Trump Lawyer’s Demand Senate Impeachment Trial Be Dismissed, As Top Democrat Admits It’s Not Crazy To Argue It Is Unconstitutional

On the eve of Donald Trump’s impeachment trial, lawyers for the former President are demanding a dismissal, while a top Democrat admits the process could reasonably be argued as unconstitutional.

A memorandum filed by Trump’s legal team Monday calls for an “immediate dismissal” of what they define as Democrat “political theater.”

“The Article of Impeachment presented by the House is unconstitutional for a variety of reasons, any of which alone would be grounds for immediate dismissal,” they write.

“Taken together, they demonstrate conclusively that indulging House Democrats’ hunger for this political theater is a danger to our Republic[an] democracy and the rights that we hold dear.”

RELATED: CNN’s Jake Tapper Called Out For Claiming Republicans Must Stop ‘Insane Lies’ That Have Led To ‘MAGA Terrorism’

The Impeachment of a Former President IS Unconstitutional

Meanwhile, Senator Chris Murphy (D-CT), during an interview with Fox News anchor Chris Wallace, admitted it is not “ridiculous” for his GOP colleagues to argue the impeachment is unconstitutional.

“I will admit that this is, of course, a matter of first impression. And so I don’t think the case that Senator Paul is making here is a ridiculous one,” Murphy said.

Senator Rand Paul forced a procedure two weeks ago that prompted 45 Republicans to vote that the impeachment trial is unconstitutional.

In an op-ed column, Paul (R-KY) also referred to the impeachment process against the former President as a “farce” and said it should be dismissed.

“The Constitution says two things about impeachment — it is a tool to remove the officeholder, and it must be presided over by the chief justice of the Supreme Court,” he wrote.

Neither of those criteria has been met by the House impeachment effort.

RELATED: Dead On Arrival: 45 Republicans – Including McConnell – Vote That Trump’s Impeachment Trial Is Unconstitutional

Murphy Disagrees

While he does argue that Republicans could make a viable case, Senator Murphy disagrees that the impeachment is unconstitutional.

“I come to a different judgment … I think we have this responsibility,” he countered. “But I – listen, I admit that Senator Paul’s case is, you know, not from outer space.”

Paul, however, claims even Supreme Court Justice John Roberts recognized the impeachment trial as being troublesome.

“Justice Roberts said heck no, I’m not coming across the street because you’re not impeaching the president,” Paul said.

“This was a strong signal to all of us that this was going to be a partisan hearing with a Democrat in the chair, who’s already voted for impeachment.”

Paul went on to echo the sentiments of Trump’s lawyers regarding the impeachment trial, calling it a “partisan farce.”

The post Trump Lawyer’s Demand Senate Impeachment Trial Be Dismissed, As Top Democrat Admits It’s Not Crazy To Argue It Is Unconstitutional appeared first on The Political Insider.

Rand Paul Roasts Hypocrisy Of Impeaching Trump, Doing Nothing About Chuck Schumer, Waters, And Omar

On Sunday, Republican Sen. Rand Paul said that if Democrats insist on claiming that former President Donald Trump’s rally speech incited the January 6th Capitol Hill attack as a basis for impeachment, then Senator Majority Leader Chuck Schumer along with Democratic Congresswomen Maxine Waters and Ilhan Omar should be held accountable for similar language.

Paul made his comments on “Fox News Sunday.”

Watch his entire interview below.

RELATED: Newt Gingrich Predicts Democrats Will Throw Away Congress ‘Once Again’ With ‘Radical’ Budget Agenda

Sen. Paul: Democrats Have Used Violent Language With No Consequences

The GOP senator referenced Schumer’s rhetoric before a protest at the U.S. Supreme Court in early March 2020.

“I opposed the notion of — which I think was a misguided notion, a voting to overturn the election either with Congress or with the vice president,” Paul told Fox News Chris Wallace.

Paul continued, “But I think if we are going to criminalize speech and somehow impeach everybody who says, oh, ‘go fight to hear your voices heard,’ really we ought to impeach Chuck Schumer then.”

“He went to the Supreme Court, stood in front of the Supreme Court, and said specifically, ‘hey Gorsuch, hey Kavanaugh, you’ve unleashed a whirlwind, and you’re going to pay the price,'” Paul reminded viewers.

“You won’t know what hit you if you continue with these awful decisions,” Paul recalled Schumer saying.

Sen. Paul wanted to know why this speech did not qualify for potentially inciting violence.

“This inflammatory wording, this violent rhetoric of Chuck Schumer was so bad that the chief justice, who rarely says anything publicly, immediately said this kind of language is dangerous as a mob tried to invade the Supreme Court,” Paul continued.

Paul added, “So if people want to hold President Trump accountable for language, there has to be a consistent standard, and to my mind, it’s a partisan farce because they’re not doing anything to Chuck Schumer, not doing anything to Representative Omar, not doing anything to Maxine Waters.”

“It’s just not fair,” Paul finished. “It’s just partisan politics under a different name.”

Chief Justice Roberts Chastised Schumer’s Violent Rhetoric

The senator has a point, and Schumer was even accused of trying to incite physical violence at the time he made his controversial remarks.

As the Supreme Court was weighing a case about abortion, Schumer said at a rally in March 2020, “I want to tell you, Gorsuch, I want to tell you, Kavanaugh, you have released the whirlwind and you will pay the price.”

“You won’t know what hit you if you go forward with these awful decisions,” Schumer said.

Chief Justice John Roberts publicly rebuked Schumer, saying: 

“Justices know that criticism comes with the territory, but threatening statements of this sort from the highest levels of government are not only inappropriate, they are dangerous.

All Members of the Court will continue to do their job, without fear or favor, from whatever quarter.”

Some Senate Republicans called on Schumer to apologize or face possible censure.

Senate Republican Conference Chairman John Barrasso said, “To me, this sounds like he is talking about a physical price, violence.’

Waters Encouraged Physical Intimidation Against Trump Administration

Rep. Maxine Waters appeared to encourage physical violence and intimidation against members of the Trump administration at a political rally in June 2018.

“Let’s make sure we show up wherever we have to show up,” Waters told a crowd. “And if you see anybody from that Cabinet in a restaurant, in a department store, at a gasoline station, you get out and you create a crowd.”

“And you push back on them,” Waters added. “And you tell them they’re not welcome anymore, anywhere.”

RELATED: Trump Voices Support For Lou Dobbs After Fox Cancels His Show – ‘Nobody Loves America More’

Omar appeared to endorse further violence when she retweeted Hollywood actor Tom Arnold’s comments about an incident in which Rand Paul’s neighbor severely injured him in an attack in 2017.

Paul told Fox News Sunday that Omar was “wishing and celebrating the violence that happened to me when I had six ribs broken and part of my lung removed.”

Watch Rand Paul’s comments below:

The post Rand Paul Roasts Hypocrisy Of Impeaching Trump, Doing Nothing About Chuck Schumer, Waters, And Omar appeared first on The Political Insider.

Bolton makes his move: Memoir to claim Trump misconduct went beyond Ukraine, slam ‘reelection calculations’

Former National Security Adviser John Bolton’s forthcoming memoir claims President Trump’s "transgressions" went well beyond the Ukraine saga that led to his impeachment and alleges that “reelection calculations” drove the president's major decisions, according to a press release for the book. 

Chief Justice Roberts Visibly Irritated With Warren’s Suggestion His Legitimacy is Tainted Over Impeachment Trial

Chief Justice John Roberts became visibly agitated after having to read a question from Senator Elizabeth Warren which suggested the legitimacy of the Supreme Court, the Constitution, and his own career would be tainted following the impeachment trial.

Roberts had to read the question aloud – as he has throughout the trial with one notable exception – which insinuated an acquittal of President Donald Trump would lead to a loss of faith in major institutions of American government.

“Mr. Chief Justice, I send a question to the desk,” Warren declared from the floor of the Senate.

“At a time when large majorities of Americans have lost faith in government,” Roberts read, “does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court, and the Constitution?”

RELATED: SHOWDOWN: Rand Paul Vows to Fight after Justice John Roberts Blocks Question Naming Whistleblower

Roberts Angered

It’s difficult to say what Warren’s plan was here. Angering Roberts and the rest of the justices on the Supreme Court when you’re running for President seems unwise at best.

Fox News reports that upon finishing the question, Roberts became “visibly irritated” and “pursed his lips and shot a chagrined look.”

If we’re being honest, isn’t that how we all feel when listening to Senator Warren?

Perhaps Warren is paving the way for a proposal getting legs amongst extremist liberals who wish to abolish the Supreme Court in the era of Trump.

“The Court is now a blunt political instrument, used repeatedly to undermine outcomes of democratic governance — often on behalf of corporate interests,” leftist outlet Vox claimed, adding that “the Brett Kavanaugh confirmation has further delegitimized the Court in the public’s mind.”

Warren herself has proposed ‘packing’ the court with many more Justices as a means to lessen the influence of Presidential appointments, a move explicitly aimed at minimizing Trump’s victories after the Kavanaugh debacle.

“It’s not just about expansion, it’s about depoliticizing the Supreme Court,” she claimed.

RELATED: Rush Limbaugh Touts Polls Showing Trump Surging Since Dems Began Impeachment

Even Schiff Wouldn’t Go There

Upon reading the question directed at Democrat impeachment managers, House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff stepped up to the microphone and promptly ran as far away from Warren as he possibly could.

“Senator, I uh, would not say that it contributes to a loss of confidence in the Chief Justice,” Schiff replied. “I think the Chief Justice has presided admirably.”

What he did suggest would be affected adversely, however, is the nation as a whole.

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi has expanded on this notion that a trial without fabricating new witnesses eliminates the legitimacy of the presidency.

“He will not be acquitted,” she said realizing he is on the verge of being acquitted.

“You cannot be acquitted if you don’t have a trial,” Pelosi continued. “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.”

The post Chief Justice Roberts Visibly Irritated With Warren’s Suggestion His Legitimacy is Tainted Over Impeachment Trial appeared first on The Political Insider.

Roberts Not Allowing Rand Paul’s Question About Whistleblower Is Ruffling Feathers

Chief Justice John Roberts isn’t merely a disappointment. He is part of the cabalist infrastructure.

Roberts, who is presiding over President Trump’s Senate impeachment trial, has rejected questions from Sen. Rand Paul on a few occasions and gone to the Democrats and asked theirs. Paul let it be known he wanted to know about the whistleblower and if that individual would ever be called as a witness, but Roberts has decided to shelve that opportunity.

Why do you think Justice Roberts denies the president the opportunity to confront his accuser? Why does he deny the Senator’s right to freedom of speech? There is no legal nor constitutional guarantee or even offer of anonymity for a whistleblower. There is no credible fear of death or physical harm; after all, he did not blow the whistle on a Clinton.

MORE NEWS: Dave Chappelle: “I Don’t Look at Trump Supporters as My Enemy”

Beginning but not ending with his handling of the FISA court and the appointments thereto, the next impeachment should be his. Justice Roberts’ behavior saddens me, but not surprised. He has been suspect since the Obamacare trial.

None of this corruption in Washington would ever have seen the light of day if it were not for Donald Trump. The exposure of the fraud and treasonous behavior within the government itself and the complicit media will make him the single most important person in American history if the country is to go forward as it was founded.

There are some things we need to keep in mind?

MORE NEWS: 2020 Dem Michael Bloomberg Will Run $10 Million Gun Control Ad During Super Bowl

First, Chief Justice Roberts is the reason Obamacare initially survived in the Supreme Court when during the eleventh hour and 59th minute, he switched sides. It was so late in the process that Justice Ginsburg’s concurring opinion ends with the following words: “I respectfully dissent.” The only problem is that when you file a concurring opinion, you are not dissenting. What happened? Justice Ginsburg wrote her opinion when she thought she would be in a 5-4 minority.

Second, in my opinion, there is absolutely no legal basis for Chief Justice Roberts to refuse Paul’s question. The question is far more relevant than other questions that have been posited by the Chief Justice. Also, there was nothing in the question that identified the whistleblower as Eric Ciaramella or any other person.

Third, even if somebody wants to argue that the question “outs” the whistleblower, that is not a basis for Chief Justice Roberts to not read the question. Nowhere in the Intelligence Community Whistleblower Protection Act of 1998, 5 U.S.C. 2302(b)(8)-(9), Pub.L. 101-12 as amended (“ICWPA”), which amended the Central Intelligence Agency Act of 1949 and the Inspector General Act of 1978, is anonymity even mentioned. On October 10, 2012, President Barack Obama issued Presidential Policy Directive 19, which provided specific whistleblower protections. Nothing in this directive provided anonymity for an intelligence community whistleblower; the directive prohibited retaliation against a whistleblower.

MORE NEWS: Fox Refuses To Air Super Bowl Ad About Abortion Survivors – Greenlights Commercial Featuring Drag Queens

The Inspector General Act of 1978 prohibits the inspector general from releasing the name of a complainant, but this applies to no one else. Under the statutory framework, whistleblowers are granted certain rights against retaliation or reprisal in the workplace. In other words, they cannot be demoted, transferred, fired, or otherwise penalized for filing a complaint that meets the statutory whistleblower requirements. However, identity protection is neither provided for nor contemplated, anywhere in the statutory language.

Senator Paul should submit another question about Ciaramella, and when Roberts refuses to read it, object, and demand a count of Senators willing to overrule Roberts. It’s time to find out how many Senators believe that the accused has the right to face his accuser!

Sections 7(B) of the Inspector General Act of 1978 “provides for the identity of an employee making a complaint, such as a whistleblower, to remain undisclosed to the extent practicable: “The Inspector General shall not, after receipt of a complaint or information from an employee, disclose the identity of the employee without the consent of the employee, unless the Inspector General determines such disclosure is unavoidable during the investigation,” according to FactCheck.org.

Since Senator Paul is not the Inspector General (and neither am I), he is not precluded (and neither am I) from releasing the name of Ciaramella as the whistleblower.

More Stories From WayneDupree.com

 

The post Roberts Not Allowing Rand Paul’s Question About Whistleblower Is Ruffling Feathers appeared first on The Political Insider.

SHOWDOWN: Rand Paul Vows to Fight after Justice John Roberts Blocks Question Naming Whistleblower

Tensions were on the rise Wednesday evening as Chief Justice John Roberts blocked a question from Senator Rand Paul that would have identified the alleged whistleblower at the center of the impeachment trial.

Roberts’ actions prompted shouting from the Kentucky Senator as he vowed to “fight for recognition.”

Sean Davis, a co-founder of the Federalist, reported that Roberts, at the behest of Democrats, “previously vowed to ban any questions about the whistleblower whatsoever, named or not.”

“Roberts’ arbitrary and unilateral censorship of senators and Senate business raises serious questions about whether he would similarly ban any and all motions to subpoena by name the whistleblower … to compel his testimony,” Davis said.

GOP senators previously suggested having the whistleblower testify should witnesses be approved for the trial.

After Republicans threatened a vote to rebuke Roberts on the record, the Chief Justice retreated and said the actual name of the whistleblower would be the only thing earning a block.

Even that should be challenged.

 

RELATED: Watch: Rand Paul Obliterates Reporter Who Claims It’s Illegal To Out Whistleblower

Paul Fuming

Roberts move at the encouraging of Democrats, reportedly, left Paul fuming and vowing to engage in a fight to be heard.

“I don’t want to have to stand up to try and fight for recognition,” Paul was heard shouting during a break in the trial. “If I have to fight for recognition, I will.”

Reporter Niels Lesniewski said Paul’s complaint was “audible from the galleries above the chamber.”

Paul, who has been insistent on testimony from the whistleblower for the record, said “tbd [to be decided]” when asked if he would force the issue.

 

RELATED: Photo Emerges of Alleged Whistleblower Shaking Hands With Obama

Outing the Whistleblower

As Senator Paul has explained time and again, whistleblowers are protected by federal law from retaliation in the workplace but are not guaranteed anonymity.

“The whistleblower statute protects the whistleblower from having his name revealed by the inspector general,” Paul previously noted when threatening to out him. “Even The New York Times admits that no one else is under any legal obligation.”

He has noted that the whistleblower is a material witness in the case “because he worked for Joe Biden at the same time Hunter Biden was receiving $50,000 per month.”

The Political Insider has identified the alleged whistleblower as CIA officer Eric Ciaramella, a registered Democrat who worked with former Vice President Joe Biden and former CIA Director John Brennan.

His identity is crucial because House Intelligence Committee Chairman Adam Schiff and his office have allegedly coordinated the effort with him to take down President Trump.

Ciaramella’s work history and coordination with Schiff’s office would indicate a political bias – not a concern over truth and justice – in trying to impeach the President, something that is thoroughly relevant to the trial.

Attorney to the whistleblower, Mark Zaid, was revealed to have discussed a coup and other devious secret plans to oust the President.

“Democrats must be accountable for their hoaxes and their crimes,” Trump said regarding the ‘coup.’

Roberts, by protecting Schiff and the whistleblower, is assuring they will not be held accountable. Paul must continue to fight this and his Republican colleagues must stand with him.

The post SHOWDOWN: Rand Paul Vows to Fight after Justice John Roberts Blocks Question Naming Whistleblower appeared first on The Political Insider.