Why Should Joe Biden Be Impeached?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns a possible impeachment of Joe Biden. Fred Lucas published an article in The Daily Signal titled “Come: ’30 Million Reasons’ Biden Impeachment Probe Will Continue Despite Indictment of Informant.” 

President Joe Biden called Friday for the House to shut down its impeachment inquiry into alleged influence peddling after the indictment of an FBI informant who said Biden might have accepted $5 million in bribes while vice president.

Special counsel David Weiss, appointed to investigate the financial activities of the president’s son, Huner Biden, secured a grand jury indictment against Alexander Smirnov, alleging that he lied to the FBI. Smirnov faces up to 25 years in prison if convicted.

A reporter asked Biden about the indictment at a press conference Friday, and whether the House should drop its impeachment inquiry.

“He is lying and it should be dropped, and it’s just been an outrageous effort from the beginning,” Biden said of Smirnov and the impeachment probe.

But House Oversight and Accountability Chairman James Comer, R-Ky., who is in charge of the inquiry, said the impeachment investigation doesn’t rely on Smirnov’s allegation of a bribe made in an FBI form known as a FD-1023. Comer said the evidence shows that millions of dollars in foreign cash went to Hunter Biden and other members of the Biden family.

Business associates of the Biden family have said that Joe Biden, mostly while vice president, was “the brand” in doing business in foreign countries.

“We have over $30 million reasons to continue this investigation and not one of those reasons relies on the corrupt FBI or an informant,” Comer said in a written statement, adding:

Bank records don’t lie. Bank records and witness testimony reveal Joe Biden knew about and participated in his family’s business schemes, and he has repeatedly lied to the American people about these facts. The American people demand the truth and accountability for any wrongdoing. We will continue to follow the facts to propose legislation to reform federal ethics laws and to determine whether articles of impeachment are warranted….

In July, Sen. Chuck Grassley, R-Iowa, released the bribery allegation against Biden in a four-page FBI document, called an FD-1023, that he obtained through a Justice Department whistleblower. FBI special agents use the FD-1023 form to record raw, unverified information obtained from confidential human sources. Such forms don’t reflect the conclusion of an investigation.

“It costs 5 (million) to pay one Biden, and 5 (million) to another Biden,” the unclassified FD-1023 form quotes then-Burisma CEO Mykola Zlochevsky saying at the 2016 meeting, a reference to the then-vice president and his son, a Burisma board member.

Lucas and other members of the committee investigating claim that there are reasons to impeach Biden. If they can prove corruption on the part of Biden, they should show the evidence. The committee has shown some bank recorders showing corruption. They have no personal reasons for lying, while Biden has lots of reasons to lie about being corrupt.

  

What Should America Do with an “Elderly Man with a Poor Memory”?

 

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is President Joe Biden and his poor memory. Special counsel Robert Hur published his report on Thursday of his investigation of the way that Biden managed classified documents for the past forty years - in one word, poorly.

According to Jarrett Stepman, Biden failed to correctly answer a variety of questions during the investigation, among which were the following: “when he was vice president to forgetting when his term ended to failing to come up with the year his son Beau died, ‘even within several years.’” The picture painted by the report shows “a man in severe mental decline.” 

Hur’s description of Biden’s mental state may have been used to justify not prosecuting the president for his illegal mishandling of classified documents, but it can hardly give Americans confidence in the man now running for a second presidential term.

If Biden is like this, it’s fair to ask who is actually running the executive branch?

Despite all the efforts by the Biden administration and its sycophantic media to cover for the president, questions about Biden’s fitness for office are now out in the open and impossible to dismiss.

Stepman noted that Americans were not reassured after watching “Biden’s angry, combative, and hardly reassuring press conference” upon the release of Hur’s report. He observed that Biden “is unlikely to resign” and asked this question: “What can be done to remove a president unfit for office?” He then gave the following four options.

25^th Amendment

Using the 25^th Amendment to remove the president from office has been the option most discussed following the release of the special prosecutor’s documents….

The states ratified [the 25^th Amendment] in 1967 following the assassination of President John F. Kennedy after questions were raised about what to do in instances where a president is incapacitated.

In an age in which communication is instant and a president is expected to be able to make large, potentially world-changing decisions on a moment’s notice, it seemed like there needed to be some kind of mechanism to ensure that the country always had a chief executive….

Here is the critical Section 4:

Whenever the vice president and a majority of either the principal officers of the executive department or of such other body as Congress may by law provide, transmit to the President pro tempore of the Senate and the Speaker of the House of Representatives their written declaration that the President is unable to discharge the powers and duties of his office, the Vice President shall immediately assume the powers and duties of the office as acting president.

Putting this into effect requires a two-thirds vote by both houses of Congress if the president disputes the opinion of the Cabinet members.

The 25^th Amendment has been used on a few occasions. Presidents Ronald Reagan and George W. Bush used it when they had medical operations that would leave them incapacitated for several hours….

 

Impeachment

Another solution to presidential unfitness for office that’s been floated is impeachment. In a certain sense, there is a lower threshold to impeach a president than to remove him through the 25^th Amendment. It requires a two-thirds vote in the Senate to convict the president but only a majority vote in the House to impeach him and send it to the Senate for trial.

The hurdle in this case comes down to the necessary requisite of the president committing “high crimes and misdemeanors.” Declining mental acuity doesn’t seem to fit this standard. That, of course, doesn’t mean that Biden couldn’t be otherwise impeached. The question of his handling of classified documents remains highly problematic….

So, impeaching Biden would come down to the House investigations into potential illegal activity and the political will to vote the president out.

Mental Fitness Test

This is a more novel – and I’d argue toothless – suggestion to deal with Biden’s infirmities….

Election

The last solution for removing a failing president from office is perhaps the most mundane one: an election.

While Biden has clearly avoided cameras and public appearances more than other recent presidents, he’s also demonstrated clear signs of severe decline beyond his long history of verbal gaffes.

That’s something Americans will have to consider in the November election.

Biden could resign tomorrow. His staff could conclude he’s incapable of going on. Congress could go along with his cabinet’s suggestion or separately impeach him.

If the president is unable to handle his duties, then for the sake of the country, he should leave office.

Unfortunately, our elected officials often don’t do what’s in the best interest of their country. So, it’s ultimately up to the American people to decide whether they think the president is fit or unfit.

While Biden is clearly unfit to hold the office of President of the United States, Americans may be in deeper troubles if Vice President Kamala Harris were to become POTUS. Who can say whether she would be controlled by the same handlers making decisions for Biden?

When Should Impeachment Take Place?

The word impeachment was seldom heard historically, but it is heard more often these days. The House of Representatives has impeached only three Presidents of the United States, but none of them were convicted by the Senate. Andrew Johnson was impeached in 1866, and Bill Clinton was impeached in 1998. Donald Trump was impeached in 2019 and again in 2021, the only POTUS to be impeached twice. Richard Nixon resigned before he could be impeached in 1974.

Trump’s first impeachment came from a telephone conversation with Ukraine President Zelenskyy about rumored corruption by Joe Biden. Now, House Speaker Kevin McCarthy signaled that he is open to a possible impeachment inquiry against President Joe Biden over corruption in Ukraine. Was Trump wrongly impeached?

McCarthy indicated in an interview with Fox News that questions about the Biden corruption are “rising to the level of impeachment inquiry.” In an article in the Deseret News, D. Hunter Schwarz wrote the following: 

McCarthy said the Bidens were allegedly paid bribes by foreign businesses and referenced IRS whistleblowers who accused the Justice Department of interfering in an investigation into Hunter Biden, who said he would plead guilty to two misdemeanor tax charges last month.

“We only followed where the information has taken us, but this is rising to the level of impeachment inquiry, which provides Congress the strongest power to get the rest of the knowledge and information needed,” McCarthy said….

An impeachment inquiry is a first step to potentially remove a U.S. president from office. When launched by a House Speaker, an inquiry allows a committee to investigate alleged wrongdoing. If the committee votes for articles of impeachment, the House can vote whether or not to impeach and the Senate can then vote whether or not to convict and remove from office.

McCarthy accused Biden of weaponizing government to “benefit his family and deny Congress the ability to have the oversight,” which he called “something that we have not seen since Richard Nixon.”

McCarthy expressed the obvious: none of the Biden family corruption would be known if Republicans did not have the majority in the House. He also indicated that Republicans only went from the information led them. However, McCarthy is not yet ready to launch an impeachment inquiry because he does not want to use impeachment for “political purposes.”

Republicans have bank records collaborating Biden money laundering, and they have heard testimony from whistle blowers testifying of other evidence of corruption. Evidence continues to mount against the Biden crime family, so I would not be surprised to hear of the start to impeachment hearings.

I am totally against impeachment being used for political purposes. However, the Constitution lays out the conditions when impeachment should be used. Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

If the whistleblowers told the truth in their testimonies before Congress and if the bank records prove money from Russia, China, Ukraine, Romania, and other nations was being laundered by the Biden family, it is possible that Joe Biden is guilty of bribery and deserves to be impeached. I support Republicans taking plenty of time to gather all the evidence before impeaching Biden.

Is Joe Biden Guilty of Bribery?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns impeachment and removal from office for the President of the United States. Article II, Section 4 states: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

The Legal Information Institute at Cornell Law School published the following about impeachment and removal from office. 

The Constitution gives Congress the authority to impeach and remove the President, Vice President, and all federal “civil officers” for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. This tool was inherited from English practice, in which Parliament impeached and convicted ministers and favorites of the Crown in a struggle for to rein in the Crown’s power. Congress’s power of impeachment is an important check on the executive and judicial branches, recognized by the Framers as a crucial tool for holding government officers accountable for violations of the law and abuses of power. Congress has most notably employed the impeachment tool against the President and federal judges, but all federal civil officers are subject to removal by impeachment. The practice of impeachment makes clear, however, that Members of Congress are not civil officers subject to impeachment and removal.

While judicial precedents inform the effective substantive meaning of various provisions of the Constitution, impeachment is at bottom a unique political process largely unchecked by the judiciary. While the meaning of treason and bribery is relatively clear, the scope of high crimes and misdemeanors lacks a formal definition and has been fleshed out over time, in a manner perhaps analogous to the common law, through the practice of impeachments in the United States Congress. The type of behavior that qualifies as impeachable conduct, and the circumstances in which impeachment is an appropriate remedy for such actions, are thus determined by, among other things, competing political interests, changing institutional relationships among the three branches of government, and legislators’ interaction with and accountability to the public. The weight of historical practice, rather than judicial precedent, is thus central to understanding the nature of impeachment in the United States.

Most Americans know that former President Donald Trump was impeached twice by the Nancy Pelosi-led House of Representatives but not convicted by the Senate. Now cries of impeachment are being heard again, this time for President Joe Biden.

Last week there was a stand off between FBI director Christopher Wray and James Comer, Chairman of the Oversight and Accountability Committee. Comer subpoenaed a FD-1023 form from the FBI, and Wray refused to give it to him. Wray showed the document to Comer and ranking member Jamie Raskin (D-Maryland), but Comer insisted that the entire committee, both Republicans and Democrats must see the document. Wray continued his refusal to give the document to Comer, but a compromise was reached where he showed the document to the entire committee in a safe place.

The FD-1023 form confirms that a “confidential human source” alleged in a June 2020 interview with the FBI that then-Vice President Joe Biden took a $5 million bribe from an executive of Burisma Holdings, a Ukrainian natural gas firm that put Hunter Biden on its board. According to Jarrett Stepman in an article at The Daily Signal, “the document alleges that then- Vice President Joe Biden was paid by Burisma in a criminal bribery scheme to influence U.S. foreign policy in 2015 and 2016. Stepman continued with his explanation. 

The FBI source described how a Burisma executive bribed the Bidens to get access to U.S. oil while Ukrainian prosecutor Viktor Shokin was investigating the company. The executive, according to the FBI source, wanted to pay Biden and his son $5 million each. “$5 million for one Biden, $5 million for the other Biden,” the executive said, according to the FBI source. The source believed these payments to both Bidens eventually occurred “through so many different bank accounts.”

Biden called the accusation a “bunch of malarky” when he was questioned by reporters, and other Democrats have cast doubt on the investigation. However, Republicans say that the contents of the FBI document are “credible.”

The disclosure deserves to be investigated. If the alleged information proves to be accurate and truthful, President Joe Biden should be impeached for bribery – one of the conditions outlined in the Constitution deserving of impeachment and removal from office. If the information is not accurate or truthful, Biden deserves to be exonerated.

Will Joe Biden Be Impeached for Bribery?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday concerns possible impeachment proceedings against President Joe Biden. Article II, Section 4: “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”

According to an article by Fred Lucas at The Daily Signal, a government whistleblower “made a legally protected disclosure to the office of Sen. Charles Grassley, R-Iowa, ranking member of the Senate Budget Committee.” The whistleblower alleges an FBI document – a FD-1023 form – “was created or modified in June 2020, about five months before Biden was elected president.” 

After the disclosure, Representative James Comer (R-KY), chairman of the House Oversight and Accountability Committee, issued a subpoena to the FBI to produce the document. The FBI has until Wednesday to produce the document. 

The suggestion was made that the whistleblower went to Grassley because he “has a long history of working with government whistleblowers.” Since Grassley does not have the power to subpoena, he went to Comer who does have the power. The committee members have confidence in the whistleblower, but they will wait until they see the document to see what it contains.

The whistleblower alleges that there was a “scheme involving then-Vice President Biden and a foreign national related to an ‘exchange of money for policy decisions.’”  Biden may be vindicated, but Americans “will not know unless the FBI promptly releases the subpoenaed information.”

If the document shows the allegation to be true, Biden is guilty of bribery for influencing policy decisions. Sitting Presidents cannot be charged with crimes, so the only recourse left for Congress is to impeach Biden. Bribery is listed in the Constitution as an impeachable offense.  

Should Biden and Cabinet Secretaries Be Impeached?

The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is the main reason for the United States Constitution – to control the government and to protect the citizens from the government. The government continues to grow more corrupt as time passes, and Representative Dan Bishop (R-N.C.) is calling out the present administration during an interview with Samantha Aschieris from The Daily Signal at the Conservative Political Action Conference (CPAC) on Saturday. 

Bishop first mentioned Homeland Security Secretary Alejandro Mayorkas: “The thing about Secretary Mayorkas, first, is that he’s just utterly flouted American immigration law.” He continued:

There’s a laundry list of statutes that he has explicitly disobeyed. That is high crimes and misdemeanors. You got to build consensus within a Republican conference. Some want to use a light touch on these things all the time. A lot of people say, “Well, if we can’t, we’re not assured that the Senate will convict, and it’s in Democrat hands, why would we do any of it?”

There are reasons to do it, but we’ve got a process to go through, marshal the evidence, conduct the hearings in public and, if it leads in the direction and all the evidence adds up when you’ve done it in a real rigorous way like that, do you move forward with impeachment? I think so.

Mayorkas is not the only member of the administration on Bishop’s list. He suggested that President Joe Biden and other members of the cabinet should also be impeached. Bishop explained his thinking:

It’s a matter of degree and political judgment when you exercise the remedy of impeachment. But it goes right to President Biden. I mean, and I’m not, I think none of us are unaware of that. There are those who would question whether or not it is a good expenditure of political capital to, for example, pursue an impeachment inquiry against President Biden.

I can name a long list of things that he’s done that are fundamentally unconstitutional: the vaccine mandate … the rent subsidies and the moratorium on landlords back in the pandemic that he extended. [Another matter for Bishop is the potential treaty between the U.S. and the World Health Organization, and its impact on national and state sovereignty.]

There are things that Biden has flouted law also over and over, and you can take any number of his cabinet secretaries and say the same thing applies.

I think the important thing about Mayorkas one is it’s one of the clearest, most obvious, most recalcitrant, most brazen examples of defiance of law in a role where he’s required to execute law with the results that are most dramatic, compelling and destructive to the American people, the very fabric of our society. He’s a good place to start. Where it goes? I don’t really say there’s a limit to that.

Other Republican lawmakers are calling for impeachment of Mayorkas, with Representative Andy Biggs (R-Arizona) having already introduced articles of impeachment against him. Congress is holding hearings on the border crisis.

I think that impeachment of any member of the current administration is a waste of time and money because the Senate will never vote to remove them from office. I think that the only way to get rid of them is to vote Democrats out of office.

How Should Biden Be Removed from Office?

            The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is President Joe Biden and his performance of President of the Unite States. He has obviously made a mess of the United States by opening the southern border and by destroying the economy. He has also made a mess in the world by his disastrous retreat from Afghanistan and by his refusal to stop Russia before its attack on Ukraine. However, are these bad decisions a result of incompetence or deliberate acts to destroy America?

            In September 2021, a group of Republicans in the U.S. House of Representatives filed articles of impeachment against President Biden. The two reasons given for impeachment is Biden’s “handling of the immigration crisis at the southern border and his chaotic withdrawal from Afghanistan.” We all know that such an act will never see the light of day in a House controlled by Nancy Pelosi. However, it is likely that she will lose her leadership position in the next election. 

            A recent poll shows that 68 percent of Republicans and Trump voters and 66 percent of conservatives want the House of Representatives to impeach President Biden if Republicans take over the House in the 2022 midterms. Democrats set the precedent of impeaching a President for made up claims. Is revenge a good reason for Republicans to impeach Biden? I think not. The Constitution calls for impeachment for treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. Has Biden committed treason, bribery, or other reasons for impeachment?

Victor Davis Hanson is wondering if Biden is “malicious, incompetent, or a wannabe left-wing ideologue.” He asked an interesting question: “If an administration deliberately wished to cause havoc on the border, to ensure fuel was nearly unaffordable, to create a crime wave, to spark 1970s hyperinflation, and to rekindle racial tensions, what would it have done differently than what President Joe Biden has done?” 

Hanson pointed out that Biden puts the blame on other people or gets angry when asked about the terrible things happening in the United States. Putin is responsible for inflation – even though inflation was going up before Putin invaded Ukraine. If it is not Putin’s fault, then it must be Trump’s fault. However, the Biden administration does not seem to realize that dreadful things are happening. They think that they are running a successful administration. Hanson wants to know if Biden really thinks that the current mess in the United States is a success. If so, could Biden and his associates be making the mess on purpose? One thing is sure, the Biden administration “never pivot(s) or compromise(s).”

Why? Apparently, what most in the country see as disasters, Biden envisions as success.

Take the border – or rather its disappearance.

Never in U.S. history has an administration simply canceled immigration laws, opened the border, and welcomed in millions of illegal aliens. All arrive illegally, and without audit, or vaccinations and tests in times of a pandemic.

Cartels now import lethal drugs at will into the United States. We have no idea how many terrorists walk across the border each day.

Almost all the entering millions who break the law are poor, without high school diplomas or English skills, and in dire need of massive federal and state housing, food, education, legal, and health subsidies.

Do the leftists in Washington believe that millions of dependent new residents will look to the left for decades of support and soon find ways to reciprocate with fealty at the polls? Is that why Democrats brag in unapologetic tribalist fashion about changing the demography of the electorate?

            Hanson’s article continued with a discussion of how Biden’s policies have made the current energy crisis worse. He cancelled the Keystone XL pipeline and new federal oil and gas leases. He later cancelled permits for Cook Inlet in Alaska even though gas prices are approaching $7.00 a gallon in California.

            Hanson discussed inflation next. Biden printed “trillions of dollars at the moment supplies were short and demand was spiking,” so what did he expect would happen? Is Biden using inflation as a fair way to spread the wealth or to attack corporate greed?

            With violent crime climbing quickly to the 1970s levels and movements to defund the police, “radical city and county prosecutors” refuse to “charge or lock up criminals” and then they empty jails and prisons. Is it any wonder that their actions “have ignited a national crime wave”?

Americans are tired of the new woke tribalism. Judging individuals on the basis of their race, gender, or superficial appearance is amoral, and contrary to the entire civil rights movement, and the U.S. Constitution.

It destroys any idea of meritocracy and divides the country artificially into supposed victims and victimizers.

But do the Biden people see it that way?

Or do they promote racial tensions and tribalism, as welcome revolutionary fervor?

In that regard, the Bidenites promote identity politics as a good way to stir up the pot, to demonize supposed oppressors and deify the oppressed – all as a way of retaining political power. For the left, living in a socialist nation controlled by an elite is far preferable to living in a free and prosperous one answerable only to the people.

The public believes the Biden administration has failed America, with disastrous results due either to its incompetence, belligerence, or left-wing zealotry.

But Biden and his delusional team seem delighted with what they have wrought.

In sum, what Americans see as an abject catastrophe, they cheer on as a stunning and planned success.

            So, the question remains: Is the Biden administration deliberately acting to destroy the American government, or are they just a bunch of incompetents who have not gotten anything right? If the destruction is deliberate, it is treasonous behavior, and Biden should be impeached. If it is incompetence, Biden should be removed from office using Amendment 25. Either way, America will be in trouble because his replacement would be Kamala Harris!

Does Donald Trump Deserve to Be Impeached Again?

             The topic of discussion for this Constitution Monday is impeachment of the President of the United States. Article II, Section 4 states: The President … shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

            After more than two years of the Russian Collusion delusion and no recommendation for impeachment in the Mueller Report, the U.S. House of Representatives led by Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi impeached Donald Trump for a telephone call to Ukraine. The House impeached him for “abuse of power and obstruction of Congress on December 18, 2019,” and the vote fell along party lines. With this vote, Trump joined Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton as the only presidents ever impeached. None of the three left office because the Senate did not convict any of them.

            A little more than a year has passed, and Democrats are calling for another impeachment of Donald Trump. The given reason for the calls for impeachment is that Trump called for an attack on the U.S. Capitol when he invited his followers to Washington, D.C. on January 6, 2021. Trump spoke to the crowd of hundreds of thousands to two million people, and a “mob” of so-called Trump supporters attacked the Capitol about the same time. Trump is being blamed for the violence at the Capitol, but Allan J. Favish, a Los Angeles attorney, stated that the timing is wrong to blame Trump. Here is his reasoning.

Trump's speech can be seen here courtesy of NTD.  The speech lasted about 1 hour and 12 minutes.  At 18:10 into the video, Trump says, "I know that everyone here will soon be marching over to the Capitol Building to peacefully and patriotically make your voices heard."  The Hill omitted that quote from its article, which is consistent with the rest of the mainstream media's coverage of the speech.  In this article by ABC News, a full transcript of the speech is provided.  However, in the first part of the article, in which the speech is described, this quote is omitted, and other quotes from the speech are given that lead the reader to conclude that Trump was inciting the crowd to violence.  The best video of the entire event before the lawbreaking began is from Right Side Broadcasting Network, which shows the crowd and the stage and loudspeaker system. 

To the best of my knowledge, neither the Democrats calling for Trump's impeachment nor the mainstream media have specifically told us who was incited to break into the Capitol by Trump's speech.  The speech began at noon Eastern time on January 6, 2021, as seen from the time stamp on this video broadcast of the speech on C-SPAN2.  Given the speech's length of about 1 hour and 12 minutes, it ended at about 1:12 P.M. Eastern Standard Time (EST).

As noted in the ABC News article, Trump's speech was delivered from the Ellipse across the street from the south lawn of the White House.  From the location of the speech to the Capitol is a little more than a mile and a half. 

According to tweets by Washington Post reporters, barricades were first breached at the Capitol at about 1:00 P.M. EST.  Post reporter Rebecca Tan tweeted this video at 1:00 P.M.  The tweet was retweeted by Post reporter Mike DeBonis at 1:06 P.M.  Note that the time stamp on tweets is based on the location of the person viewing the tweet, as explained in this article in Adweek.

 

Based on this information, it appears that the breakdown of the barricades began at least 12 minutes before Trump's speech ended, by people who were over a mile and a half away from Trump.  Although the loudspeaker system was massive, it is doubtful that the people bringing down the barricades could hear Trump from the loudspeaker system.  Extremely vivid videos of the prelude to and a breach of barricades and entry into the Capitol Building are here and here on a YouTube channel that identifies "independent photojournalist Jon Farina" as the videographer.  It does not appear that people in the crowd was listening to Trump's speech over their phones.  The phones are mostly seen when being used to take pictures and videos.  The videos show plenty of faces of people who should be arrested for defying the law.  But where is the evidence that they were incited to do it by Trump's speech? (Emphasis added.)

            IF the times and distance given by Favish are correct, there is no way that people listening to the speech could have been the same people who broke into the Capitol. Favish wrote that the barricades were breached twelve minutes before Trump’s speech ended, and I do not believe that his supporters would have left the Ellipse until he finished speaking.        

After the speech ended, they still had the mile-and-a-half walk to the Capitol that would take some time – at least 20-30 minutes – in a crowd of people. This means that Trump could not have incited his followers to attack the Capitol. If they were close enough to hear his words, they were too far from the Capitol Building to attack at given the times and distance.

            We can all see that people dressed in MAGA hats and patriotic colors attacked the Capitol. They may have traveled to Washington, D.C., because of Trump’s invitation to his supporters. However, none of this means that they are Trump’s supporters. It seems to be more correlation than causation. The simple fact is that they had to hear the speech before it could incite them to riot. Plus, Trump spoke of them “peacefully and patriotically” making their voices heard, not attacking the Capitol, causing damage, and assaulting members of Congress.

Obama or Biden

                I knew at least five years ago that impeachment of Mr. Obama was probably off the table no matter what he did.  Why?  I took one good look at our Vice President!  No one in their right mind would want Joe Biden as the President of the United States.  If impeachment of Mr. Obama takes place, impeachment for Mr. Biden would have to also take place.  The first should be impeached for incompetence, and the latter for plain stupidity.

                Anyway, other people have come to the same realization.  Stan McHugh at Canada Free Press explained,  “… When Joe Biden was selected as Mr. Obama’s running mate in 2008, that selection without a doubt, cost the ticket votes all across the country.  With the possible exception of the people of Delaware, most American voters, even Democrats, knew well what a complete buffoon Mr. Biden was and had always been.  No one with any sense of concern for this country would ever want to see him as president.  Why, then, was he selected to be Mr. Obama’s vice presidential running mate?

                “It is certainly not known by the American public who, exactly, was making decisions for the Obama campaign back in 2008, but it should be very obvious that someone knew exactly what was planned for an Obama presidency should he be elected.  It should also be obvious that the same decision maker(s) knew at the time that the majority of American people were going to oppose virtually all of what was planned. Therefore he (or they) planned ahead by purchasing `Anti-Impeachment Insurance’ for Mr. Obama in the person of Joe Biden as his running mate.  As anyone can see, their plan has worked!”

                Representative Trey Gowdy (R-S.C.) said that he does not support the idea of impeaching Mr. Obama because the result would be elevating Mr. Biden to the Oval Office.  “Have you met Joe Biden?”  Mr. Gowdy obviously does not want Mr. Biden in the White House!

                Almost no one wants Mr. Biden in the office of President of the United States.  Still the question remains, “What can we do to rein in Mr. Obama who has a history of unconstitutional actions and has promised to do more?”  Somebody better make a decision and soon!

Incompetent President

                It appears that more and more Americans are seeing through the smoke and mirrors surrounding Barack Obama and realizing that his “hope” and “change” has been translated into incompetence and lies.  President George W. Bush is looking better all the time and not nearly as stupid as liberals made him seem.

                Mr. Obama is not as smart and competent as his supporters painted him to be, and this is looking problematic to Democrats who are running for office this year.  The latest problem for Mr. Obama is the fact that he traded five of the worst terrorists for one American who might actually be a traitor to his country.  Mr. Obama tried to present it as bringing one of our military heroes home, but Americans are not accepting the sugar-coated words.

                The Obama administration has simply brought too many scandals to America.  Before this problem, there was the Veterans Affairs scandal.  Before that problem, there was the rollout of Obamacare that did not go well.  Before that it was the targeting of tea party groups by the IRS.  Then there was Benghazi, Fast and Furious, and on and on and on.  Although Mr. Obama has not yet been tied to any of the scandals, he is the man in charge; the buck is supposed to stop with him.  He is supposed to know what is going on – before he reads about it in the media.  He is failing to provide competent leadership.  He should be impeached for incompetence if nothing else!

                Republican media consultant Mark McKinnon, stated:  “I think there is an increasing appetite and desire for just fundamental competence and accountability.  A steady hand on the wheel.  Or even a shaky hand on the wheel.  Just find the wheel.”

                Columnist Thomas Lifson put it this way, “It’s finally happening!  Libs are starting to realize that the manufactured image of Barack Obama as a brilliant, capable executive is hooey, and that they have bought into an incompetent who threatens to sink them.”

                Jonathan Capehart of the Washington Post wrote an interesting article about the very real possibility of Barack Obama being impeached.  Various sources are reporting the probability of the U.S. House of Representatives having enough votes to impeach Mr. Obama but will not vote on impeachment while the U.S. Senate remains under Democrat control.  Remember:  The House votes for impeachment and the Senate votes for conviction.  If Republicans take control of the Senate, there is a greater possibility of impeachment and conviction taking place.

                I hope enough misguided and blindsided liberals and independents have seen the error in their vote for Obama.  I pray enough Americans get their eyes open fast enough to keep the U.S. House in Republican hands and to put the U.S. Senate under Republican leadership.  I hope and pray we have enough Republicans to bring our nation back from the path of destruction we are currently traveling.  We have rogue Republicans also, but our first task is to stop Barack Obama and take away his power to destroy the United States of America.

Impeachment?

                Should the U.S. House of Representatives bring articles of impeachment against Barack Obama?  Do you believe Mr. Obama is guilty of impeachable offenses?  Whether or not you believe he should be formally questioned about the scandals of his administration and his executive orders, more and more people in our nation are coming to that conclusion.

                Actor Steven Seagal told attendees at the Western Conservative Conference in Phoenix, Arizona, on February 22, 2014:  “If the truth came out, Obama would be impeached.”

                What are articles of impeachment?  “The articles of impeachment  are the set of charges drafted against a public official to initiate the impeachment process.  The articles of impeachment do not result in the removal of the official, but instead require the enacting body to take further action, such as bringing the articles to a vote before the full body.

                “In the United States, the articles of impeachment are drafted by the House of Representatives for cases involving federal officials.  Once drafted, a supermajority of the United States Senate is required to convict based on the articles.”

                This statement simply means that impeachment of federal officials starts in the U.S. House of Representatives, but the U.S. Senate has to vote for conviction.  Two U.S. Presidents – Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton – have been impeached by the House, but neither President left office because the U.S. Senate failed to convict them.  Richard Nixon resigned from the office of President before he could be – and probably would have been – impeached.

                Let’s take a look at the articles of impeachment brought against these former Presidents.  First, we will look at Richard Nixon’s articles of impeachment for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”  Article 1 states that Nixon had “prevented, obstructed, and impeded the administration of justice” into the “unlawful entry of the headquarters of the Democratic National Committee.”  “Subsequent thereto, Richard M. Nixon, using the powers of his high office, engaged personally and through his close subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or plan designed to delay, impede, and obstruct the investigation of such illegal entry; to cover up, conceal and protect those responsible; and to conceal the existence and scope of other unlawful covert activities….”

                Article 2 states that Nixon used “the powers of the office of President of the United States … [to] repeatedly engage in conduct violating the constitutional rights of citizens, impairing the due and proper administration of justice and the conduct of lawful inquiries, or contravening the laws governing agencies of the executive branch and the purpose of these agencies….”

                Article 3 states that Nixon “has failed without lawful cause or excuse to produce papers and things as directed by duly authorized subpoenas issued by the Committee on the Judiciary of the House of Representatives … and willfully disobeyed such subpoenas.”  Nixon substituted “his judgment as to what materials were necessary for the inquiry, interposed the powers of the Presidency against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives, thereby assuming to himself functions and judgments necessary to the exercise of the sole power of impeachment vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.”  Nixon “acted in a manner contrary to his trust as president and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the cause of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the people of the United States….”

                Now let’s take a look at Bill Clinton’s articles of impeachment. Article 1 states that Clinton “willfully corrupted and manipulated the judicial process of the United States for his personal gain and exoneration, impeding the administration of justice.”  “Clinton swore to tell the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth before a Federal grand jury of the United States.  Contrary to that oath, William Jefferson Clinton willfully provided perjurious, false and misleading testimony to the grand jury… [regarding the Paula Jones case and his relationship with Monica Lewinsky].

                Article 2 did not pass the House.  Article 3 states that Clinton “prevented, obstructed and impeded the administration of justice, and has to that end engaged personally, and through his subordinates and agents, in a course of conduct or scheme designed to delay, impede, cover up and conceal the existence of evidence and testimony related to a Federal civil rights action brought against him in a duly instituted judicial proceeding….”

     

               Constitutional attorney Michael Connelly drafted the following articles of impeachment for Barack Hussein Obama for “high crimes and misdemeanors.”  Article 1 states that Obama “has willfully corrupted and manipulated the executive branch to increase its power and destroy the balance of powers between the three branches of government that is established by the Constitution of the United States.”  The following acts were enumerated:  1) “creating new departments and appointing Czars to oversee these departments;” 2) “these Czars and the Departments have budgets that are not subject to being controlled by Congress;” 3) “made recess appointments when the Senate was not in recess and these appointments were struck down by the Supreme Court;” 4) “refusing to enforce laws against illegal immigration, defend in court the Defense of Marriage Act (DOMA), and refusing to enforce Federal voting laws;” 5) “made or changed laws by either issuing unconstitutional executive orders or instructing governmental departments to take illegal and unconstitutional actions…”

                Article 2 states that “Obama has repeatedly violated his oath of office and the requirements of the Constitution by willfully withholding information on important issues or actively taken part in misleading the Congress and the American people….”  The following acts were enumerated:  1) “using Executive privilege to block Congress from getting documents relating to the DOJ’s Operation Fast and Furious and the death of U.S. Border Patrol Brian Terry;” 2) “had members of his administration provide false information about the act of terrorism committed in Benghazi … and refusing to allow the State Department and other federal agencies to cooperate in the Congressional investigation;” 3) “falsely labeled the mass murder of American soldiers at Ft. Hood, Texas, as `workplace violence’ instead of the act of Islamic terrorism it was;” 4) “falsely labeling the IRS targeting of conservative and Christian groups as a `phony’ scandal and refusing to order an active pursuit of the investigation into who was ultimately responsible;” 5) “refusing to order an independent investigation of the actions of Eric Holder and the DOJ in targeting the phone records of members of the news media;” 6) “telling the American people on a television show that the NSA was not prying into the emails and phone calls of Americans when the facts prove otherwise.”

                The second part of Article 2 states that Obama “repeatedly violated his oath of office by seeking to limit both the individual rights and the rights of the States guaranteed in the first ten amendments to the Constitution.  The following acts were enumerated:  1) ordering (through DHHS) “religious institutions and businesses owned by religious families to provide their employees free contraception…;” 2) “having the military place restrictions on the religious freedom of Chaplains and other members of the military in order to favor gay rights advocates and atheists….” 3) “having the military place restrictions on the freedom of speech of members of the military and the civilian employees of the DOD….” 4) “using Executive orders and government agency actions to limit Second Amendment Rights….” 5) “having the National Security Agency intercept and monitor the private communications of millions of Americans without a court order....” 6) “joining with foreign governments in lawsuits against sovereign U.S. states to prohibit them from enforcing immigration laws….” 7) “filing suits under the Voting Rights Act against sovereign U.S. states to prevent them from enforcing Voter ID laws despite rulings by the Supreme Court upholding these laws.  8) “having the IRS propose new regulations on conservative 501(C) (4) organizations to limit their freedom of speech and political activities during election cycles….” 9) “having the FCC prepare new rules on internet neutrality in violation of the ruling by the U.S. Supreme Court striking down such regulations;” 10) “having the FCC institute a plan to place agents in newsrooms of radio and television stations as well as print media to monitor whether they are providing the `proper’ news content to the public…;” 11) “having the Secretary of State sign the U.N. Small Arms Treaty despite the opposition of a majority of the U.S. Senate and with full awareness that the implementation of the treaty would violate the Second Amendment rights of American citizens.”

                Part 3 under Article 2 states that Obama has failed to use the U.S. military “in a manner that best serves the national security of the United States and protect our soldiers from unnecessary risks and harm.”  These acts were enumerated as follows:  1) using `political correctness’ to impose “unnecessary and dangerous rules of engagement on our troops in combat causing them to lose offensive and defensive capabilities and putting them in danger…;” 2) “releasing the identity of American military personnel and units engaged in dangerous and secret operations such as the killing of Osama bin Laden by Navy Seal team 6;” 3) ordering “the American military into action in Libya” without Congressional approval; 4) “having the Attorney General tell Secretaries of State that they do not have to comply with the Federal law requiring states to timely send absentee ballots to military personnel.”

                I do believe that Barack Obama should be brought before Congress to answer questions about most of the acts enumerated above.  I believe that he has committed the same acts that Nixon resigned for and/or Clinton was impeached for.  I believe that we have an elected President who has gone beyond the boundaries of his office and is now acting more like a dictator.  I believe that he has gotten away with what he has because of the color of his skin.  No one wants to be called racist – so no one stands up to him.  I feel sad that our first African-American president has done such a terrible job because I can name several African Americans who could be very good in the job!  I believe that Congress must bring Obama under control or lose every bit of congressional power.  The Founders established our government with three branches or heads for a reason, and that reason was to maintain order and freedom for all citizens.  We have an out-of-control President who is systematically destroying our government!  He must be stopped before he accomplishes his goals.  Of course, we have to have a Senate that would convict him before it would do any good to impeach him!  Our task should be to elect new Senators and Representatives who will represent the people of their states and not toe the party line.  We must elect more conservative and law-abiding representatives!