REASON AND JUSTICE vs THE DEMAGOGUE AND FASCISM. PART 2.

Continued from part 1...

The following is taken from the STANDING RULES AND PROCEDURES OF THE U.S. SENATE. 
This deals specifically with IMPEACHMENT OF THE U.S. PRESIDENT.

"...And the Presiding Officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate; or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote of the members of the Senate. Upon all such questions the vote shall be taken in accordance with the Standing Rules of the Senate." 

PRESIDING OFFICER ON THE TRIAL- In the case of the U.S. PRESIDENT, THE PRESIDING OFFICER IS THE CHIEF JUSTICE OF THE SUPREME COURT. In this case it is JOHN ROBERTS.

In the above,you can also read the following; "...And the Presiding Officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate..."

Now, if you were to stop here, CHIEF JUSTICE JOHN ROBERTS job, as the PRESIDING JUDGE, is pretty much the same as in any other COURTROOM.

AH, NO.

"...unless some member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate; or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote of the members of the Senate. Upon all such questions the vote shall be taken in accordance with the Standing Rules of the Senate." 

What does all this mean? That, in what could be the most important TRIAL THAT MOST AMERICANS WILL EVER SEE IN THEIR LIFETIME, EVIDENCE CAN, AND IN THIS CASE QUITE PROBABLY WILL BE, ADMITTED BY...

...MAJORITY RULE. YOU SEE, IF A SENATOR DISAGREES WITH JUSTICE ROBERTS DECISION, HE CAN 
CALL FOR A VOTE, WITH NO DEBATE, WITH THE MAJORITY DECIDING ON WHETHER OR NOT THE DECISION SHOULD BE ADOPTED.

Since the REPUBLICAN PARTY HOLDS A Majority in the Senate, and their sycophantic worship of DONALD TRUMP seems to bind them to protecting him, NO MATTER WHAT, the willingness to sell out the country they took an oath to serve, does not seem to bother many GOP MEMBERS. So, it will be interesting to see how many times his decisions will be overruled.

NOW, COULD THIS IDIOTIC RULE, (AND I DO MEAN THAT LITERALLY), BE CHALLENGED AS UNCONSTITUTIONAL? Yes, but that would require SENATE DEMOCRATS TO ACTUALLY STAND UP TO THE SENATOR FROM THE STATE OF KENTUCKY, (WHO NOW SETS POLICY FOR THE OTHER 49 STATES), BUT THAT WOULD REQUIRE A MORAL AND INTELLECTUAL BACKBONE. IF THEY WERE WILLING TO LET A FRAUDULENT PRESIDENTIAL ELECTION GO BY WITHOUT SAYING A WORD, WHAT DO YOU THINK WILL HAPPEN NOW?

GOOD TIMES...GOOD TIMES. 

REASON AND JUSTICE vs THE DEMAGOGUE AND FASCISM. PART 1.

I had hoped that it would not come down to this, but when JUSTICE IS PERVERTED BY AN INDIVIDUAL OR GROUPS DESIRE TO RETAIN AND EXERT POWER OVER OTHERS, BY SUPPRESSING EVIDENCE OF CRIMINAL BEHAVIOR WITHOUT GOOD CAUSE, NO ONE WHO BELIEVES IN EQUALITY UNDER THE LAW SHOULD REMAIN SILENT.

As the Impeachment trial oF DONALD TRUMP MOVES ON, I WOULD LIKE TO DRAW YOUR
ATTENTION TO FOLLOWING PASSAGES TAKEN FROM THE RULES AND PROCEDURES
OF THE U.S. SENATE, DEALING WITH IMPEACHMENT.

First, consider the following, taken from the STANDING RULES AND PROCEDURES OF THE U.S. SENATE.

"The Senate shall have power to compel the attendance of witnesses, to enforce obedience to its orders, mandates, writs, precepts, and judgments, to preserve order, and to punish in a summary way con tempts of and disobedience to, its authority, orders, mandates, writs, precepts, or judgments, and to make all lawful orders, rules, and regulations which it may deem essential or conductive to the ends of justice." 

This passage tells us this: The SENATE has the Power to "...COMPEL THE ATTENDANCE OF WITNESSES." and "...TO PUNISH IN A SUMMARY WAY CONTEMPTS OF AND DISOBEDIENCE TO, ITS AUTHORITY..." In other words: The Senate, by the RULE OF LAW, can force witnesses to appear and give Testimony.

DONALD TRUMPS CLAIM OF "EXECUTIVE PRIVILEGE," preventing certain witnesses from
Testifying because of NATIONAL SECURITY CONCERNS, is nothing more than a SMOKE SCREEN. A stipulation can be made to restrict questions to the TWO ARTICLES OF IMPEACHMENT. Any refusal to give Testimony, must be accompanied by the REASONS SUCH TESTIMONY WOULD JEOPARDIZE NATIONAL SECURITY.

In the End, we have this: ARE WE GOING TO ALLOW THE PRESIDENT, WHO IS THE ONE
ON TRIAL, TO HAVE THE FINAL WORD ON WHO IS ALLOWED TO TESTIFY? REALLY?


IN PART 2, WE WILL CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:


 ...And the Presiding Officer on the trial may rule on all questions of evidence including, but not limited to, questions of relevancy, materiality, and redundancy of evidence and incidental questions, which ruling shall stand as the judgment of the Senate, unless some member of the Senate shall ask that a formal vote be taken thereon, in which case it shall be submitted to the Senate for decision without debate; or he may at his option, in the first instance, submit any such question to a vote of the members of the Senate. Upon all such questions the vote shall be taken in accordance with the Standing Rules of the Senate. 

DONALD TRUMP IMPEACHMENT TRIAL: ABUSE OF POWER, AND BRIBERY.

AS THE TRIAL OF DONALD TRUMP GOES ON,
LET'S TAKE A LOOK  AT THE CHARGE OF:

ABUSE OF POWER.

COMMITTING, OR AIDING AND ABETTING , A
CRIMINAL ACT THROUGH AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY,
USING THE POWER AND/OR INFLUENCE THAT IS
ACQUIRED WHILE IN OFFICE.

THIS INCLUDES ACTS THAT ENRICH THE OFFICE
HOLDER, OR OTHER SPECIFIC INDIVIDUALS AND/OR
GROUPS, THAT CANNOT BE JUSTIFIED AS REASONABLE
AND RESPONSIBLE IN AN OFFICIAL CAPACITY.

To see how this played out with POTUS DONALD TRUMP,
CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

BRIBERY

IF THE EVIDENCE SHOWS THAT DONALD TRUMP
ATTEMPTED TO USE HIS POWER OF OFFICE TO BLOCK
FUNDS TO UKRAINE, UNLESS THEY AGREED TO
INVESTIGATE THE BIDENS, HE IS GUILTY OF BRIBERY.

Bribery is defined by Black's Law Dictionary as the offering, giving, receiving, or soliciting of any item of value to influence the actions of an official, or other person, in charge of a public or legal duty.

THE OFFER: RELEASING THE FUNDS THAT HAD ALREADY BEEN ALLOCATED,
WHICH WOULD BE CONSIDERED AN ITEM OF VALUE. SINCE THIS WAS DIRECTED AT UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS, YOU HAVE INFLUENCE THE ACTIONS.

THE DEFENSE OF: "...THE FUNDS WERE RELEASED BEFORE THE DEADLINE." IS NONSENSE. HE IS GUILTY OF "...OFFERING... GIVING...OR SOLICITING," WHICH SHOWS INTENT. THE FACT THAT HE WAS EXPOSED BEFORE UKRAINIAN OFFICIALS COULD COMPLETE THE CONDITIONS TRUMP REQUIRED BEFORE THE FUNDS WERE RELEASED IS IRRELEVANT. 

ESQUIRE: Adam Schiff’s Brilliant Closing Remarks Nailed the Essential Problem With Donald Trump.

A PROUD MOMENT FOR SCHIFF, PELOSI, EVERY MEMBER OF THE PROSECUTION TEAM, AND ALL DEMOCRATS IN THE HOUSE. FINALLY, SOMEONE IN GOVERNMENT STOOD UP TO THIS VILE AND CONTEMPTIBLE FRAUD. 
DAVID MCDONALD, PUBLISHER, SEARCHINGFORREASON.NET

Adam Schiff's Closing Argument for Trump's Removal Was Simple: He Is Pathologically Self-Interested It's about time for us to dispense with the notion that most or even many United States senators genuinely think Donald Trump is innocent of the charges against him. Everyone knows the president tried to force the government of Ukraine to ratfuck his domestic political rival. Everyone knows he withheld official acts—a summit with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, then military aid appropriated by Congress to help in Ukraine's struggle against Russian aggression—in an attempt to extort them into smearing Joe Biden. In his quest for a 2020 sequel to The Emails (2016), Trump abused the powers of his office, subjugating the American national interest to his personal political interest and violating his oath of office. Read More

I