by Suzanne Hamner, Freedom OutPost:

On Thursday, Rashida Tlaib co-authored an op-ed with John Bonifaz that appeared in The Detroit Free Press titled: “Now is the time to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump”.

Congratulations to the 13^th congressional district of Michigan for the election of an articulate, intelligent, impartial representative to replace Democrat John Conyers.  Muslima Rashida Tlaib commands an extensive vocabulary the likes of which has not been seen in Washington, DC, in quite some time.  Just after being sworn in using the Satanic Quran, Tlaib, relating a story about her son declaring she won but bullies don’t, stated, “You’re right, they don’t.  And we’re gonna go in and impeach the motherf*****.”  Wow, what class!

On Thursday, Tlaib co-authored an op-ed with John Bonifaz that appeared in The Detroit Free Press titled: “Now is the time to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump”.  In reading this piece of false narrative, one can tell that Tlaib and her co-author has zero knowledge regarding the Constitution and what type of government it established.  In the first paragraph, Tlaib and Bonifaz called the united States a “democracy” – we are a republic.  But, this woman and her cohort continue on to blast Trump for violating the Constitution and attacking the rule of law, as well as the people, while she follows a pedophilic, thieving, abusive, barbarian and supports Sharia law that is antithetical to our Constitution.

Tlaib listed what she and Bonifaz identify as “high crimes and misdemeanors” allegedly committed by Trump that is deserving of impeachment. 

We already have overwhelming evidence that the president has committed impeachable offenses, including, just to name a few: obstructing justice; violating the emoluments clause; abusing the pardon power; directing or seeking to direct law enforcement to prosecute political adversaries for improper purposes; advocating illegal violence and undermining equal protection of the laws; ordering the cruel and unconstitutional imprisonment of children and their families at the southern border; and conspiring to illegally influence the 2016 election through a series of hush money payments.

Whether the president was directly involved in a conspiracy with the Russian government to interfere with the 2016 election remains the subject of Special Counsel Robert Mueller’s investigation. But we do not need to wait on the outcome of that criminal investigation before moving forward now with an inquiry in the U.S. House of Representatives on whether the president has committed impeachable “high crimes and misdemeanors” against the state: abuse of power and abuse of the public trust.

First of all, this sounds like part of the list of the 1,300 crimes committed by Barack Hussein Obama Soetoro Soebarkah.  Unfortunately, Tlaib and her accomplice did not cite specifics, only generalities.  But,  Brookings described the instances they determined laid the foundation for the charge of obstruction of justice.

Today, the authors argue, “President Trump faces the possibility of criminal liability for obstructing justice under three different theories.” The first is the obstruction of a proceeding such as congressional proceeding or a grand jury proceeding. The second is witness intimidation, and the third is conspiracy.

The clearest example of Trump possibly working to obstruct a proceeding is, obviously, his firing of FBI Director James Comey—an action Trump’s former strategist Steve Bannon called, “the biggest mistake maybe in modern political history.” Berke, Bookbinder and Eisen point out that while the president has the right to fire anyone who works for him, he cannot do so if it is “done for the corrupt purpose of obstructing an investigation.” The analogy they make is to the right of an employer to fire someone but not on the basis of their race, sex, or religion.

As for witness intimidation, the authors point to a long list of presidential tweets and statements ranging from his now familiar cry to end the “witch hunt,” to his attempts to discredit senior FBI officials, to his lawyer publicly speculating about pardons for his former colleagues, to revoking John Brennan’s security clearance because he led the “sham” Russian investigation. Witness tampering, according to the authors, “need not be explicit or overt. … Suggestive threatening, intimidating or persuasive statements are sufficient to support a case under Section 1512 (b).”

The third point the authors make has to do with corrupt intent—a phrase they admit is very vague. But here too, they cite a long list of Trump’s actions, including ordering Deputy Attorney General Rode Rosenstein to “…draft a memo on Comey’s conduct that the president would subsequently use as cover for Comey’s firing…” They go on to write that President Trump, “faces exposure under both the ‘offense clause’ and the ‘defraud clause’ of the conspiracy statute.”

This is quite a list, which seems to revolve totally around the firing of James Comey for failing to fully investigate the crimes of Hillary Clinton through deviating from standard FBI protocol and procedure when conducting an investigation.  While Steve Bannon may have called it “the biggest mistake may be in modern political history”, a mistake is far from obstruction of justice.  When it comes to the Mueller investigation, the entire basis for it was a phony, false dossier paid for by the Clinton campaign and the Democratic National Committee.  Moreover, it is an absolute travesty that anyone no longer working in government is allowed to maintain their security clearance.  As far as ordering Deputy AG Rod Rosenstein to draft a memo on Comey’s conduct to use as a cover for Comey’s firing, where is the solid proof, the “deadwood”, the unlawful action under the conspiracy code?  The letters from the Trump team to Rosenstein and Mueller document the offenses by Comey that are anything but conspiracy;  it is fact.  Moreover, with the propensity for Rosenstein and Comey to commit less than honest actions and statements, who would believe what either said over paper documents detailing Comey’s impropriety?

Again, Trump didn’t have to discredit senior FBI officials using tweets.  Those officials discredited themselves through their actions and tweets – Comey, McCabe, Strzok, and Page.

In evaluating Tlaib and Bonifaz’s claim that Trump has violated the emolument clause, one wonders if these two know the clause and what it means.

Article I, Section 9, last paragraph of the Constitution for the united States of America states, “No title of nobility shall be granted by the united States:  And no person holding any office of profit or trust under them, shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, prince or foreign state.”  This is the foreign emolument clause.  Article II, Section 1, paragraph before the presidential oath of office of the Constitution for the united States of America states, “The president shall, at stated times, receive for his services, a compensation, which shall neither be increased nor diminished during the period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that period any other emolument from the united States, or any of them.”  This is known as the domestic emolument clause.

There is some discussion regarding the definition of “emolument” in the English language and legal dictionaries from 1523 – 1806 as indicated by John Mikhail of the Georgetown University Law Center and the definition in Black Law’s Dictionary.  While Mikhail states that the definition of emolument – profit, advantage, gain, benefit, contains no reference to “office or employment”, the Constitution explains exactly what cannot be attained by an office holder or president when one substitutes the word “emolument” with the words “profit, advantage, gain, and/or benefit.”  So, in context, any person holding any office shall, without the consent of Congress, accept of any present, “profit, advantage, gain, and/or benefit,” office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any King, prince or foreign state.  When operating an international corporation, are we to understand that any office holder cannot benefit from the corporation?  As long as the office holder is not accepting any advantage from any foreign state, King or prince, there should be no problem here.

It wasn’t a problem when Hillary Clinton as Secretary of State benefitted from pay to play schemes using the Clinton Foundation during the Uranium One deal with Russia.  How is Sen. Harry Reid, in his railroad of the Bundy’s in order to establish a “solar panel farm” run by China to aid his son, not guilty of the foreign emolument clause?  The same thing goes for Sen. Mitch McConnell regarding his wife’s family’s Chinese shipping business?

As far as the domestic emolument clause goes, the same word substitution applies meaning the president cannot receive any other “profit, advantage, gain and/or benefit” in addition to the compensation established for the office from the united States or any other State.  So, where is Trump receiving any other profit, advantage, gain and/or benefit from the US or other States?

According to those who are accusing Trump of violating the emolument clause, any president or office holder who happens to own a  business, international or domestic, is required to relinquish that business in order to hold office and/or be president.  It doesn’t appear the Constitution would deny anyone holding office to close their legitimate business in order to serve the public.  But, Publius Huldah would be better to weigh in on that issue.  In my readings, I don’t see legitimacy to Tlaib and Bonifaz’s claims.

Read More @ FreedomOutPost.com