You forgot your history----as Alexander Hamilton put it in the Federalist Papers, "...impeachable conduct are “those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust,” and “political” offenses that injure society...." Who would know better than a man who actually SIGNED the Constitution???

Pariahjf

And it wasn't about proving his innocence. It was an opportunity to GIVE evidence on HIS behalf, which he refused to do.