Nancy Pelosi is obstructing justice by refusing to submit the articles of impeachment against President Trump to the Senate. Ironic, given that obstruction of justice is one charge she and her Democrats have leveled against the president. And she wants Americans to believe none of this is political but rather the painful execution of a very solemn constitutional duty.
It is sickening to see her lie so boldly. She takes us for fools. And she, her party, and their Impeachment Show deserve to be held up to ridicule with all who supported this fraud losing their seats — and perhaps their freedom via a vigorous prosecution for their crimes.
Breitbart gives us the details:
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) is refusing to transmit the articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump that the House of Representatives passed on Wednesday evening to the Senate for a trial.
She is, in the words of the articles, guilty of “obstruction of Congress.” And unlike President Trump, Speaker Pelosi has no constitutional basis whatsoever for refusing the request of one of the two houses that make up the legislative branch.
The Democratic leadership has created a mess. And they need to be held accountable for it. Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Nadler and other Democrats have betrayed any sense of fairness or justice as they attempt to pervert the constitutional impeachment process into a fraudulent attempt to repeal the 2016 presidential election.
The whole thing reeks of bitter partisan politics. For example, the matter of “urgency”:
For weeks, Democrats have insisted that the president needed to be impeached and removed from office as soon as possible. Rep. Adam Schiff (D-CA), in his House Intelligence Committee report, declared: “Given the proximate threat of further presidential attempts to solicit foreign interference in our next election, we cannot wait to make a referral until our efforts to obtain additional testimony and documents wind their way through the courts.”
Mr. Nader also sounds the alarm. If you believe him, this an emergency requiring the president be dispatched from off at the earliest possible moment.
House Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler (D-NY) argued at the December 9 hearing on that report: “We agree that when the elections themselves are threatened by enemies foreign or domestic, we cannot wait until the next election to address the threat.” He made the point again during the House debate on impeachment Wednesday: “The threat is urgent. If we do not act — now — what happens next will be our responsibility as well as his.”
And we have Nancy trying to work both sides of the issue.
And Speaker Pelosi herself, opening House debate on the articles of impeachment Wednesday, declared: “If we do not act now, we would be derelict in our duty.”
Yet just hours later, after House Democrats had done her bidding and impeached the president, Pelosi told journalists that she was not yet prepared to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate. She claimed not to have decided yet who the House “managers” of the trial in the Senate would be.
Could she actually try to engineer a situation in which President Trump delivers his State of the Union address before the Senate trial?
Some legal scholars believe that with the House vote, matters are already out of Mrs. Pelosi’s hands. That the delaying tactics she is trying to employ have no foundation in law or constitutional support. In fact, the author of the Breitbart piece we are sourcing has his law degree from Harvard.
So we defer to him on this matter:
It is not clear why the Senate needs to wait: Article I, Section 3 of the Constitution says clearly: “The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments.”
Regardless of the formal transmission of documents, the Constitution allows the Senate to hold a trial as soon as an impeachment takes place in the House.
But Pelosi is claiming otherwise, apparently relying on the advice of left-wing law professors and the support of liberal legal analysts on cable news. She is no longer rushing the process; she is now obstructing it, knowing that there is no two-thirds majority for removal in the Senate, which may even dismiss the charges as unconstitutional.
Unlike Trump, who can cite text and precedent in resisting subpoenas, Pelosi’s delay is unlawful and unprecedented.
Nancy Pelosi is therefore guilty of obstruction of Congress.
Nancy keeps leading the Democrats in digging themselves into a deeper hole. Any misgivings she and Mr. Schumer might originally have had about impeaching the president have now been made real.
It’s a political hoax. And it’s time for Senate leadership to bring this Democrat-authored tragedy to an end, and justice to be delivered in full measure to Mrs. Pelosi, Mr. Schiff, Mr. Nadler, and their gang of supporters.
Source: Breitbart
Overall the writing could be a bit stronger.
“Turns out Mrs. Pelosi is the one who is now obstructing justice. And, wait for it… It’s for political reasons.”
Turns out is not very strong. The woman is committing seriously unconstitutional acts here, we should speak stronger.
“And she, her party, and their Impeachment Show deserve to be held up to ridicule.”
Only ridcule? Our audience wants her head. This communicates in a weak manner. We need to turn up the juice quite a bit!
Okay. Got home and made some changes. I recall this being an issue a few times a couple of years ago. I’ll work on it, but to be honest, I can’t tell much difference between the tone of yesterday’s article and today’s. Both of them should infuriate a liberal and give conservatives plenty to chew on.
It’s much better, stronger language that calls for action. You don’t see much difference? The words themselves, like noose, losing their seats, crimes, etc are stronger and you use them to call for action.
This is closer to the mark of how our readers feel, so it will read better to them.
Okay. Just got home from church. I’m a Saturday evening guy.
I understand.
After writing an article I read it aloud to proof it for errors. I believe I will read it for content, seeing where my “normal” voice and language can be strengthened to make your readers more satisfied.
By the way, I don’t remember what I get paid to do these? That’s a heck of a way for me to take a job — not knowing the rate of pay.
Have a good evening, Craig
This particular crowd is and has always been quite ticked off at the government. So matching their emotional state is important.
$5 an article as always.
I’ll be throwing more comments your way so we get the most readership we can. It all boils down to shares and they will share if we push their buttons while giving good info