Impeachment: Call to order!

[ChiefIllini1]

As Sergeant at Arms of the ILLINOISMatmen House, I have been asked by the Speaker to conduct a Roll Call of votes on the issue of the Articles of Impeachment in the matter of ILLINOISMatmen House of Representatives versus President Donald J. Trump.

All those in favor of Impeachment signify by "Aye," all those opposed, say "Nay."

[ChiefIllini1]

.
"As the Representative from the City of Myrtle Beach, I ask for a Point of Order, Speaker. It is my opinion that this was an outcome we should all have expected. Since we were little, sitting in front of our TVs on Saturday mornings, play-fighting with our siblings, or holding our favorite stuffed animal, we have been taught one over-arching lesson, to wit:

.

.


With that, the right honorable Gentleman from Myrtle Beach votes, 'AYE!'"
.

[MAL]

Can we read the articles of impeachment first?

I don't think Nancy is trying to speed up the impeachment process. I think she is trying to control it.

[ChiefIllini1]

A duly-elected member of the ILLINOISMatmen Parliament has requested a reading of the Articles of Impeachment. Ergo, we shall read the Articles of Impeachment:

Article One: EMBEZZLEMENT/CHARITY FRAUD.

At this time, the State of New York is proceeding with a civil case against Trump and his family for his many charity frauds. This doesn’t mean it cannot become a criminal case in the future. Moreover, it certainly doesn’t mean it cannot be part of impeachment proceedings.

Marc S. Owens, a former head of the IRS’s nonprofit division, called the suit “an extraordinary catalogue of how not to run a private foundation. There’s little else [Trump] could have done that would have made it worse.”

It is most likely that all of these crimes occurred before Trump assumed office. Does the High Crimes and Misdemeanors Clause of the Constitution allow for offenses committed prior to federal political or judicial office? The answer is yes.
New York would charge these crimes under their embezzlement/larceny statute, which requires the Government to prove the following elements per Section 155.05 of the New York Penal Law:

1. A person steals property and commits larceny when, with intent to deprive another of property or to appropriate the same to himself ... he wrongfully takes ... such property from an owner thereof.

2. Larceny includes a wrongful taking, obtaining or withholding of another's property, with the intent prescribed in subdivision one of this section, committed in any of the following ways:

(a) By conduct heretofore defined or known as ... embezzlement….

There would be a number of counts in the embezzlement from a Charity article of impeachment. One of the counts would involve Trump embezzling $100,000.00 from his Charity to settle a private lawsuit involving a fifty-foot-tall flagpole at Mar-a-Lago. This is one of those High Crimes and Misdemeanors that is already proved beyond a reasonable doubt, as Trump wrote out and then initialed his own confession:

The “Allen W” referenced in Trump’s handwriting is Allen H. Weisselberg, the Trump Organization’s CFO for many years. He also cut many of the checks for the Trump Foundation. What kind of Monster steals from Charity?

The reading of the Articles of Impeachment will continue … later.

[ChiefIllini1]

Article Two: BRIBERY.

The Government must prove these elements of Bribery pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 666, although reasonable inferences can be drawn:

Whoever corruptly gives anything of value to any person, with intent to influence or reward an agent of an organization in connection with any business, transaction, or series of transactions of such organization, government, or agency involving anything of value of $5,000 or more.

A spokeswoman for Florida Attorney General Pam Bondi told the media that their office was reviewing the Trump University matter and deciding whether or not to pursue a criminal case. Six days later, Trump’s charity donated $25,000.00 to a political action committee formed to obtain donations for Bondi’s reelection.

Bondi did not pursue criminal charges against Trump University.

The reasonable inference here is that Trump corruptly intended to influence the prosecutorial discretion of the Florida Attorney General. If there is a record of one communication between Trump and Bondi or Trump and the Bondi PAC during those six days (or shortly thereafter), the crime is basically proven.

Moreover, this is a two-fer! The president of your country used a check from his charity to pay off Bondi. Yes, he stole from his charity to bribe a politician! It's insane, but true, my friends. Here's the check:

The reading of the Articles of Impeachment will continue ...

[MAL]

I would like to call for a recess so I can review the documents and take a dump.

[MAL]

All of the document appear to be in order and indisputable. That gives us only one option...we must follow the precedent set by a previous congress and the honorable land swindler from the great state of Arizona (Harry Reed).

I, the honorable gentleman from the great estate of Kaczynski (in the woods) will vote nay on impeachment. Why doesn't anybody ever put toilet paper back on the holder? (((fawhooshhhhh)))

[ChiefIllini1]

Article Three: VIOLATIONS OF CAMPAIGN FINANCE LAWS.

The Bipartisan Campaign Reform Act (BCRA) is quite clear that an individual cannot donate more than $2,700.00 to a candidate for federal office during an election cycle, and that corporations cannot donate to an individual candidate for federal office. There are two felony counts that can be proved beyond a reasonable doubt based upon public information.

Stanford Law Professor and former Federal prosecutor David Sklansky takes over from here:

The charges relate to secret payments Cohen facilitated to two women during the presidential election campaign in 2016, to keep them from disclosing their affairs with Donald Trump.... The payment to Karen McDougal came from the National Enquirer, with Cohen’s encouragement and assistance. Cohen paid Clifford himself, and then got disguised reimbursements from the Trump Organization.

In effect, the payments to Stephanie Clifford and Karen McDougal were contributions to Donald Trump’s campaign: they were hush money designed to help Donald Trump get elected. And that violated campaign finance laws, because corporations aren’t allowed to contribute directly to presidential campaigns, and individuals can’t contribute more than $2,700.

These violations can be established beyond a reasonable doubt because we can show the payments made and received, we have the testimony of some of the individuals involved, and, most importantly, the taped admissions from Donald Trump.

[ChiefIllini1]

Originally Posted by MAL

All of the document appear to be in order and indisputable. That gives us only one option...we must follow the precedent set by a previous congress and the honorable land swindler from the great state of Arizona (Harry Reed).

I, the honorable gentleman from the estate of Kaczynski (in the woods) will vote nay on impeachment. Why doesn't anybody ever put toilet paper back on the holder? (((fawhooshhhhh)))

The Right Honorable Member of Parliament from The Woods is encouraged to read all of the Articles of Impeachment before voting. (Unlike that long list of Republican Senators who, by the end of the day, still had not read the 9 pages of the Whistleblower Complaint).

Unfortunately, because the corruption is almost inexhaustible and my time is limited, the Articles will probably not be completed for a couple of weeks.

[MAL]

Originally Posted by ChiefIllini1

The Right Honorable Member of Parliament from The Woods is encouraged to read all of the Articles of Impeachment before voting. (Unlike that long list of Republican Senators who, by the end of the day, still had not read the 9 pages of the Whistleblower Complaint).

Unfortunately, because the corruption is almost inexhaustible and my time is limited, the Articles will probably not be completed for a couple of weeks.

I was going to wait, but I saw that you already voted, so I said what the hell.

Can I call a point of orderves...Nadlers committee had a bucket Of KFC the other day...can we have chicken?

It has come to my attention that the whistleblower had no first hand knowledge of the events that he testified about. It has been argued by some that hearsay does not qualify a witness for whistleblower status.

Adam Schiff had the Whistle blower report since August...he wouldn't let me see it, but I found it. He had in the center fold of his November 1972 playboy...right between...uh...well...it was there.

This whistleblower story only has About a week till it fizzles out. Then they open the drawer and find out what else Shiff is sitting on waiting for the right time to release.