Sessions on Impeachment: ‘Dramatic Abuse’ by House — Pelosi Refusal to Send to Senate Shows Lack of Confidence
3:53
HUNTSVILLE, Alabama — On Thursday, former U.S. Attorney General Jeff Sessions, a candidate for U.S. Senate in Alabama, was on the campaign trail in his state’s Tennessee Valley, catching up with voters and local officials about the issues of the day.
Of notable importance was the House of Representatives’ passage of two articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump a day earlier.
In comments given to Breitbart News, the former U.S. Senator and Attorney General criticized the House of Representatives’ effort on the grounds of substance and called it a “dramatic abuse” by the body.
“I think it has just been shocking to most Americans to see how little substance this is,” he said. “It’s like, is this all there is? After all these vicious charges against the president, it comes down to these vague charges of abuse and obstruction? What does that mean? I think it’s a dramatic abuse by the House of Representatives of the impeachment clause in the Constitution. And it’s not anything the House says it is. Some have tried to say that. But in truth, the Constitution says treason, bribery, high crimes, and misdemeanors. Those mean something. It means something other than we had a disagreement with you, and now we’re going to impeach you. This was a horrible, improper act, in my opinion.”
The former U.S. Attorney General also weighed in on House Speaker Nancy Pelosi (D-CA) refusal at the moment to transfer the articles of impeachment to the U.S. Senate, where a trial would take place. He said that gesture from Pelosi showed a lack of confidence in the two articles.
“I think there’s no doubt they don’t have confidence in them,” Sessions explained. “They’re not able to defend the charges. You had Professor [Jonathan] Turley, who I have gotten to know, Ken Starr, who is a great lawyer, being a law school dean and was a Clinton special prosecutor, but he says it is nowhere close to impeachable offenses. And Professor Turley does, too. He says it would be the least supported impeachment charge ever in our nation’s history. I’m totally in accord with that. Not sending it over is to me a clear indication that they’re not proud of their work. I said some weeks ago it looked like they were going to force this thing through and slink away, and hope it goes away. They know it doesn’t have legs in the Senate.”
Sessions did not have a recommendation as to whether or not witnesses should be called in the Senate trial. But he added that he did not think witnesses were necessary and pointed out that witnesses were not called in the impeachment trial of Bill Clinton in 1999.
“In my opinion, there’s so little substance in this impeachment charge that calling witnesses is not required to fulfill the responsibility of the Senate,” he said. “But I know Sen. McConnell and the White House are talking about that question. I won’t make a recommendation as to what they should do. I think they should think it through, and I think they probably should reach a good decision. I don’t think it’s required. We didn’t do witnesses on Clinton. With Clinton, there was proof beyond a reasonable doubt — all the elements of three different crimes. There’s no crime really charged here. The charges are vague, and they support impeachment for almost anything Congress wanted to do in the future if this is sustained.”
Sessions is the apparent front-runner in a crowded field for the seat he held for 20 years before accepting President Donald Trump’s appointment to serve as U.S. Attorney General. Sessions faces former Auburn head football coach Tommy Tuberville, U.S. Rep. Bradley Byrne (R-AL), former Alabama Supreme Court Chief Justice Roy Moore and State Rep. Arnold Mooney (R) for the opportunity to run against incumbent Sen. Doug Jones (D-AL) next November.
Follow Jeff Poor on Twitter @jeff_poor
Donald Trump Questions Nancy Pelosi’s Corruption
President
Donald Trump questioned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s dubious participation in
stock market initial public offering shares, enriching her family.
Turns
out Biden's family not the only one to benefit from Ukrainian fossil fuels
More than
7-in-10 households headed by immigrants in the state of California are on
taxpayer-funded welfare, a new study reveals.
Donald Trump Questions Nancy Pelosi’s Corruption
AP
Photo/Manuel Balce Ceneta
President
Donald Trump questioned House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s dubious participation in
stock market initial public offering shares, enriching her family.
The president shared a clip Monday
highlighting a CBS 60
Minutes report featuring author and Breitbart senior
contributor Peter Schweizer’s investigation into Pelosi and
her husband participating in at least eight different stock IPOs while in
Congress.
"The House gone rogue! I want to
remind you a little bit about the ring leader in this whole rogue operation
against the President of the United States..." @MarkLevinShow
60 Minutes reporter Steve Kroft confronted Pelosi on
the topic in 2011, but she
denied any impropriety.
The report noted that Pelosi and her
husband participated in an initial public offering of Visa in 2008, while
credit card regulation was underway in the House of Representatives. The
Pelosis bought 5,000 shares at the initial price of $44 and shares were trading
at $64 just two days later, according to the report.
“Congress has never done more for
consumers nor has the Congress passed more critical reforms of the credit card
industry than under the Speakership of Nancy Pelosi,” Pelosi spokesman, Drew
Hammill, said in
a statement, according to CNN after the 60 Minutes report aired.
The
clip was featured on Mark Levin’s Fox News show Life, Liberty and Levin on
Sunday.
Turns
out Biden's family not the only one to benefit from Ukrainian fossil fuels
On Sept. 24, 2019, Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the official impeachment
inquiry that would be led by the Intelligence Committee and Rep.
Adam Schiff (D-Calif.). At first, this was a curious decision to
objective persons, since the Judiciary Committee has the authority over this
type of procedure. At the time, Pelosi indicated a threat by
President Donald Trump to our national security during the July 25 conversation
between him and President Zelensky of Ukraine. She did this without
the benefit of the transcript, but she doubtless already knew much of the CIA
"whistleblower's" complaint. Further, the Ukrainian president
disputes her version.
But this is not the rationale for her haste to convene the
investigation. It appears that the D.C. swamp benefits another
powerful family. The Biden family has gotten special treatment
from Ukrainian oil interests, and the Pelosi family has a similar
advantage. Paul Pelosi, Jr. was a board member of Viscoil and an
executive at its related company NRGLab, which was involved in energy business
in Ukraine. Perhaps the use of the Intelligence Committee has given
the Democrats the opportunity to limit Republican questioning and maintain
secrecy over the responses from subpoenaed witnesses. This would
prevent any official record implicating Pelosi's son. This also
explains her reluctance to take a vote authorizing the investigation, since the
minority party would gain some rights.
This is interesting also since much of the Democratic Party
rejects carbon-based energy sources. Biden has made this a part of
his campaign. The Green New Deal proposals will eventually end
dependency on oil and gas as an energy source. But this does not
stop these politicos from benefiting financially from this sector of the
economy. This reminds one of the financial benefits that Al Gore's
father had from Occidental Petroleum, which was one of the great polluters
(remember Love Canal?). He chose to make money selling carbon
offsets to atone and make his own name.
The Ukrainian oil company Burisma used
many well connected members of the D.C. establishment connected to the Obama
administration. This interlocking swamp is a threat to the
USA. But the media have managed to convince a vast number of
Americans that Trump is the threat. When Trump railed against Pelosi
in Louisiana on Friday, he was accusing her of not just splitting the nation
politically, but also ignoring the financial benefits to powerful families at
the detriment of our national security. This also helps explain the
constant discussion in public about Biden's son Hunter, in addition to the
political advantage he might gain.
No wonder the establishment (including many Republicans) wants to
impeach Trump. Family security always "trumps" national
security in the D.C. swamp.
NANCY PELOSI GOT RICH OFF ELECTED OFFICE AND SERVICING THE
“CHEAP” LABOR LOBBIES - Jim Gilchrist asked the question about Nancy Pelosi’s
ethics that should be on the minds of every law-abiding American – including
those immigrants who are following the law to become citizens here the proper
way: “Do we really need a House Speaker whose every action is calculated to
enhance her own financial interests, instead of focusing on how porous borders
will affect the security of everyday American citizens?”
SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI HIRES ILLEGALS AT HER NAPA WINERY
CALL LA RAZA NANCY TODAY! PUT THE HEAT ON HER!
EMAIL: NANCY PELOSI
CALL NANCY PELOSI Washington , DC - (202) 225-4965 San Francisco
, CA - (415) 556-4862
EMAIL NANCY PELOSI sf.nancy@mail.house.gov
Gilchrist was reacting to my report several weeks ago in
FrontPage Magazine that Pelosi – who owns non-union vineyards in Napa Valley
where grape-picking depends chiefly on the availability of cheap foreign labor
– is doing everything she can to help open the floodgates to more illegal
immigration. And she wants the American taxpayers to pay their way. As even more
proof of this
than I previously reported, Pelosi
does not want employers like her to be required to pay the cost of illegal
aliens’ hospital care. She voted against a bill that would make
employers liable for the reimbursements if an undocumented employee seeks
medical attention. And she voted in favor of rewarding illegal aliens from
Mexico with Social Security benefits.
Pelosi's Stake in Illegal
Immigration
________________________________________
The Minuteman Project, founded by Jim Gilchrist (who is also the
co-author of the book Minutemen: The Battle to Secure America’s Borders), is
made up of citizen volunteers who watch our border with Mexico and report
illegal entry to the border patrol. For performing that thankless task in full
compliance with the law, Gilchrist and his colleagues have been falsely
maligned as fascists, racists, and even murderers. They have been driven off
the speaker’s platform at Columbia University and vilified by Leftist
politicians and their handmaidens in the liberal press.
So it was no surprise that the mainstream media chose to ignore
a recent press release, issued by his publisher, in which Gilchrist asked the
question about Nancy Pelosi’s ethics that should be on the minds of every
law-abiding American – including those immigrants who are following the law to
become citizens here the proper way: “Do we really need a House Speaker whose
every action is calculated to enhance her own financial interests, instead of
focusing on how porous borders will affect the security of everyday American
citizens?”
Gilchrist did not stop there. He demanded an investigation into
Pelosi’s “economic stake in just the kind of illegal alien exploitation that we
deplore in Minutemen.” But you would never know it from the liberal media, who
- while ignoring this demand - have had no compunctions in calling for Speaker
Hastert’s head in the wake of the Foley page controversy.
Gilchrist was reacting to my report several weeks ago in
FrontPage Magazine that Pelosi – who owns non-union vineyards in Napa Valley
where grape-picking depends chiefly on the availability of cheap foreign labor
– is doing everything she can to help open the floodgates to more illegal
immigration. And she wants the American taxpayers to pay their way. As even
more proof of this than I previously reported, Pelosi does not want employers
like her to be required to pay the cost of illegal aliens’ hospital care. She
voted against a bill that would make employers liable for the reimbursements if
an undocumented employee seeks medical attention. And she voted in favor of
rewarding illegal aliens from Mexico with Social Security benefits.
At the same time, Pelosi has led the Democratic opposition to
any effective border controls or documentation requirements. She opposed the
Secure Fence Act of 2006, signed into law by President Bush, and voted against
final passage of a border security and enforcement bill in 2005 which required
that all businesses must use an electronic system to check if all new hires
have the legal right to work in this country. She voted against a bill to bar
drivers' licenses for illegal aliens in 2005. This year she opposed legislation
requiring presentation of a legitimate government-issued photo ID to prove
eligibility to vote, claiming that “there is little evidence anywhere in the
country of a significant problem with non-citizen voters.” She is dead wrong.
For example, an accused terrorist by the name of Nuradin Abdi was just recently
reported to have illegally registered to vote at the Ohio Bureau of Motor
Vehicles. Nuradin Abdi was indicted earlier this year as part of a conspiracy
to blow up the Columbus Mall.
How many other terrorist suspects may have slipped through the
system because Leftists like Pelosi oppose any meaningful screens? Instead she
continues to advocate our recognition of the flimsy, non-validated ID card that
the Mexican consulates provide to illegal aliens before they cross over our
border, called the “matricula consular”, which gives them phony documentation
to set up bank accounts, apply for jobs, obtain social benefits, board
airplanes, identify themselves to police, enter buildings that require IDs,
obtain drivers’ licenses and then perhaps use those drivers’ licenses to try to
illegally register to vote in our elections.
Pelosi also believes in giving sanctuary to illegal aliens. She
opposed legislation to deny federal homeland security funding to state and
local governments who refuse to share information they learn about an
individual's immigration status with Federal immigration authorities. Pelosi’s
hometown of San Francisco is one of the sanctuary cities she voted to protect
for the benefit of illegal aliens. Pelosi even voted against strengthening our
immigration law with regard to the deportability of alien terrorists.
Jim Gilchrist cut to the chase with this devastating observation
that the mainstream media does not want you to read:
"As we’ve shown again and again in ‘Minutemen,’ the
Democrats aren’t just hypocrites, but are working actively to subvert our
legislative system to their own ends. Their only goal is votes, votes and more
votes, no matter where they come from, no matter if they’re cast legally, no
matter whether the person casting them is dead, alive, a citizen or an illegal
alien."
Pelosi sees Jim Gilchrist’s Minutemen Project as a threat to her
pro-illegal alien agenda. More illegal aliens mean more votes for the Democrats
and more grape-pickers for Napa Valley vineyards like hers. So she even voted
against a measure that would have cut off the use of U.S. taxpayers’ funds to
tip off illegal aliens as to where the Minutemen citizen patrols may be
located! She obviously wants to see the Minutemen put out of business –
permanently. She can count on the liberal press to distort the work of the
Minutemen and to keep out of the public eye Gilchrist’s pointed questions about
her motivations for helping illegal aliens during the run-up to the mid-term
elections that may make her the next Speaker of the House.
Gilchrist, of course, is accustomed to being vilified and
prevented by the Left from getting his message out. In early October, he was
prevented from finishing his speech at the "Minutemen Forum"
sponsored by the Columbia College Republicans. Gilchrist had spoken for just a
few minutes and managed to utter the words “I love the First Amendment” when a
group of radical protestors took the stage and interrupted him, displaying a
big banner saying "There are no illegals." More protestors then
stormed the stage. Chaos erupted and the audience members who had come to hear
Gilchrist speak never got the chance, which was precisely the protestors’
objective. As reported online by the staff of Columbia’s undergraduate
newspaper, “a mosh pit of triumphal students and community members danced and
chanted outside, "Asian, Black, Brown and White, we smashed the Minutemen
tonight!" They also put out a statement declaring:
“The Minutemen are not a legitimate voice in the debate on
immigration. They are a racist, armed militia who have declared open hunting
season on immigrants, causing countless hate crimes and over 3000 deaths on the
border. Why should exploitative corporations have free passes between nations,
but individual people not? No human being is illegal.” (Emphasis added)
We have come to the point in this country where a bunch of
radical protestors get to decide who is and who is not a legitimate voice in
the debate on as critical a public policy issue as immigration. Such Leftists
think that migration in a borderless world is a basic human right. They want no
barriers, no guards, and no proof of lawful residency. They certainly do not
want the Minutemen watching the border and reporting illegal entry to the
authorities.
Leftist slogans like “no human being is illegal” are red
herrings. It is not the human being who is illegal; it is what the human being
does that may be illegal. One’s conduct is the test, not simply who one is.
Immigrants who follow our rules are welcome here. Those who do not abide by our
laws have no right to be here. A person who breaks into your house without your
permission does not deserve room, board and a job as a reward, even if the
intruder may be much poorer than you. He has broken the law and deserves to be
punished for what he has done. Our country’s boundaries and rules for entry and
residency similarly define who is permitted to be here and how we choose to
protect ourselves. We are a land of immigrants, but we are also a land of laws
with certain core values. Those seeking to enter our country and remain here
must learn to accommodate to our laws and values, not the other way around.
That is the way prior generations of immigrants did it, including those who
passed through Ellis Island. Why should the law be thrown aside now?
What we are witnessing is a frontal challenge to our nation’s
sovereignty. Mexico’s Foreign Secretary wants to drag us before the United
Nations for intending to build a fence on our side of the border with our money
to keep out aliens who seek to enter our country illegally. They will probably
get a sympathetic ear as some UN bureaucrats believe there should be no such
thing as “illegal” immigrants in the first place. For the first time in our
history, Americans are being asked to cede the right to decide how we define
ourselves as a nation and protect our own borders to a globalist governance
body. Will Pelosi lead her liberal loyalists as House Speaker to support the UN
against America’s right to control its own borders? Do we really want to risk
finding out?
It is high time, as Jim Gilchrist demanded in the press release
ignored by the mainstream media, that Pelosi come clean under oath as to her
personal stake in the illegal immigration issue before she can do even more
damage as House Speaker.
Pelosi - Illegals - Sunkist - Her investments!
Pelosi's corrupt insider
passing of bills that make her rich.
Check for yourself
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi's home House
District includes San Francisco.
Star-Kist Tuna's headquarters are in San
Francisco, Pelosi's home district.
Star-Kist is owned by Del Monte Foods and is a
major contributor to Pelosi.
Star-Kist is the major employer in American Samoa
employing 75% of the Samoan workforce.
Paul Pelosi, Nancy's husband, owns $17 million
dollars of Star-Kist stock.
In January, 2007 when the minimum wage was
increased from $5.15 to $7.25, Pelosi had American Samoa exempted from the
increase so Del Monte would not have to pay the higher wage. This would make
Del Monte products less expensive than their competition's.
Last week when the huge bailout bill was passed,
Pelosi added an earmark to the final bill adding $33 million dollars for an
"economic development credit in American Samoa".
Pelosi has called the Bush Administration
"corrupt".
Check some more for yourself
Conservative Activist Jumps Pelosi's Fence With
Illegal Aliens to Prove a Vital Point
Conservative activist Laura Loomer, who is known for going undercover
with James O'Keefe, took alleged illegal aliens from Mexico and Guatemala to
Speaker Nancy Pelosi's home in California. There, the group jumped the fence
and Loomer demanded the group be let into the home. The group set up a pop up
tent with the word "morality" on it and hung the pictures of those
who were killed by illegal aliens, The Daily Caller reported.
PELOSI – FEINSTEIN – GAVIN NEWOM’S MEXIFORNIA
THE MULTI-BILLION DEMOCRAT PARTY MEXICAN WELFARE STATE
City Journal
How Unskilled Immigrants Hurt Our Economy
Immigration’s bottom line has
shifted so sharply that in a high-immigration state like California,
native-born residents are paying up to ten times more in state and local taxes
than immigrants generate in economic benefits.
*
The annual expenditure of state and local tax dollars on
services for that population is $25.3 billion (DATED – NOW $35 BILLION AND ONLY
GOING UP). That total amounts to a yearly burden of about $2,370 for a
household headed by a U.S. citizen.
*
According to the Centers for Immigration Studies, April
'11, at least 70% of Mexican illegal alien families receive some type of
welfare in the US!!! cis.org
WHO
REALLY PAYS THE COST OF OPEN BORDERS?
More than
7-in-10 households headed by immigrants in the state of California are on
taxpayer-funded welfare, a new study reveals.
The
latest Census Bureau data analyzed by the Center for Immigration Studies (CIS)
finds that about 72 percent of households headed by noncitizens and immigrants
use one or more forms of taxpayer-funded welfare programs in California — the
number one immigrant-receiving state in the U.S. JOHN BINDER
This week, lawmakers
unveiled a $1 billion health care plan that would include spending $250 million to extend
health care coverage to all illegal alien adults. JENNIFER G. HICKEY
Two groups
of Central American migrants made separate marches on the U.S. Consulate in
Tijuana Tuesday, demanding that they be processed through the asylum system
more quickly and in greater numbers, that deportations be halted and that President Trump either let
them into the country or pay them $50,000 each to go home. MONICA SHOWALTER
This annual
income for an impoverished American family is $10,000 less than the more than
$34,500 in federal funds which are spent on each unaccompanied minor border
crosser.
A study by Tom
Wong of the University of California at San Diego discovered that more than 25
percent of DACA-enrolled illegal aliens in the program have anchor babies. That
totals about 200,000 anchor babies who are the children of DACA-enrolled
illegal aliens. This does not include the anchor babies of DACA-qualified
illegal aliens. JOHN BINDER
No comments:
Post a Comment