I Prayed have prayed
Lord, we ask for wisdom for each member of the House and the Senate who will consider these charges.
Reading Time: 13 minutes

Not that we advocate arguing politics over the Christmas holiday, but you may have some opportunity for some healthy discussions, extra time for deep reading, or want to share some information with friends or family on impeachment–hey, it might happen. This article by Joel Pollack is one of the most complete point-by-point explanations we have seen.Ā  It goes through the official Articles of Impeachment and addresses each charge made by the Democrats with the facts. The article is long but very complete. . .Ā 

 

SHARE A PRAYER GUIDE ABOUT THE IMPEACHMENT!
Click here to download the IFA Special Report, High Crimes and Misdemeanors?

Line by line,Ā here they are:

ARTICLE I: ABUSE OF POWER

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives shall have the sole Power of ImpeachmentĀ and that the President ā€œshall be removed from Office onĀ Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, orĀ other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.ā€ In his conduct ofĀ the office of President of the United States ā€” and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best ofĀ his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the ConstitutionĀ of the United States, and in violation of his constitutionalĀ duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed ā€” Donald J. Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency, in that:

Using the powers of his high office, President TrumpĀ Solicited the interference of a foreign government,Ā Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election.

This is false. Trump never discussed the 2020 election with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, nor did he ask them to interfere in our politics. That is simply Democratsā€™ spin, based on the complaint of the so-called ā€œwhistleblower,ā€ which was disproved by the release of the actualĀ transcriptĀ of Trumpā€™s conversation with Zelensky. Trump asked Ukraine to look into its widely-reported interference in the 2016 election, and to look into the circumstances in which then-Vice President Joe Biden demanded, on pain of losing $1 billion in loan guarantees, that Ukraine fire a prosecutor who had jurisdiction over a dormant investigation of a corrupt Ukrainian company, Burisma, on which Bidenā€™s son, Hunter, served as a well-compensated board member. DemocratsĀ demandedĀ Ukraine cooperate with Special Counsel Robert Muellerā€™s investigation into Trumpā€™s supposed ā€œcollusionā€ with Russia in 2018. By their own new definition, that would qualify as pressuring Ukraine to interfere in U.S. politics.

He did so through a scheme or course of conduct thatĀ included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publiclyĀ announce investigations that would benefit his reelection,Ā harm the election prospects of a political opponent, andĀ influence the 2020 United States Presidential election toĀ his advantage.

Trump asked Zelensky to work with the U.S. Attorney General, which suggests he actually wanted real investigations. Democrats claim Trump only wanted an ā€œannouncementā€ of investigations. Their only evidence is the testimony of Gordon Sondland, whoĀ testifiedĀ that Trump told him that he wanted ā€œnothingā€ from Ukraine, and who admitted that most of what he believed about ā€œinvestigationsā€ was the result of his own personal presumptions.

President Trump also sought to pressureĀ the Government of Ukraine to take these steps

This is false. President Zelensky has saidĀ numerousĀ timesĀ that he felt no ā€œpressureā€ from Trump, and that there wasĀ no ā€œquid pro quo.ā€Ā Numerous witnesses testified that Ukraine did not even know any aid was on hold untilĀ PoliticoĀ reportedĀ it in late August, more than a month after the call. While some witnesses said that some Ukrainian officials at the embassy in Washington may have been aware of a holdup with the aid, none of them could say exactly when.

by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of theĀ investigations.

This, again, is false. Numerous witnesses testified that aid was never conditioned on investigations. The Ukrainian government itself has repeated ā€” evenĀ todayĀ ā€” that it never believed U.S. assistance depended on announcing, or conducting, investigations. The claim was just a presumption by Sondland, who also testified that Trump told him there was ā€œno quid pro quo,ā€ and admitted he had no direct knowledge of any link between aid and investigations.

President Trump engaged in this schemeĀ or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit ofĀ personal political benefit.

The president specifically asked Zelensky to ā€œdoĀ usĀ a favor,ā€ referring to the ā€œcountry.ā€ (Democrat legal ā€œexpertā€ Pamela Karlan tried,Ā absurdly, to argue that Trump meant the ā€œroyal ā€˜Weā€™.ā€) Investigating both foreign election interference and corruption involving American officials is a matter of public interest. NumerousĀ witnessesĀ agreedĀ that the Bidens had a conflict of interest with Burisma ā€” at the very least ā€” and that it was worthy of investigation. Moreover, Democrats spent years arguing that the FBIā€™s investigation of the Trump campaignā€™s alleged ā€œcollusionā€ with Russia was justified because the country had to know if a possible future president was compromised ā€” either by foreign misdeeds or by compromising information in hands of a foreign power. The same applies to Biden.

In so doing, President TrumpĀ used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States

The argument that Trump ā€œcompromisedā€ national security rests on the idea that Ukraine is essential to American national security interests. That may or may not be true, but if so, then President Barack Obama should have been impeached for appeasing Russia and allowing it to invade Ukraine. In truth, questions of national security and foreign policy are largely within the presidentā€™s own constitutional purview; his decisions are not impeachable. Regardless, there was never any interruption in U.S. aid to Ukraine, and the key military aid ā€” the Javelin anti-tank missiles that Trump provided, but Obama had not ā€” was never affected, as numerous witnessesĀ testified. If anything undermined U.S. national security, it was the Democratsā€™ decision to pursue impeachment in a way that exposed the secretive details of internal decision-making and foreign policy to anyone, friend or foe, who wanted to know.

andĀ undermined the integrity of the United States democraticĀ process.

The only violation of the democratic process is Democratsā€™ attempt to overturn the 2016 election. As DemocratsĀ argued vehementlyĀ during the Clinton impeachment in 1998-9, such an effort should not be undertaken lightly. And as Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) argued ā€” before her impeachment effort failed to earn Republican support ā€” impeachment should only be done with bipartisan support lest it be seen as a purely political endeavor.

He thus ignored and injured the interests of theĀ Nation.

On the contrary: protecting our elections, investigating corruption, and preventing foreign aid from being misused by corrupt governments are all theĀ dutiesĀ of the President of the United States, in furtherance of his Oath of Office.

President Trump engaged in this scheme or courseĀ of conduct through the following means:

1) President Trump ā€” acting both directly andĀ through his agents Within and Outside the UnitedĀ States Government

Trump did not have ā€œagents.ā€ He had Senate-confirmed diplomats, as well as informal diplomatic channels. As numerous witnesses testified, there is nothing inherently wrong or unusual in a president using informal diplomacy.

ā€” corruptly solicited

See above.

the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations

See above.

into ā€”Ā 

(A) a political opponent, former Vice President Joseph R. Biden,

It is still unclear that Biden will be Trumpā€™s 2020 opponent. Regardless, Biden is more than a political opponent. He was the former vice president, who was in charge of Ukraine policy for the Obama administration in that capacity. As Trump himself learned, potential presidential candidates enjoy no privilege protecting them from investigation.

and

(B) a discredited theory promoted by Russia alleging that Ukraine ā€” rather than Russia ā€” interfered in the 2016 United States Presidential election.

The theory is not ā€œdiscredited,ā€ but supported by a variety of mainstream media sources, such as an investigative piece inĀ PoliticoĀ in January 2017 titled: ā€œUkrainian efforts to sabotage Trump backfire.ā€ Democrats pretend thatĀ onlyĀ RussiaĀ orĀ Ukraine could have interfered in our election.Ā The two are not mutually exclusive. Russia seems to have interfered more ā€” though the results of that interference were negligible ā€” but Ukrainian officials did, too.

(2) With the same corrupt motives,

The use of the term ā€œmotivesā€ is crucial. In the House Judiciary Committeeā€™sĀ reportĀ on the legal and constitutional foundation for impeachment ā€” written entirely by Democratic staff andĀ ignoring all of the expertsĀ who testified ā€”Ā citedĀ the discredited impeachment of President Andrew Johnson to argue that a president can be impeached for ā€œillegitimate motivesā€ even if he has otherwise acted lawfully. This is, in fact, an illegitimate basis for impeachment.

PresidentĀ Trump ā€” acting both directly and through his agentsĀ Within and outside the United States Government ā€”

See above.

conditioned two official actsĀ on the public announcements

Wrong; see above.

that he had requested ā€”

(A) the release of $391 million of United States taxpayer funds

The figure of $391 million appears to include two separate programs: $250 million administered by the Department of Defense, and $141 administered by the State Department. Much of the testimony revolved around the latter. The president was allowed to hold these funds, temporarily, and such holds, while unusual, were not unprecedented. In fact, State Department official David HaleĀ testifiedĀ that aid to Lebanon was also withheld at the same time; and State Department official Catherine CroftĀ testifiedĀ that aid to Ukraine had been suspended once before in late 2017.

that Congress had appropriated on a bipartisan basis for the purpose of providing vital military and security assistance to Ukraine to oppose Russian aggression and which President Trump had ordered suspended;

Again, the Javelin anti-tank missiles were not affected ā€” and it was Trump, not Congress, that made the policy decision to arm Ukraine with lethal weapons, in contrast to President Obama, who denied Ukraine that assistance.

and (B) a head of state meeting at the White House, which the President of Ukraine sought to demonstrate continued United States support for the Government of Ukraine in the face of Russian aggression.

Trump had alreadyĀ invitedĀ Zelensky to the White House with no preconditions. And Ambassador Kurt Volker, the Special Representative for Ukraine, a highly-regarded career diplomat,Ā testifiedĀ that there was no linkage between a White House meeting and investigations. Sondland said otherwise, but admitted he had no direct knowledge.

(3) Faced with the public revelation of his actions, President Trump ultimately released the military and security assistance to the Government ofĀ Ukraine,

This is pure speculation, contradicted by other evidence. No one testified that Trump released the aid because he was afraid of ā€œpublic revelation of his actions.ā€ In fact, Sen. Ron Johnson (R-WI)Ā wroteĀ to the House Intelligence Committee to describe a conversation with the president in which he said the matter was still under review in late August and early September. That was after theĀ PoliticoĀ article emerged, but it does not follow that the president was trying to minimize culpability. As Byron York of theĀ Washington ExaminerĀ noted, there is an even more banal explanation: Congress was going to appropriate the funds on its own anyway, and so Trump relented by Sep. 11.

but has persisted in openly and corruptlyĀ urging and soliciting Ukraine to undertake investigations

This suggests Trump didĀ notĀ have ā€œcorrupt motivesā€; he still believes the investigations to be in the public interest.

for his personal political benefit.

False. See above.

These actions were consistent with PresidentĀ Trumpā€™s previous invitations of foreign interference inĀ United States elections.

This is an allusion to false claims of Russia collusion ā€” and, specifically, theĀ jokeĀ Trump told in July 2016 in which he said that if the Russians had Hillary Clintonā€™s missing 30,000 emails, they should release them. It was never a serious effort to invite Russia to interfere in the elections, and Special Counsel Robert Mueller found no collusion.

In all ofĀ this, President Trump abused the powersĀ of the Presidency by ignoring and injuring national security and other vital national interests to obtain an improper personal political benefit.

False. See above.

He has also betrayed theĀ Nation by abusing his high office to enlist a foreign powerĀ in corrupting democratic elections.

This is more than a false statement of fact. It is an attempt to insinuate that the president committedĀ treason, without actually charging a separate article of treason. It is a sign that Democrats know how weak this first article really is.

Wherefore President Trump, by such conduct, hasĀ demonstrated that he will remain a threat to national security and the Constitution if allowed to remain in office,

This is an argument for removing Trump not because of what he has done, but because ofĀ what he might do. It is an argument forĀ pre-emptive impeachment, an idea grossly at odds with the Impeachment Clause and basic justice.

and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law.

Arguably, it is the Democratsā€™ fraudulent impeachment that is incompatible with self-governance and the rule of law ā€” especially when undertaken in apparent defense of Joe Biden, whose conflicts of interest remain unexamined.

President Trump thusĀ warrants impeachment and trial, removal from office, andĀ disqualification to hold and enjoy any Office of honor,Ā trust, or profit under the United States.

False. He will be acquitted, and never should have been charged.

ARTICLE II: OBSTRUCTION OF CONGRESS

The Constitution provides that the House of Representatives ā€œshall have the sole Power of Impeachmentā€ and that the President ā€œshall be removed from Office onĀ Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, orother high Crimes and Misdemeanorsā€. In his conduct ofĀ the office of President of the United States ā€” and in violation of his constitutional oath faithfully to execute the office of President of the United States and, to the best ofĀ his ability, preserve, protect, and defend the ConstitutionĀ of the United States, and in violation of his constitutionalĀ duty to take care that the laws be faithfully executed ā€”

Donald J. Trump has directed the unprecedented, categorical, and indiscriminate defiance of subpoenas issued bythe House of Representatives pursuant to its ā€œsole PowerĀ of Impeachmentā€.

This is flagrantly false. Every president hasĀ pushed backĀ against congressional efforts to obtain documents and summon witnesses ā€” and not just presidents like Richard Nixon and Bill Clinton, under investigation for truly impeachable conduct. President Obama himselfĀ resisted congressional subpoenasĀ over Operation Fast and Furious. What is unprecedented Ā ā€” except, perhaps, for the Johnson impeachment ā€” is the partisan nature of the inquiry, and the Democratsā€™ attempt to deny Trump fairness or due process. The House has violated its own precedents in the way it has conducted the investigation, and the White House has resisted cooperation with the House on that basis.

President Trump has abused the powers of the Presidency in a manner offensive to, and subversive of, the Constitution,

On the contrary: President Trump hadĀ no choiceĀ under the Constitution but to protect the powers and rights of the executive branch from what he, and others, believed in good faith was an overreach by the legislative branch. Moreover, he appealed to the judiciary to resolve his disputes with the House. The House decided that it did not want to wait for the courts to weigh in. Hence the rush to impeachment ā€” but that is not the presidentā€™s fault.

in that:

The House of Representatives has engaged in an impeachment inquiry focused on President Trumpā€™s corruptsolicitation of the Government of Ukraine to interfere inĀ the 2020 United States Presidential election.

A false premise; see Article I, above.

As part ofĀ this impeachment inquiry, the Committees undertakingĀ the investigation served subpoenas seeking documents andĀ testimony deemed vital to the inquiry from various Executive Branch agencies and offices, and current and formerĀ officials.

It alsoĀ declinedĀ to issue subpoenas to key witnesses, including former National Security Advisor John Bolton, because Democrats did not want to wait for a court battle. They say they needed to rush to prevent Trump from damaging the 2020 election; more likely, they saw the poll numbers heading south and faced angry presidential candidates from the Senate who would have been forced to skip early primary states to sit through a Senate trial.

In response, without lawful cause or excuse,

Of course the president had ā€œlawful cause or excuse,ā€ which is why he went to court. Democrats may not agree that his ā€œlawful cause or excuseā€ for resisting subpoenas was valid, but the fact is that he argued a case in the courts.

President Trump directed Executive Branch agencies, offices,Ā and officials not to comply with those subpoenas.

Two facts are noteworthy. First, there were several executive branch employees, including White House employees, who testified anyway. Second, the Democrats prevented the witnesses from appearing alongside counsel for the various agencies for which they worked ā€” an unprecedented abuse of power by the legislature against the executive.

President Trump thus interposed the powers of the PresidencyĀ against the lawful subpoenas of the House of Representatives,

It is not clear that all of the subpoenas were lawful. One concerned theĀ phone recordsĀ of House Intelligence Committee Ranking Member Devin Nunes (R-CA), journalist John Solomon, presidential lawyer Rudy Giuliani, and others. It is not clear what authority committee chair Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA) had to issue those subpoenas, to match phone records with specific names, and toĀ publishĀ those names in his committeeā€™s report along with speculation that they had been involved in a conspiracy to further the presidentā€™s allegedly impeachable conduct.

and assumed to himself functions and judgmentsĀ necessary to the exercise of the ā€œsole Power of Impeachmentā€ vested by the Constitution in the House of Representatives.

The Constitution says ā€œsoleā€; it does not say ā€œabsolute.ā€ The president was not assuming the Houseā€™s powers; he was following well-established precedent in asserting the powers of the executive, a co-equal branch of government.

President Trump abused the powers

Interestingly, the phrase ā€œabuse of powerā€ recurs here ā€” echoing the charges of Article I. That is because it is not clear that obstruction of Congress is actually an impeachable offense under the Constitution, even though it formed one of the articles of impeachment against Nixon. (George Washington University Law School professor Jonathan TurleyĀ testifiedĀ that the third Nixon article was mistaken and should not be cited as precedent, because ā€œobstruction of Congressā€ precludes the president from raising legitimate defenses of the executive branch through the courts.

of his high officeĀ through the following means:

(1) Directing the White House to defy a lawfulĀ subpoena

ā€œLawfulā€ is a matter for the courts. See above.

by withholding the production of documents sought therein by the Committees.

Astonishingly, the president produced the most relevant document, and the only real direct evidence: the transcript of his phone call with Zelensky. Democrats were stunned; they had expected the whistleblower complaint to be a road map to other evidence that support their story. Trump called their bluff; what more did they need to see?

(2) Directing other Executive Branch agenciesĀ and offices to defy lawful subpoenas and withholdĀ the production of documents and records from theĀ Committees ā€” in response to which the DepartmentĀ of State, Office of Management and Budget, Department of Energy, and Department of Defense refusedĀ to produce a single document or record.

It is worth noting that witnesses nonetheless testified from the Department of State, the Office of Management of Budget, and the Department of Defense. Their testimony did not point to any documents being particularly relevant.

(3) Directing current and former ExecutiveĀ Branch officials not to cooperate with the Committees, in response to which nine Administration officials defied subpoenas for testimony, namely JohnĀ Michael ā€œMickā€ Mulvaney, Robert B. Blair, John A.Ā Eisenberg, Michael Ellis, Preston Wells Griffith,Ā Russell T. Vought, Michael Duffey, Brian McCormack, and T. Ulrich Brechbuhl.

As noted above, the president had the right to resist the House, which chose not to wait for the courts to decide.

These actions were consistent with PresidentĀ Trumpā€™s previous efforts to undermine United States Goverrnment investigations into foreign interference in UnitedĀ States elections.

This line is important, because it represents Democratsā€™ attempt to allege obstruction of justice against Mueller ā€” a charge they did not have the courage to make in an independent article of impeachment. In hisĀ report, Mueller declined to recommend prosecution for obstruction of justice, and both Attorney General William Barr and then-Deputy Attorney General Rod RosensteinĀ concludedĀ there was insufficient evidence to prosecute Trump.

Through these actions, President Trump sought toĀ arrogate to himself the right to determine the propriety,scope, and nature of an impeachment inquiry into his ownĀ conduct,

Actually, there are amply judicial and historical precedents in which both the courts and the executive have pronounced their opinions as to whether an impeachment process has been properly authorized and conducted.

as well as the unilateral prerogative to deny anyĀ and all information to the House of Representatives in theexercise of its ā€œsole Power of Impeachment.ā€

False. See above.

In the history of the Republic, no President has ever ordered theĀ complete defiance of an impeachment inquiry or soughtĀ to obstruct and impede so comprehensively the ability ofĀ the House of Representatives to investigate ?high CrimesĀ and Misdemeanors.ā€

False. See above.

This abuse of office served to coverĀ up the Presidentā€™s own repeated misconduct

False. There was no misconduct. See above.

and to seizeĀ and control the power of impeachmentand thus to nullify a vital constitutional safeguard vested solely in theĀ House of Representatives.

If anyone is attempting to ā€œseizeā€ power, it is the House of Representatives itself, which seeks to usurp both the executive branch and the courts in arrogating to itself the absolute power to limit presidential privileges.

In all of this, President Trump has acted in a mannerĀ contrary to his trust as President and subversive of constitutional government, to the great prejudice of the causeĀ of law and justice, and to the manifest injury of the peopleĀ of the United States.

False. The president has upheld his Oath of Office, against intense political and media pressure to do otherwise. It is Congress, and specifically the leaders of the House, who are violating their oaths with this spurious impeachment.

Wherefore, President Trump, by such conduct, hasĀ demonstrated that he will remain a threat to the Constitution if allowed to remain in office,

More pre-emptive impeachment. See Article I.

and has acted in a manner grossly incompatible with self-governance and the ruleĀ of law. President Trump thus warrants impeachment andĀ trial, removal from office, and disqualification to hold andĀ enjoy any office of honor, trust, or profit under the UnitedĀ States.

Quite the contrary. On this record, President Trump warrants immediate acquittal ā€” and, arguably, re-election.

(Excerpt from Breitbart News. Article by Joel Pollack, Senior Editor-at-Large at Breitbart News. He earned an A.B. in Social Studies and Environmental Science and Public Policy from Harvard College, and a J.D. from Harvard Law School.)

Comments (2) Print

Comments

Leave A Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Ron Bangert
December 21, 2019

Nice LONG article.
Bullet Points would suffice!

The Rancor from the Dems and Left in thier party are holding the Nation Captive, a Hostage situation, even kidnapping the Constitution, by controlling the Narrative on every topic, making it Poitical with thier Religious Ideologies (AKA Political Correctness). They want to be in control! Eating from “The Tree of the Knowledge of Good and Evil” got us in this mess from the get-go, it’s the original sin of mankind, USA is not exempt.

I am pressing into Jesus, a daily discipleship sort of thing I’ve been doing the past 41+ years. At 68 yrs, I can think of nothing better to do! We must Love in our circle of influence, how else will the world know He is? Jesus is clear on that point. David understood

“O Lord , my heart is not proud, nor my eyes haughty; Nor do I involve myself in great matters, Or in things too difficult for me. Surely I have composed and quieted my soul; Like a weaned child rests against his mother, My soul is like a weaned child within me. O Israel, hope in the Lord From this time forth and forever”. Psalms 131

Hope in the Lord is my salvation, Love is the path.

“Let all bitterness and wrath and anger and clamor and slander be put away from you, along with all malice. Be kind to one another, tender-hearted, forgiving each other, just as God in Christ also has forgiven you.” Ephesians 4:31ā€­-ā€¬32

“This you know, my beloved brethren. But everyone must be quick to hear, slow to speak and slow to anger; for the anger of man does not achieve the righteousness of God. Therefore, putting aside all filthiness and all that remains of wickedness, in humility receive the word implanted, which is able to save your souls. But prove yourselves doers of the word, and not merely hearers who delude themselves.”
James 1:19ā€­-ā€¬22

Let your cup of Love overflow! Give and it will be given to you! Avoid the traps if the enemy!

Jim
December 21, 2019

Here is what you can decree to put a stop to it: TRUMP Impeachment PREDICTION since 2014 Prophet Kim Clement & Steve Cioccolanti
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=5GRakUaRFzo

Partner with Us

Intercessors for America is the trusted resource for millions of people across the United States committed to praying for our nation. If you have benefited from IFA's resources and community, please consider joining us as a monthly support partner. As a 501(c)3 organization, it's through your support that all this possible.

Dave Kubal
IFA President
Become a Monthly Partner

Share

Click below to share this with others

Log in to Join the Conversation

Log in to your IFA account to start a discussion, comment, pray, and interact with our community.