Impeaching a President Without Probable Cause


DOD photo by Navy Petty Officer 1st Class Dominique A. Pineiro (CC BY 2.0)


By John Paluska, Founder and Editor in Chief

When Nancy Pelosi admitted there was zero evidence for impeachment, after well-documented liar Adam Schiff spent weeks interviewing former and current Trump staff members based on a whistleblower statement that not only contradicts the transcript and the President of Ukraine, but also the nature of events, one thought likely went through everyone's mind: "Well, if there's no evidence, then why are we trying to impeach the President?"

This is a very important question. It's one that deserves and answer, and it's one that deserves an answer soon. We first were told Trump was Putin's puppet. We needed an investigation to "look into"  a now-debunked hoax that Trump was working for the Russian government. So,we had the investigation; we played by the Left's rules, and what did we find? We found precisely what Trump and the Republicans had been saying all along: "there's no collusion."
If there is no evidence, then why are we trying to impeach the President?
But did it end there? Of course not. It never does with Democrats. The next "offense" in this insane and unwarranted coup of a duly-elected president was that he "obstructed justice." But that didn't pan out either, so they now needed a new hoax to make their impeachment dreams come true.

Enter the "whistleblower." A man with no firsthand knowledge of a call he wrote pages and pages of analysis on, all based on the testimony of other guys, many of whom weren't even present when the call was made. This, this could finally be the manufactured "smoking gun" used to take down a duly-elected President against the will of the people who voted for him.

So based on a flimsy document written by some guy who wasn't even there and didn't even listen to the call, the Democrats launched their new impeachment treasure hunt. They call forward various witnesses, hoping and praying they'll give some little morsel of scandal with which they can try to take down "Orange Man."

But not even that went right. With witnesses blatantly contradicting what the other witnesses were saying. So even with totally secret, closed-door testimony sessions, Tsar Schiff and his Inner Circle can't even put together a portfolio of witnesses that can corroborate key details of the phone call, which, in case you've forgotten, was sent with love from the President's desk to every member of the American public in the form of a transcript.
Schiff and his Inner Circle are unable to put together a portfolio of witnesses that can corroborate key details of the phone call
But all of this challenges the fundamental assertion which the American Legal System was based upon: probable cause. We don't live in Soviet Russia, as much as the demoKrats are trying to turn us into it. Here we have a right to due process, a right to privacy, and a fundamental understanding that someone can't just go digging into our lives unless they have reason to do so. It's called the Constitution, and it's still binding, even to elected officials.
Here in America we have a right to due process
But none of that is present here in this so-called "Impeachment Inquiry." In fact, the name gives away it all. It's an inquiry. It's investigating whether there's a "there" there. It assumes there is nothing and that something must be found. And this is no different than what happens in Communist China, Totalitarian North Korea, or Authoritarian Russia. In these countries you have no right to privacy, you have no due process, and probable cause is whatever the state says it is.

This should concern us, because an impeachment inquiry without probable cause is nothing more than precedent for the Government to be able to investigate and lock up anyone they so choose without warrant, rhyme, reason, or evidence. And, if we hate corruption, detest  we cannot have that as a country.

Follow us on Twitter and like us on Facebook!


Comments