(Tea Party PAC) – If there’s one thing we can say about the impeachment proceedings against President Trump, it’s that the Democratic Party has gone above and beyond the call of duty to ensure this man does not in any way, shape, or form receive due process as guaranteed to him under the Constitution of the United States.
In fact, it seems the left has done everything in their power to set up the president for failure, to justify their sick and twisted coup as some sort of crusade against political corruption, when in reality, it’s all about revenge for denying them the power of the White House they think they are entitled to.
Just look at who Democrats chose to set the rules for Trump’s impeachment for example. A man who himself has been impeached!
You can’t make this stuff up.
Via Gateway Pundit:
Who better to set the rules for Trump’s impeachment trial than a guy who has actually been impeached? That’s right, the Democrats, in all their infinite wisdom, appointed Alcee Hastings as the vice chair of the rules committee.
Hastings went through an impeachment trial in 1988 on a bevy of crimes he committed while serving as a federal judge. Playing in the Democrat sandbox, the disgraced ex-judge was elected to congress by the crazed liberals.
Here’s something you don’t see every day: Alcee Hastings, a former federal judge impeached and removed from the bench for taking bribes, participating in a House hearing that sets the rules for an impeachment. (Yes, Florida man strikes again…)
Here's something you don't see every day: Alcee Hastings, a former federal judge impeached and removed from the bench for taking bribes, participating in a House hearing that sets the rules for an impeachment. (Yes, Florida man strikes again…) pic.twitter.com/GCSAl94Jdp
— David Martosko (@dmartosko) December 17, 2019
The United States Senate historical documents webpage explains:
In 1981, a federal grand jury indicted Judge Alcee L. Hastings, appointed to the federal district court in 1979, along with his friend William A. Borders, a Washington, D.C. lawyer. Hastings was charged with conspiracy and obstruction of justice for soliciting a $150,000 bribe in return for reducing the sentences of two mob-connected felons convicted in Hastings’ court. A year after Borders was convicted of conspiracy, the result of an FBI sting effort, Hastings’s case came before the criminal court. Despite Borders’ conviction, and the fact that Hastings had indeed reduced the sentences of the two felons, he was acquitted in a criminal court in 1983 and returned to his judicial post.
Subsequently, suspicions arose that Hastings had lied and falsified evidence during the trial in order to obtain an acquittal. A special committee of the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals began a new probe into the Hastings case. The resulting three-year investigation ended with the panel concluding that Hastings did indeed commit perjury, tamper with evidence, and conspire to gain financially by accepting bribes. The panel recommended further action to the U.S. Judicial Conference, which, in turn, informed the House of Representatives on March 17, 1987, that Judge Alcee Hastings should be impeached and removed from office.
On August 3, 1988, following an investigation by the House Judiciary Subcommittee on Criminal Justice, the House of Representatives voted 413 to 3 to adopt H. Res. 499, approving 17 articles of impeachment against Hastings, the greatest number of articles in any impeachment proceeding to date. Charges included conspiracy, bribery, perjury, falsifying documents, thwarting a criminal investigation, and undermining the public confidence “in the integrity and impartiality of the judiciary.” The Senate received the articles on August 9, 1988.
Following the precedent set in the 1986 Claiborne impeachment case, the Senate again chose to refer the matter to a special committee as authorized by impeachment rule XI. On March 16, 1989, the Senate rejected a motion by Hastings to dismiss the case, and adopted S. Res. 38, creating a 12-member trial committee to hear evidence and then report to the full Senate on contested and uncontested facts. The committee was not tasked with making a recommendation on guilt or innocence. Committee hearings continued from July 10, to August 3, 1989. Consisting of six Republicans and six Democrats, the committee heard evidence for and against Hastings, and took testimony from 55 witnesses, including Borders. The House managers presented convincing evidence that Hastings had, indeed, conspired with Borders to solicit the bribe. Hastings, who appeared in his own defense, objected to the use of the committee, insisting that the full Senate should be required to hear evidence. His motion failed. Hastings also insisted that the Senate trial amounted, in legal terms, to “double jeopardy” since he had already been acquitted in a court of law.
The trial committee presented its report on October 2, 1989. Sixteen days later, the trial began in the U.S. Senate, with prosecution and defense given two hours to summarize their cases. The Senate deliberated in closed session on October 19, 1989. The following day, the Senate voted on 11 of the 17 articles of impeachment, convicting Hastings, by the necessary two-thirds vote, on 8 articles (1-5, 7-9). On two articles (6, 17) the vote fell short of the required majority to convict. On article 11, the Senate voted 95 not guilty to 0 guilty. Having achieved the necessary majority vote to convict on 8 articles, the Senate’s president pro tempore (Robert C. Byrd) ordered Hastings removed from office. The Senate did not vote to disqualify him from holding future office.
Four years later, Hastings was elected to the U.S. House of Representatives for the term beginning January 3, 1993. As a member of that body, on December 19, 1998, Hastings voted (on four articles of impeachment) against impeaching President William Jefferson Clinton.
He recently went on this rant. Note the bored staffer in the back checking her Instagram likes on her phone.
But Hastings’s problems aren’t all in the past. There have been several recent scandals he’s been caught up in. He’s recently been investigated for having an “improper relationship” with a staffer, he made a joke about Trump drowning in the Potomac River last year, he was sued for sexual harassment in 2011 (for which taxpayers eventually footed the $220,000 settlement), and in 2010 he accidentally revealed the truth about how the democrats operate by saying on video “We make up the rules as we go along.”
According to the wikipedia page on him, dude is the poorest member of congress, being $4 Million in debt, most of which being owed to attorneys who have represented him throughout his various scandals. He was caught using $24,000 of taxpayer money to lease a Lexus for his personal use, and he uses his congressional funds to hire his own family members as staffers.
Given the fact Democrats have chosen folks of questionable moral character to set the rules of the impeachment proceedings against the president, somehow we’re really supposed to trust them to treat the president fairly?
How can this possibly be about combating political corruption when the very people claiming to be crusaders for the cause of good are hiring individuals with a known reputation for corruption? That doesn’t make any sense.
Again, that’s because none of this is really about standing up for what’s right. It’s about revenge for Trump destroying Hillary’s chances of continuing the work Obama started in office. It’s about revenge for undoing Obama’s legacy and for revealing that conservative principles actually work, while liberal ones do not.
And all of this, done out in the open, brazenly, will lead to the destruction of the Democratic Party in 2020.
Featured image credit: Cliff – flickr.com/photos/nostri-imago/5038291932