First of all, impeachment is an outdated artifact of our wonderful legal system. When our Founding Fathers created the impeachment process there was no federal criminal code. Impeachment was intended to be a bi-partisan process, definitely not a partisan process. Impeachment as written and described by our FF is relatively vague, however specific enough to avoid the appearance of a no-confidence vote as in parliamentary England. Fast forward 275 years and today, as we have witnessed, 18th century impeachment is woefully insufficient to address and deal with the “modern problems” a modern President can incur.

Instead of impeaching President Trump, the House Democrats and Nancy Pelosi, Adam Schiff and Chuck Schumer (hereinafter referred to as PSS) should have filed a federal lawsuit against President Trump seeking the court’s ruling on whether or not Trump violated specific federal criminal codes while President: PSS has been accusing Trump of bribery and extortion, so PSS could seek the court’s ruling BUT THEY HAVE NOT DONE SO. In fact Pelosi has already stated she will not be filing a legal action against Trump. Well that’s too bad for the American people because that is exactly what needs to be done. Pelosi has mislead the American people by falsely claiming she refuses to sue Trump because it would take too long. Facts betray her claim.

Pelosi subpoenaed John Bolton’s staff member and his attorney subsequently filed for a legal clarification, which is asking the court a question: Is Plaintiff required by law to comply with the House subpoena or not? The federal judge in that case was days away from ruling BUT Nancy Pelosi withdrew the House subpoena. WHY did Pelosi withdraw the subpoena? I believe it is because Pelosi was afraid the court would rule against her and make her look bad…even impotent against Trump. Pelosi was probably informed by attorneys the court would rule against her because the U.S. Supreme Court has already ruled the House cannot enforce a subpoena because the House of Representatives is a legislative branch of government, not a judicial branch of government.

It is essential for the voter to understand these are the rules of the process and must be respected and accepted; otherwise, you end up with PSS pitching a bitch about how “unfair” the Senate trial is without witnesses or documents. PSS had ample opportunity to subpoena all the witnesses PSS wanted to subpoena. PSS charged Trump with obstruction of Congress (a made-up term) in direct response to President Trump exercising his rights as U.S. President. We don’t have to like it, but it is a President’s right to invoke Executive Privilege. PSS should have challenged Trump’s invocation of Executive Privilege since PSS insists Trump is guilty of some kind of wrongdoing in invoking Executive Privilege.

I define a fair trial as a trial where both partys follow the rules of the court or process. If the Democrats or Republicans violated the rules you can best believe Justice Roberts would enter the equation for sure. Fortunately, both sides are following the rules but not necessarily understanding those rules and how they apply to this antiquidated process.
I consider an unfair trial would be a trial whereupon one side would be in violation of the rules. It’s disingenuous for PSS to feign an unfair trial considering both partys have been following the rules. The problem with PSS is PSS doesn’t like the results of their opposing party exercising their legal rights within the rules of the court and the process.

Democrats have and still have an opportunity to indict President Trump for crimes committed while in office. The status quo loves to say you can’t indict a sitting President, but history and I say differently: President Nixon was criminally indicted but the world didn’t know it until 2018. America was actually lucky that Nixon resigned instead of the impeachment and legal process moving forward. Democrats could successfully sue Trump if Democrats would be willing to sue President Trump for a very specific offense, namely U.S.C. TITLE 18, SEC. 242, Deprivation of Rights under Color of Law. This federal criminal code proscribes any person acting under color of law from violating a person’s U.S. constitutional rights.

Federal judge blocks Trump order of indefinite detention of asylum seekers – July 3, 2019 Link >>>

A federal judge has halted a Trump Administration order that allowed for the indefinite detention of people who came to the U.S. to seek asylum, in a ruling that the White House said Wednesday was “at war with the rule of law.”

The nationwide injunction issued by Seattle District Judge Marsha Pechman put a hold Attorney General William Barr’s order from April that U.S. authorities would deny bond hearings to some migrants detained for being in the U.S. illegally, even if they had established a “credible fear” claim regarding conditions in their country of origin.

Prior to Barr’s order, an applicant who met that standard could remain in the U.S. and not be detained while the asylum application was pending.

“It is the finding of this Court that it is unconstitutional to deny these class members a bond hearing while they await a final determination of their asylum request,” Pechman wrote in her order. “The court finds that plaintiffs have established a constitutionally-protected interest in their liberty, a right to due process, which includes a hearing before a neutral decision maker to assess the necessity of their detention and a likelihood of success on the merits of that issue.”

The ruling said that the government must grant eligible asylum-seekers a bond hearing within seven days of their initial detention, and that if no hearing is held in that period, the detained migrant must be released.

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –
Federal judge won’t allow Trump to expand family detention – Sept. 27, 2019 Link >>>

A federal judge blocked a Trump administration regulation Friday that would allow families to be detained for lengthy periods of time.

Los Angeles-based U.S. District Judge Dolly Gee ruled that the regulation— set to take effect Oct. 22 — violated the terms of the so-called Flores settlement agreement, which currently governs the standards for the detention of migrant children. Under the terms of the agreement and subsequent court rulings, children cannot be detained with their parents for longer than 20 days.

Gee said the new Trump detention regulations would allow migrant children to be held “indefinitely.” As such, she said it runs afoul of the agreement’s requirement that children be placed in the least restrictive setting after being taken into custody.

In a 24-page order, Gee stressed that the 1997 consent decree was a contract between both parties and could not be superseded at the request of a single party.

“The blessing or the curse — depending on one’s vantage point — of a binding contract is its certitude,” Gee said in the order. “Defendants cannot simply ignore the dictates of the consent decree merely because they no longer agree with its approach as a matter of policy.“

The decision represents a legal setback for the Trump administration, albeit a predictable one. Gee, an appointee of former President Barack Obama, rejected another Trump administration attempt last year to alter the settlement agreement.

A Justice Department spokesperson said in a written statement that the department was “disappointed“ with the outcome.

“The Trump administration will continue to work to restore integrity to our immigration system and ensure the proper functioning of the duly enacted immigration laws,” he said.

Trump officials have argued the 20-day detention limit — applied to migrant families by Gee in 2015 — has encouraged Central American parents to trek north with their children. Border Patrol arrested a record number of migrant families in the spring, although traffic has subsided in recent months.

Peter Schey, a lead attorney representing plaintiffs in the lawsuit, said it was clear that the new Trump detention regulations would not fulfill the terms of the Flores agreement.

“President Trump would fire the whole team of lawyers at DHS if they came up with regulations that were consistent with the settlement,” Schey said. “He wants to detain children indefinitely.”

– – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – – –

Is Stephen Miller a Descendant of Asylum Seekers Who Fled Anti-Semitic Violence? Snopes finds YES: The White House senior advisor is the great-grandson of a Jewish immigrant who fled the poverty and pogroms of the Russian Empire in the early 1900s.