Impeachment: Two ways to go with coup d'etat 2.0
By Mark Alexander
Last week, as I was preparing a comprehensive analysis on the threat to American Liberty posed by the Democrat Party's latest proposal to register firearm transfers, a much more immediate and significant threat to our Constitution emerged.
House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the centerpiece of the Democrats' 2020 presidential campaign platform, which her House and Senate colleagues can also run on — "Impeach Trump."
Make no mistake, Pelosi's impeachment pivot is a hard extension of the previous soft coup d'etat to take down Trump, the fake Russia collusion fabrication, which fell flat after the Mueller investigation concluded.
President Trump responded to the version 2.0 coup attempt, declaring: "I am coming to the conclusion that what is taking place is not an impeachment, it is a COUP, intended to take away the Power of the People, their VOTE, their Freedoms, their Second Amendment, Religion, Military, Border Wall, and their God-given rights as a Citizen of the United States of America!"
Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich, a historian who chooses his words carefully, concurred: "This is not an impeachment process. This is a coup d'etat."
Predictably, calling the Democrats' impeachment effort what it is immediately set leftist heads aflame. But recall the words of key Demos during the impeachment of one of their own — serial liar and sexual assailant Bill Clinton.
Rep. Jerrold Nadler (D-NY), currently chairman of the House Judiciary Committee investigating Trump, insisted then that the Clinton impeachment was "a partisan coup d'etat." Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) called it an "impeachment coup d'etat, this unapologetic disregard for the voice of the people." In her memoirs, Hillary Clinton declared Bill's impeachment was an "attempted Congressional coup d'etat."
But there is a difference between the impeachment of Clinton and the proposed impeachment to take down Trump — and it is a BIG difference. The Clinton impeachment was not orchestrated by government operatives at the highest levels of the FBI and CIA.
We correctly labeled the first Demo conspiracy to overthrow the 2016 election a "coup d'etat" 18 months ago, when evidence surfaced that the FISA memo that set off the Trump investigation was engineered by deep-state operatives in the FBI and CIA.
They were, and still are, operating in the interest of Barack Obama and Hillary "Gutsy" Clinton, and deep-state fingerprints are all over Pelosi's Ukrainian quid pro quo impeachment charade. I maintain this is a subversive "coup d'etat."
Actually, what Pelosi announced on 24 September was the first salvo in what will be a deliberately drawn-out political saga, a theatrical sequel that picks up where their last hoax left off. At some point in this secretive and ill-defined process, she'll call for a vote to inquire about what Democrats erroneously claim are impeachable offenses.
This round, House Demos are hoping to indict President Trump for "high crimes and misdemeanors," and they're doing so in a way that shields their process from public scrutiny while protecting their members — especially those from swing districts that Trump carried in 2016 — from public accountability. So, not only is this a constitutionally dubious process, it's also a cowardly one.
As you know, Article I, Section 2, Clause 5 of our Constitution stipulates: "The House of Representatives ... shall have the sole Power of Impeachment." Article I, Section 3, Clauses 6 and 7 stipulates, "The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments."
Pelosi will eventually have her inquiry vote, as Democrat House support for it now stands at 225. She can also get the required House Intelligence Committee vote from Chairman Adam Schiff, and a referral vote from Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerrold Nadler, depending on where she and Sen. Chuck Schumer want to take it.
That means one of two directions, depending on the prevailing winds.
First option: If Pelosi and Schumer believe voter sentiments for impeachment will stall in the coming months, then they will retain the whole affair in the House, keeping the threat of impeachment hovering over Trump's head with endless investigations by Schiff and Nadler, until the American people can finally cast their votes on Tuesday, November 3, 2020.
Second option: If they believe voter sentiments will continue to grow in favor of impeachment, then Pelosi will eventually call for a vote to refer Trump for trial in the Republican-held Senate, where she and Schumer calculate it will give Democrats a chance to retake control of the Senate in 2020 by blaming Republicans for not helping them reach the requisite two-thirds of the Senate to convict and remove President Trump from office.
By way of assessing what direction they will go, if you believe all the pontifications about an upcoming electoral backlash against the Democrats similar to the one that met Republicans following the Clinton impeachment, I urge you to heed this warning: Do not underestimate the combined power of the Democrat Party and its Leftmedia propaganda machine to accomplish their common political goals with this impeachment charade. If the most recent evidence of how quickly their Leftmedia outlets can turn voter sentiments in favor of impeachment is any indication, a House indictment may actually make it to the Senate for trial.
In August, 35% of Americans supported impeachment. Within days of Pelosi's announcement and the supporting Leftmedia deluge that followed, support for impeachment jumped to 43%. This week, that support is about evenly split — 50-50. While I expect that to drop off once the Trump administration begins its challenge to Round Two of the Pelosi/Schumer ruse to obstruct his MAGA agenda, the outcome of the Clinton impeachment is not a predictor for next year's electoral outcome.
If it's not abundantly clear that the Democrats' motivation for impeachment — undoing a national election — is based not on principle but on hatred, vengeance, and an insatiable lust for power, consider these additional Demo observations from Clinton's 1998 impeachment.
According to Rep. Nancy Pelosi: "The Republican majority is not judging the president with fairness but impeaching him with a vengeance. ... We are here today because the Republicans in the House are paralyzed with hatred of President Clinton. And until the Republicans free themselves of this hatred, our country will suffer."
And here's Rep. Jerry Nadler: "The impeachment of a president is an undoing of a national election. And one of the reasons we all feel so angry about what they are doing is that they are ripping asunder our votes. They are telling us that our votes don't count."
So, based on their own words, we can conclude that the Democrat majority in the House is driven by "vengeance" rather than "fairness," that they're "paralyzed with hatred" of President Trump, and that they're committed to the "undoing of a national election" while "telling us that our votes don't count."
If you have any remaining question about their motivation for impeachment, longtime leftist pundit Michael Kinsley once famously observed, "A gaffe is when a politician tells the truth — some obvious truth he isn't supposed to say."
To that end, Rep. Al Green (D-TX) inadvertently told the truth about his party's impeachment motivations. When asked if he was afraid that talk of impeachment "will help the president's reelection," he responded, "I'm concerned that if we don't impeach this president, he will get reelected."
And there you have it.
We know that Obama/Clinton deep-state operatives, in coordination with John Brennan at the CIA and James Comey at the FBI, orchestrated the first coup d'etat to overthrow the 2016 election results. Later this month, Inspector General Michael Horowitz will likely expose their co-conspirators with in his second report on the Russia collusion hoax.
The current impeachment setup is based on the same model, but that fact may not be sufficient to overcome public opinion driven by the deluge of Demo political theater.
Mark Alexander is the executive editor of the Patriot Post.