TDS-Afflicted Schiff Admits on Senate Floor Impeachment is About 2020
The voters cannot decide for themselves because “we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.”
Before the trial starts today, I’d like to remind you of what Rep. Adam Schiff, who suffers from an intense case of Trump Derangement Syndrome, said yesterday in his opening statement.
“The President’s misconduct cannot be decided at the ballot box, for we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won,” lead impeachment manager Rep. Adam Schiff says during his opening statement at the Senate impeachment trial. https://t.co/14mXcvjVzh pic.twitter.com/F2OZhLYx7v
— CNN Newsroom (@CNNnewsroom) January 22, 2020
Once again, Schiff’s words confirm what we all know. They are paranoid about the 2020 election.
The world did not end. Vice President Mike Pence did not march gays off to camps. Women are not bound to the home and stripped of all rights. Nazis are not in control of the government. Cats and dogs are not living together.
No MASS HYSTERIA!
Instead, we have a pretty decent economy. People have more money in their pockets. I don’t know about you, but my life has not changed much since Trump took office!
So to no one’s shock Schiff wants Congress to eliminate Trump because he knows there’s a good chance Trump wins in November.
DONATE
Donations tax deductible
to the full extent allowed by law.
Comments
Democrat Senator Schiff:“we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.”
Democrat Schiff is correct, but not for the reasons he claims. Democrat voter fraud has been around for ages. LBJ would never have become Senator without voter fraud in South Texas. JFK won Illinois “with a little help” from Daly’s friends. These days, there is motor voter registration in California, whereby an illegal alien can register to vote when he gets his driver’s license.
Pray Dr. Drew Pinsky runs and wins pencil necks seat.
No, he can’t. Illegal immigrants don’t get the same license as everyone else. The bigger concern with motor voter is legal aliens; the DMV is supposed to ask about citizenship, and only register those who certify under oath that they’re citizens, but they don’t always do it. And of course the biggest concern about motor voter has nothing to do with aliens at all; motor voter creates a large pool of citizens who are registered to vote but have no intention of doing so, and whose names are therefore available for fraud. This is why motor voter is a bad idea in all states; the fact that CA issues drivers’ licenses to illegal immigrants does not make it any worse.
Motor Voter + Vote by Mail – Voter ID = Increased Opportunities for Election Fraud
Given that California legalized ballot harvesting and has counties where more people vote than live there, I doubt that matters at all.
Elections in that state are a fraud. Prove me wrong.
There’s nothing wrong with ballot harvesting if it’s done honestly. And at least some Democrat workers did do it honestly; the one in the video that circulated before the last election was completely above-board and if every harvester behaved like her then there would be no cause for complaint. Democrats being Democrats, I doubt they all acted as honestly as that young woman, but I know of no evidence for this. It’s just my jaundiced view of them.
Can you name some “counties where more people vote than live there”? I’ve never heard of such a thing and have trouble believing it happens, even with fraud.
In any event, licenses for illegal aliens is not a factor here.
Felon voting laws do the same thing. Florida’s voters foolishly passed one last year, which just about guarantees Florida votes Democrat in the 2020 election because, as you note, that’s hundreds of thousands of additional names available for fraudulent voter registrations and ballots, more than sufficient to tip most Florida counties Democrat if strategically spread out.
As one of those Florida fools, I feel compelled to defend my state, which doesn’t happen often. First, I have to note that Florida was one of only four states that had such a ban to begin with. 46 states <b<always allowed felons to vote again. So it was Florida as the outlier, not the norm.
Second, as we Republicans have been insisting (correctly) with regard to multiple, numerous abuses of power by the Democrats and the Deep State (which clearly does exist, and it’s incredibly damaging, but I digress), not everything can be about winning the next election. Sometimes it is necessary to do what is right, even if it hurts you electorally. And from a religious/faith standpoint, I believe in redemption. I can think of no reason that a felon who has served his/her time, been released, stayed clean through probation, should still not have his/her First Amendment rights; and what could be more fundamental to the First Amendment than having the right to choose your representatives in government?
Third, the restoration is neither instant nor universal. The felon must successfully complete the prison sentence, parole, and/or probation. Felons who committed murder or a felony sexual offense also do not get restored.
Fourth, the amendment was limited to voting, not a universal restoration. Someone who has manifestly been a danger to his community by, say, using guns in the commission of a crime, is not automatically restored the right to bear them again. Employers and landlords are entitled to know of a criminal history, as (like it or not) such persons are statistically far more likely to present a danger to the business, the premises, and the persons around them.
I could also accept permanent exclusion being wider based on the character of the crime: arsonists, say, or white collar criminals who ruin retirement accounts or businesses. But that was not the question presented; and I see no logical or theological justification to say that a young man stealing a car, say, should never be allowed to rejoin society, let alone never be allowed to vote.
Milhouse, that makes the highly questionable — no, really, ridiculous — assumptions that the deep-state AFSME union drones who staff the CA DMV offices (a) care about the distinction, and (b) actively thwart the “immigration” position of their union and the interests of their party. Nobody can stop them from registering illegal aliens to vote, and there is plenty of anecdotal evidence that they do. The main obstacle to statistical measurement of the extent of the problem is that the people charged with doing so benefit from the illegal alien registrations.
Sorry, this applies to Milhouse’s defense of the California Moter Voter system, not the post immediately above. Not sure how it got misplaced.
Translation: “We have to impeach Trump because it is getting harder and harder for Democrats to rig an election!”
Adam Schiff brings a whole new meaning to “Red Scare”
Say the Dems somehow actually manage to win in the Senate and Trump is removed from office, never to run for the Presidency again. You want to know what I think will happen? I think the country will still pick whoever the likely Republican candidate is (likely Pence) if for no other reason than to give the Dems the middle finger for what they did!
Or, perhaps, he is removed from office, only to give the ultimate middle finger by running again, and winning a second term.
Just because a person is impeached does not mean that he can’t run again.
Did not NBC just state a few days ago that it may Be illegal to vote for President Trump and the government should take action? Do you see the pattern?
Why do I think about Germany in the 1930’s?
“This is clearly staged. Worse, it’s staged POORLY.”
I don’t know about you, but my life has not changed much since Trump took office!
My blood pressure’s down a bit since the Obama days.
I have noticed that the sky has been unusually blue for the last 3 years. What they call global warming I call optimism.
not just 2020 but 2016, 2000 but not 2018 that was fine.
https://i.pinimg.com/originals/03/e6/f5/03e6f58dc15799b88c07539edc301767.jpg
Is Schiff worried that Trump might mobilize the FBI/DOJ and coordinate with the State Dept. and Foreign Embassies to spy and conspire against the opposing presidential candidate as the Obama administration did in 2016?
There’s a bit of sleight of hand going on here. Here’s how Schiff sees it, or rather how he would like gullible people to see it: We can’t leave it to the voters to judge Trump’s actions, because the very actions we’re accusing him of were aimed at manipulating the election and producing an unfair result. So if it does indeed produce that unfair result that will not vindicate Trump. We must therefore remove him and prevent him from running again (not that the senate can actually do that, but that’s a different discussion), so as to negate the effect of his cheating and allow the next president to be elected fairly. Or something like that.
There’s one fatal flaw in the argument that he’s hiding and hoping nobody notices. The same flaw is in the Dems’ argument for regarding the 2016 result as illegitimate. Let’s suppose for the sake of argument that every allegation against Trump is true. Let’s suppose he directly asked Putin to release the DNC and Podesta emails, and that this swayed the election in his favor. Let’s further suppose that he not only tried to get Zelensky to investigate Burisma but that he succeeded, and that the Ukraine will shortly produce evidence of Biden’s corruption, thus swaying voters away from him and toward Trump.
Even supposing all that, the result would still be 100% legitimate. Further, even if Trump had committed crimes to obtain the information that would sway voters to support him, the result would still be legitimate. Because the bottom line would be that the extra information the voters had is true, and therefore their votes are better informed and more legitimate than they would have been without it.
Just as a criminal defendant is not actually entitled to a trial without the benefit of evidence that he’s successfully hidden from the police, a candidate is not entitled to an election without the benefit of information he’s successfully hidden from the voters. If someone breaks the law and the evidence is revealed, the defendant or candidate is not thereby deprived of a fair trial or election; on the contrary, the trial or election is now fairer.
The exclusionary rule does not exist because admitting illegally obtained evidence would make the trial unfair; it exists for one reason and one reason only: because before it the police had no disincentive to break the law, and they were doing so routinely. The rule makes trials less fair, and the courts that invented it knew that, but decided that was a price worth paying to prevent the fourth amendment from becoming a nullity. But this does not mean defendants before the rule were somehow cheated; when the rule was made no previous convictions were thereby rendered unsafe. And there is no equivalent rule for elections.
prevent him from running again (not that the senate can actually do that, but that’s a different discussion)
Actually, the Constitution states in Article I, Section 3 that one of the consequences (one of only two) of impeachment is disqualification from further office. It seems to be optional, however.
Further, even if Trump had committed crimes to obtain the information that would sway voters to support him, the result would still be legitimate.
Yes. But, at least then they would have an actual crime to impeach him for.
If the senate were to convict him it could ban him from appointed office, not from elected office. Throughout the constitution an “office under the united states” means one that the president appoints and the senate confirms.
Yes .. and kind of no.
There would be a separate vote to ban him from office.
He’s calling obama a liar. If you remember obama said it’s impossible to rig the election and DJT should quit whining.
“The voters cannot decide for themselves because “we cannot be assured that the vote will be fairly won.”
That is rich, coming as it does from one of the most corrupt members of the most corrupt political party in this nation’s history, and which is the Party that has been engaging in voting fraud since the mid-19th Century.
This just in: the investigation has started for the impeachment of DJT for yet to be named offenses after the 2021 inauguration. The Dems/Progs are busy making up the grounds now.