Impeachment Truth

Impeachment be damned, Trump judicial appointees roar on at record pace

Rod Thomson

“It is up to us to reclaim our heritage of equal and impartial justice. It is up to us to re-dedicate ourselves to the traditions and wisdom of our Founders.”

— President Donald J. Trump at the swearing in ceremony of Brett Kavanaugh

While eyes are glued to the “historic” Congressional impeachment poppycock that will be relegated to footnote status a nanosecond after the Senate votes, real and lasting work by President Trump and the Republican Senate continues to get done.

What was somewhat missed in Trump’s wildly successful last few weeks — a new North American trade agreement, stunning employment numbers, a full budget, and an interim China trade deal — was that the number of approved federal judges is just racing forward.

This is incredibly important and the media just isn’t interested. But the reality is that as great as a strong economy and fair trade agreements are, the longest lasting effect of any President is in the courts. Economies go up and down and policies change with administrations, but judges are forever (well, in figurative political terms.)

Over a 10-day period at the beginning of December, the Senate confirmed eight more district court judges to the bench and two more judges to the notorious U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. Steadily, the Ninth Circuit is becoming less radical and threatening to American liberties. And that is true for the entire federal judiciary.

Trump has already appointed more judges to the federal court in less than three years than President Obama did in his first full term, including flipping the United States Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit from a majority appointed by Democrats to a majority appointed by Republicans. Further, Trump and the Republican Senate are about to flip, this month, the Second and Eleventh Circuits from Democrat-appointed majorities to Republican. 

And finally, on the impact side of this, the average age of circuit judges appointed by Trump is less than 50 years old, which is a decade younger than the average age of Obama’s circuit judge appointments, meaning they are likely to stay on the courts much longer.

It’s not just the quantity of judges, but the quality of judges.

Jonathan Adler at Reason wrote, “Contrary to common characterizations in the press and punditocracy, President Trump’s nominees have, on the whole, been quite impressive and highly qualified. While there are some notable exceptions, the qualifications of Trump’s judicial nominees compare favorably with those of his predecessors.”

Through 2018, the Congressional Research Service revealed that a higher percentage of judges nominated by President Trump received “Well Qualified” ratings from the American Bar Association than any modern President except for George W. Bush. That trend has continued into 2019. So for the first three years of Trump appointments, judicial nominees rated “well qualified” are running at a higher percentage than Obama’s — and that’s with an increasingly partisan ABA doing the rating.

Of course, these facts will virtually never be reported in the mainstream media. But they are important for the quality of the decisions that will be coming for decades. Senate Judiciary Chairman Lindsey Graham gets it.

“As Chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, I will continue to push through highly qualified, conservative judges at all levels of the federal courts,” Graham said. “These conservative judicial appointments will impact our nation for years to come.”

Decades. Even generations. All as the impeachment disappears in a political blink.

Rod Thomson is an author, past Salem radio host, ABC TV commentator, former journalist and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. 

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS

Impeachment Truth

The Constitutional Remedy To A Bad Impeachment

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

Current events always bring about the most powerful teaching moments.  Today’s question can be generally formed as: 

“What is the remedy when articles of impeachment are established that do not comply with the terms of the Constitution?”  

The Constitution lays out very specific terms for impeachment in Article 2 section 4 of the Constitution.  According to the Constitution impeachment can only be brought for four specific crimes: Bribery, Treason, High Crimes, or Misdemeanors.  Any article of impeachment that is outside those four crimes is completely unconstitutional. So what can the people do, Constitutionally, when articles of impeachment are brought by the House outside those four authorized terms?

Those who ratified our Constitution knew that those in government would always be tempted, for reasons they would attempt to justify, to try to work outside the boundaries of the Constitution.  James Madison, “Father of the Constitution” and our fourth President even called our Constitution a “parchment barrier,” knowing that the document itself would have no force to keep the politically ambitious within the Constitution’s limited and defined boundaries.  It was always considered, and will always be the duty of the citizens to control those they place in government.

Understanding the constitutional solution to this political problem requires understanding that the structure of government created by the Constitution is not the structure of government we currently have operating outside the Constitution.  When those holding the trust of public office leave behind the standard of the Constitution, the people have a duty to correct their course. When the power to impeach is exercised to satisfy political lusts rather than comply with Constitutional standards, what is the solution that exists within the established constitutional framework?

The first thing we must remind ourselves is, the people didn’t elect the president.  The office of the president was not created to be a representative of the people; the president was created to be an ambassador for the States in foreign affairs.  For that reason, the States elect the president through the electoral college. This is not a bad thing. As a matter of fact, the electoral college was established for specific reasons; first and foremost to protect the liberty and authority of the people.  (If this principle seems strange to you, please read what those who drafted the Constitution said about the Electoral College:

With that first principle in mind, here is the solution to the question: what is the check and balance upon unconstitutional articles of impeachment:

1.  Because the president is a representative of the States, elected by the States, an improper impeachment is a disenfranchisement of the States.

2.  Since it is the States’ vote that is being overturned, the remedy exists in the States.  It is the obligation of every State Governor and Legislator to bring a lawsuit against the enforcement of the articles of impeachment and the members of Congress violating the specific terms of impeachment.

3.  Because the purpose of the Senate is to represent the States in federal government, it is also imperative that those Senators representing States who chose the President, absent proper ground for impeachment, must not only oppose the House articles of impeachment, they must vote against conviction.  

As a final note if truth, the Senators are representatives of their State as a whole, not the people of their State and not themselves.  So if the State selected the president and if true grounds for impeachment are absent, a Senator MUST oppose the impeachment regardless of personal opinions and the opinions of a portion of the people of the State.

The designers of our Constitution crafted that document to be simply written so that the average person in 1788 could read and understand how their government was required to operate.  The designed the solutions to be simply but necessarily applied by the people.  

“If the federal government should overpass the just bounds of its authority and make a tyrannical use of its powers, the people, whose creature it is, must appeal to the standard they have formed, and take such measures to redress the injury done to the Constitution as the exigency may suggest and prudence justify.” Federalist #33

However, because the American education system no longer teaches the essential principles driving the proper application of our Constitution, the remedies often evade our view and the people slip into overwhelming frustrations due to a perceived lack of options.  As Thomas Jefferson remarked in a letter to Charles Yancy in 1816: 

“…if a nation expects to be ignorant & free, in a state of civilization, it expects what never was & never will be. The functionaries of every government have propensities to command at will the liberty & property of their constituents. there is no safe deposit for these but with the people themselves; nor can they be safe with them without information.”

Those who designed and ratified our Constitution gave us very powerful options, we simply need to apply those options to make the necessary course corrections.  Application must begin with proper education. With this understanding, now we can demand our Governors and State Legislators exercise their duty in authority to be a necessary check and balance upon an unauthorized and unconstitutional behavior of those in the federal government.

KrisAnne Hall is a former biochemist, Russian linguist for the US Army, and former prosecutor for the State of Florida. KrisAnne also practiced First Amendment Law for a prominent Florida non-profit Law firm. KrisAnne now travels the country teaching the foundational principles of Liberty and our Constitutional Republic. KrisAnne is the author of 6 books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, she also has an internationally popular radio and television show and her books and classes have been featured on C-SPAN TV. KrisAnne can be found at

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS

Impeachment Truth

Impeachment Implosion: Wave Of Polls Show Swing Toward Trump

Rod Thomson

It appears that Nancy Pelosi’s initial political instincts were right: Impeaching President Trump over a phone call would be bad politics. And now with the hearings held and the two milquetoast articles of impeachment on the table, which do not even mention a Constitutionally requisite crime, it may be worse than she thought.

It’s so sudden that we are seeing about a dozen House Democrats in Trump-won districts publicly stating they would prefer censure over impeachment. They will likely be strong-armed into voting for impeachment, but we can only imagine what their internal district polling must look like.

FiveThirtyEight has created a running poll aggregator that pulls in every poll that asks some version of a yes/no question on the Trump impeachment. It’s like the RealClear Politics list of polls, but it uses a lot more polls and created a formula for aggregating them them all together. In this respect, it gives the broadest view and maybe most importantly, the trendline.

And that trendline ain’t good for Democrats.

At the beginning of the hearings last week, the FiveThirtyEight poll aggregator had Americans favoring the impeachment of Trump by 5.3 percent support. (That included polls both in impeaching and impeaching and removing.) But as of today, that gap has shrunk to 1.7 percent supporting impeachment.

The RCP composite poll on impeachment shows the same shift. It went from Americans favoring it by a 3.2 percent margin at the beginning of the hearings all the way down to Americans being dead even right now. 

That’s a huge move considering both FiveThirtyEight and RCP are still pulling in those polls that were higher earlier. This aggregator is showing what the Quinnipiac and Monmouth polls showed this week — that the impeachment hearings are doing the opposite of making the case for Democrats’ impeachment claims.

Both Quinnipiac and Monmouth showed moves of up to seven points against impeachment, and gigantic swings among independent voters.

And on the bottom line — because this is all political — Firehouse Strategies released their new quarterly battleground polling results this week and found Trump surging in the battleground states of Pennsylvania, Michigan and Wisconsin — which likely mirror what Democrats are seeing in districts won by Trump.

The shift is interesting in its timing. One would suppose that once the Democrats got to make their case, with just their witnesses, in the chamber where they have a majority, that the polls would swing toward impeachment — at least until the Senate held the “trial” phase and many different witnesses were brought in.

But it was actually during this time that the polls shifted against impeachment. One possible explanation is that when Americans were only getting information filtered and fitted by the Democrat Media Establishment, they were more in favor of impeachment. When the media could not spin it for those Americans watching, the polls shifted.

Whatever the reason, impeachment was a gigantic miscalculation by Democrats, one they may pay for in November.

Rod Thomson is an author, past Salem radio host, ABC TV commentator, former journalist and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. 

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS

Impeachment Truth

A Prosecutor’s Very Simple Legal Guide For Impeachment

By KrisAnne Hall, JD

The deceivers in Congress and the media want you to believe that the Constitution is “vague” on House procedures for bringing articles of impeachment.  That is only because they want to evade the Constitution and have the authority to act arbitrarily to deny their obligations to the Constitution and due process.  Understanding how the House is supposed to proceed in the filing of impeachment is really not that complicated, the deceivers just want you to think it is.  

So, as briefly and plainly as possible, here is how it is supposed to work.

The easiest way to logically understand the proper procedure for the House to file Articles of Impeachment is if we work it backwards.

1.  We know from those who ratified the Constitution, our most relevant source, that the Senate is the “court” that will “try” the impeachment.  (Read Federalist 65 and

2.  We know from Article 2 Section 4 of the Constitution (the Supreme Law of the Land) that impeachment is valid for the crimes of Treason, Bribery, High Crimes and Misdemeanors.

A.  Article 1 Section 3 Clause 7 of the Constitution states that after impeachment the convicted can no longer hold public office can be tried in a criminal court for the same crime and held accountable under the law.

B.  All four of the grounds for impeachment are actually crimes, subject to the terms of criminal prosecution.  Alexander Hamilton discusses this in Federalist 65 when he explains why the Senate and not the Supreme Court is the proper body to try impeachments:

“Who would be willing to stake his life and his estate upon the verdict of a jury, acting under the auspices of Judges, who had predetermined his guilt?”

Hamilton says since the accused can be tried in a criminal court for the same crimes that brought about impeachment, it would be inappropriate for the Supreme Court to handle impeachment and also have the possibility of having the criminal case come before them as well.  With that being said, the Chief Justice of the Supreme Court will still preside over the impeachment trial to ensure the proper rules of due process are followed by the Senate. (See Federalist 65)

3.  In Federalist 65, Hamilton calls the Senate the court and speaks of the proceeding as a trial and even indicates that the same process will be followed by the lower courts when trying the accused outside of impeachment.  Hamilton even explicitly states that the proper conduct for the Senate is to judge the accused by the “real demonstration of guilt or innocence,” once again using the legal vernacular appropriate of a true trial of justice.

4.  Since the accused (president, vice president, or any civil officer) will be having a legitimate trial in the Senate, with all due process considerations of a court of justice, it will only be fitting to describe the role of the House as the “prosecutor” who reviews the allegations and the evidence and has the responsibility of filing the charges against the accused.

A prosecutor (I know, I was one for nearly a decade) does not file every allegation that comes along.  A prosecutor does not even file a case against every person “believed” to be guilty of a crime. The belief of guilt is irrelevant in the criminal justice system.  The only thing that matters in a true court of justice, is what can be proven “beyond a reasonable doubt” in the framework of the statutory crime, the evidence admissible, and the rules of due process.

5.  Since the Senate is the trial phase and the House is the filing stage, the House procedure for filing impeachment will logically be the same as that of a prosecutor.  

A.  The House members must look at the allegations.  They must then look at that law and determine if the allegations fit the law.  The Constitution establishes the law and that impeachment can only be brought for Treason, Bribery, High Crimes, or Misdemeanors.  If the allegations do not fit into one of those four categories, then the House, just like any good prosecutor, must refuse to file impeachment.  If you are confused by the current assertion that the Constitution permits the House to bring impeachment for “political” reasons, please read this article to help you understand why that reasoning is false.

B.  If the allegations fit into one of the four categories of impeachable crimes, then the House members must review the evidence and determine 1) if the evidence is admissible 2) if the admissible evidence satisfies the elements of the crime, and 3) if the relevant evidence is sufficient to prove guilt.  If the answer to any of these questions is “no” then the House must refuse to file impeachment. If the answer to all these questions is “yes” then the House must file impeachment and put together the case for trial in the Senate.

That’s it.  

That is the procedure for the House of Representatives for bringing articles of impeachment according to the intent of the founders and the Constitution.  Perhaps it seems very simple to me because this is the process I engaged in every day of my life for nearly a decade. I was even blessed enough to train new prosecutors in this process.  

The presence of due process in America is such a precious jewel and, as not only a prosecutor, but one who trained future prosecutors, my philosophy was never “win at all costs” but to consider the lives of the people, both victims and accused, stay within the lanes of the law, and above all preserve the Rights of the people involved so that the system doesn’t become a tool for vengeance and destruction.  

Our House members should hold the procedure of impeachment with the same reverence and respect.  The fact that every civil officer in our Constitutional Republic can only be impeached from office through the respect of law and due process is priceless and ought to be seen as invaluable.  It is truly one of the things that separates our Constitutional Republic from an arbitrary and lawless Banana Republic.

The thing I find interesting is that many of these House members are lawyers and many of the lawyers have trial court experience.  For these people to claim that they are “confused” as to this procedure seems very disingenuous and self-serving. If American prosecutors handled cases the way the House Judiciary Committee is handling this impeachment, their cases would be thrown out of court, they would likely be looking at sanctions from the BAR Association, and could even face their own criminal trial for the crime of “vindictive prosecution.”  

Perhaps one lesson our House members would do well to learn, the first lesson I taught all my prosecutors in training, we are “prosecutors” not “persecutors” and we must know the difference.   

It should be very important to every American that our House does not engage in vindictive prosecution and is diligent to the rights of due process.  What these people in high office are allowed to do to the president, or any other civil officer for that matter, will not only set a legal precedent but also a cultural one that will put the due process and fundamental rights of every American at peril.  

In the words of Hannah Winthrop, one of the founders of America: “How often do we see people blind to their own interests precipitately maddening on to their own destruction!”

KrisAnne Hall is a former biochemist, Russian linguist for the US Army, and former prosecutor for the State of Florida. KrisAnne also practiced First Amendment Law for a prominent Florida non-profit Law firm. KrisAnne now travels the country teaching the foundational principles of Liberty and our Constitutional Republic. KrisAnne is the author of 6 books on the Constitution and Bill of Rights, she also has an internationally popular radio and television show and her books and classes have been featured on C-SPAN TV. KrisAnne can be found at

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS

Democrats Impeachment Truth

Never-Ever-Trumper Unknowingly Explains Impeachment Is Over Weak Democrat Field

Rod Thomson

It makes so much more sense now. When Never-Ever-Ever Trumper, gay liberal Andrew Sullivan, thinks no one in the current Democrat field can beat President Trump in 2020, it’s easier to understand the impeachment furor over a phone call and the raw, unmasked media partisanship.

Sullivan’s New York Magazine take, which I largely agree with in the analysis, summarized:

• Biden has real strength in the Democratic Party, but his candidacy in a general election is “crippled.” Biden’s crowd size and enthusiasm levels are “anemic” and he looks “confused, addled, over-briefed, and clearly past his expiration date.” Agree. Plus he would have a corruption factor that would mitigate the made-up stuff on Trump.

• Elizabeth Warren is “unelectable” in November 2020. “She’s a supercilious, smug, know-it-all Massachusetts liberal who reveals contempt for the deplorables the way Clinton did last time. The ‘first woman of color’ to get hired as a professor at Harvard Law School is the stuff that GOP dreams are made of.” Further, Warren said on CNN townhall, that in her administration, her Secretary of Education essentially “would have to be approved by a transgender 9-year-old boy, she’s placing herself firmly inside a cultural revolution most Americans are deeply uncomfortable with.” Agree. She is way outside the mainstream, plus she’s not genuine — a sharp contrast to Trump.

• Bernie Sanders had a heart attack at 78. Democrats will not trust that he won’t again on the campaign trail. Plus, and this is no small thing in the general election, “he’s also an actual socialist, and he hasn’t entertained — let alone engaged with — a new idea in decades. That’s appealing to millennial Marxists who have no memory of the 1970s, but Jeremy Corbyn was also a superstar with the youngsters a while back.” Agree. He’ll fade.

• Kamala Harris is just unlikable for most Americans. “Harris has revealed herself as a feckless, authoritarian, lying opportunist who treats the Constitution as cavalierly as Trump, but without his excuse of total ignorance.” I continually fail to see where Trump has trampled on the Constitution, or even pushed it in any ways that previous presidents have not also — without a peep. It’s just said all the time. But on the analysis, agree.

• Corey Booker is laughable. He has no connection with even Democrat voters, let alone the rest of America. “…he comes off as an earnest cyborg from outer space.” Agree. Like Warren and Harris, he’s a “what do you want me to say” candidate trolling for votes. 

• Beto is despicable. Sullivan agrees. “O’Rourke is a woke, moronic bigot, who believes we live in a white-supremacist country, and would happily remove tax exemptions from most traditional churches, synagogues, and mosques, because they still believe in the literal teachings of the Bible or the Koran. Of all the candidates, he’s the only one I actively loathe.” Well what can be added to that? Agree.

• Andrew Yang and Pete Buttigieg are fresh, coherent, thoughtful — according to Sullivan — but Yang has zero chance and Buttigieg not much more. Neither would appear to have broad support in the country. Agree on the second part. The first, regarding Buttigieg, not at all.

And just because Sullivan’s writing is just so superb, and his analysis is spot-on from the TDS swamps, I’ll include his ending:

“Don’t get me wrong. I’ll vote for anyone, including Warren or Sanders or even the vacuous Beto to defeat Trump. We proud human scum will not be distracted from the central task at hand. But let’s be honest: This is a field that has largely wilted upon inspection. For what it’s worth, I suspect Warren will win the nomination and dutifully lose the election just like Mondale, Dukakis, Gore, Kerry, and the second Clinton. She has that quintessential perfume of smug, well-meaning, mediocre doom that Democrats simply cannot resist.”

Of course, he lays out a lot more problems with Warren than that conclusion. But when someone as insightful and desperate to defeat Trump is this gloomy on the Democrat options, you can bet that Democrat strategists are also, along with members of Congress.

Hence, they can’t wait 12 months for the American people to weigh in with actual democracy — which they laughably claim is under assault. Impeachment must happen, and it must be now. And the goal of impeachment is to either remove Trump or try to damage him to the degree that one of these bums could win. The authoritarian impulse Sullivan rightly identifies in Warren and Beto is endemic to the Democratic Party.

Rod Thomson is an author, past Salem radio host, ABC TV commentator, former journalist and is Founder of The Revolutionary Act. 

Drudge Got You Down? / Try WHATFINGER NEWS