PCR Interviewed by Sputnik
News on the “Trump Impeachment”
PCR Interviewed by Ekaterina
Blinova, Sputnik News
Whistleblower Complaint Null
& Void, Dems’ Impeachment Push Has No Legitimacy – Former US Official
On 8 October, the White
House made it clear that it would not participate in the so-called “impeachment
inquiry” hastily kicked off by House Speaker Nancy Pelosi on 24 September
without a customary vote. Former Reagan administration official Dr. Paul Craig
Roberts explained why the Dems’ impeachment push has had no legitimacy from day
one.
Hours after the Trump
administration blocked one of the witnesses in the “impeachment” probe from
testifying to the House, White House counsel Pat Cipollone sent a letter to
Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and various committee chairs, dotting the i’s
and crossing the t’s.
“I write on behalf of
President Donald J. Trump in response to your numerous, legally unsupported
demands made as part of what you have labelled, contrary to the Constitution of
the United States and all past bipartisan precedent, as an ‘impeachment
inquiry’,” the letter says. “As you know, you have designed and implemented
your inquiry in a manner that violates fundamental fairness and
constitutionally-mandated due process.”
Assessing the White House’s
move in an interview with Fox News, Trump’s attorney Rudi Giuliani
and American lawyer Joseph diGenova unanimously confirmed that if House Dems
try to challenge the Trump administration’s move in court, they would lose.
According to the lawyers, Pelosi’s decision to skip the floor impeachment vote
made the process devoid of any legitimacy.
“If they [Democrats] go to
Court they are going to lose, because the president and the secretary of state
and others are invoking executive privilege, confidentiality privilege,
absolute immunity privilege. And they are doing that because they have a right
to when there is not a formal impeachment proceeding underway,” diGenova
explained.
On the other hand, if
Speaker Pelosi held an impeachment vote, that would have given the House
minority the authority to subpoena and cross-examine the witnesses brought by
the Dems, something that she probably did not want, as Jason E. Chaffetz, a
former chairman of the Committee on Oversight and Government Reform
(2015-2017) told Fox News on 1 October.
There’s No Evidence of Any
Impeachable Offence by Trump
According to Dr. Paul Craig
Roberts, an American economist and author of more than a dozen books who served
as the United States Assistant Secretary of the Treasury for Economic Policy
under President Ronald Reagan, “the Democrats’ impeachment push has no
legitimacy because there is no evidence of any impeachable offence” by Donald
Trump in the first place.
Pelosi’s impeachment inquiry
based on hearsay, secrecy and no regard for due process is a partisan sham to
overturn the 2016.
Dr. Roberts notes that one
of the reasons why the House Democrats refuse to hold a vote to establish an
impeachment proceeding is that once it is launched, it depends on actual
evidence, of which the Democrats have none. The minute the Democrats vote to
actually kick off the impeachment process, they have to abide by the legal
rules or the process is null and void, the author highlights.
Currently, “the
never-before-known ‘impeachment inquiry'” permits the Democrats “to continue to
tell lies and make false allegations without allowing the President to confront
his accusers on the basis of fact and evidence,” he elaborates.
The question then arises as
to why the US mainstream media and prominent political figures have so easily
bought into the impeachment narrative spearheaded by Chairman Adam Schiff and
some other House Democrats led by Speaker Pelosi.
“The Republicans in the
House have pointed out over and over that there is no evidence whatsoever of
any offence by Trump, much less an impeachable one, but the media does not
serve the Republicans”, Dr Roberts says. “It only reports the lies from the
Democrats”.
As for the apparent neglect
of the US Constitution by some Democratic lawmakers, the problem is that it
“slowly eroded over time, beginning with the so-called ‘Civil War’ in 1860”,
and was “completely abandoned by the George W. Bush and Obama regimes”, the
former administration official emphasises, referring to the fact that “privacy,
once a Constitutional right, no longer exists in the US” after the
implementation of the 2001 Patriot Act.
On the other hand, the
legislative branch, Congress, “is bought and paid for”, Dr. Roberts remarks,
stressing that the body does not actually represent voters but “the interest
groups that provide the campaign money to get representatives and senators
elected”.
“The House Democrats
in their orchestration of ‘an
impeachment’ crisis,
and the whore media are hoping for two things,” the economist says. “One is
that some of all the mud and false news that they are perpetuating against
Trump will stick and cost him the reelection. The other is that it will wear
down some of the weaker Republicans in the Senate who might be convinced by the
donors to their campaign funds to vote for impeachment and thus leave
themselves in office but out of power.
The former administration
official expresses concerns over the Republicans’ hesitancy to complete the
inquiry and indict the CIA and Obama Justice Department officials “who orchestrated the fake
‘Russiagate’ investigation“, while “the bought-and-paid-for servant of the ruling oligarchs, Nancy
Pelosi, Speaker of the House of Representatives, speeds the ‘impeachment
inquiry’ forward”.
“By the time the report
comes out from the Justice Department’s
investigation of
who was responsible for the falsehoods of ‘Russiagate’, the US presstitute
media will dismiss the report as an illegitimate effort of Trump to distract
the public’s attention from his ‘impeachable offences’,” he warns.
Fake ‘Whistleblower
Complaint’ is Null and Void to Begin With
The House Dems’ impeachment
effort has triggered controversy from day one. The economist, who has kept the
finger on the pulse of the development, raised a red flag on 30 September over the “whistleblower
complaint” – the trigger for Pelosi’s inquiry.
Dr. Roberts pointed out in
his blog that the so-called “whistleblower
complaint” clearly
violated the statute 50 US Code sec. 3033: a) the whistleblower’s activity had nothing to do
with “intelligence activity”, as legally required by the statute; b) the
Director of National Intelligence (DNI) does not have the authority to
supervise the president’s phone calls, which means that the Inspector General
of the Intelligence Community (ICIG), a subordinate official of the DNI, does
not have this authority either; c) “the acceptance of this complaint by the IG
was improper under the clear language of the statute”.
Thus, according to the
economist, the document was “improperly filed, improperly accepted, and the
filer was not even a whistleblower as defined in the statute”.
“The fake ‘whistleblower
complaint’ is null and void”, he says. “The House Democrats can do whatever
they want. If the rules get in their way, and they care about rules,
which they do not, they can change the rules.”
Yet another wake-up call
came the same day, 30 September, when the ICIG statement concerning the supposed changes in “Disclosure
of Urgent Concern” form was submitted. It said that IG Michael Atkinson had
decided that “there were reasonable grounds to believe” that the complaint
“appeared credible”, although the “whistleblower” was not a direct witness to
most of events described.
By that time, however, both
the whistleblower complaint and the transcript of a Trump-Zelensky phone talk had already been
out, and the discrepancies between the complainant’s description of the
conversation and the actual call were obvious.
While the Republicans are
calling for Speaker Pelosi to hold the impeachment vote, the House Dems have
announced that they have a whistleblower with first-hand knowledge of the
matter who has claimed that he\she would testify remotely with face and voice
obscured.
Trump already released the
transcripts of the Ukraine call. What is even the point of the
second whistleblower.
“What comes out of this
remains to be seen. But it will not be political stability in the Empire,” Dr.
Roberts concludes.
/https://www.niagarafallsreview.ca/content/dam/thestar/news/canada/2021/09/25/huawei-executive-meng-wanzhou-receives-warm-welcome-upon-return-to-china/_1_meng_wanzhou_2.jpg)
No comments:
Post a Comment
Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.