The key issue in the Donald Impeachment case is intention. This refers to the intention behind contacting the Ukraines to clarify information he had already received from Ukrainian police involving suspicious activity involving the Biddens. It had nothing to do with attacking political rivals. In any event, what is a political rival? As a former Vice President who swore an oath, Bidden is not a rival. Is Bidden's stated intent to "rival" the President? Arresting a drug dealer for possession of narcotics even though the dealer is a registered Democrat aspiring to be a candidate is not an abuse of power. Arresting a money launderer who hopes to launder through the Ukraine, is not an attack on a rival even if he is a candidate. It is doing your job. His job description as President sets out what authority he can exercise in the carriage of his duties and this involves using any means necessary to defend the nation's security and investigate all activity concerning the same as Bidden is not a current representative of the state. If he was a UN ambassadors on a UN mission in the Ukraine, then it would have satisfied protocol for former government employees. Mango girl His unilateral trip to the Ukraine did not satisfy several protocols as to the requirement to specify the declared purpose of the trip and the failure to clarify could be a criminal matter the Bidden's would have to answer in Court. If Obalma or Justice O ' Conner went to China and started making deals with Chinese leaders, the President could certainly make telephone inquiries with the Ukraines to find out if O'Connor is trying to...trying to...usurp his position and authority as President. Who defines himself as a rival of the President when he is not even a candidate? The nation owes Donald an apology. Truthfully, no offence has been committed as there is no ultra virus or unlawful act being committed by the President. His intention fits squarely within the Presidential mandate and job description set out in the Presidential Guide Book written by the U.S. Government in 1789. In other words, there is no case to answer. The impeachment charge must be withdrawn. The Ukraine did not get any from Bidden. There is no point swearing oaths during a trial when there is no offence. But if you do, the evidence of both sides is not in opposition. Secondly, the allegations involving obstruction of Congress cannot stand. When was he sent an order to comply or a caution involving contempt?

The key issue in the Donald Impeachment case is intention. This refers to the intention behind contacting the Ukraines to clarify information he had already received from Ukrainian police involving suspicious activity involving the Biddens. It had nothing to do with attacking political rivals. In any event, what is a political rival?   As a former Vice President who swore an oath, Bidden is not a rival. Is Bidden's stated intent to "rival" the President?   Arresting a drug dealer for possession of narcotics even though the dealer is a registered Democrat aspiring to be a candidate is not an abuse of power.  Arresting a money launderer who hopes to launder through the Ukraine, is not an attack on a rival even if he is a candidate.   It is doing your job.  His job description as President sets out what authority he can exercise in the carriage of his duties and this involves using any means necessary to defend the nation's security and investigate all activity concerning the same as Bidden is not a current representative of the state.    If he was a UN ambassadors on a UN mission in the Ukraine, then it would have satisfied protocol for former government employees. Mango girl  His unilateral trip to the Ukraine did not satisfy several protocols as to the requirement to specify the  declared purpose of the trip and the failure to clarify could be a criminal matter the Bidden's would have to answer in Court. If Obalma or Justice O ' Conner went to China and started making deals with Chinese leaders, the President could certainly make telephone inquiries with the Ukraines to find out if O'Connor is trying to...trying to...usurp his position and authority as President. Who defines himself as a rival of the President when he is not even a candidate? 
The nation owes Donald an apology.  Truthfully,  no offence has been committed as there is no ultra virus  or unlawful act being committed by the President.   His intention fits squarely within the Presidential mandate and job description set out in the Presidential Guide Book written by the U.S. Government in 1789. In other words, there is no case to answer.  The impeachment charge must be withdrawn.  The Ukraine did not get any from Bidden.   There is no point swearing oaths during a trial when there is no offence.  But if you do, the evidence of both sides is not in opposition.

Secondly,  the allegations involving obstruction of Congress cannot stand. When was he sent an order to comply or a caution involving contempt?  

Comments

Popular Posts

THE DAILY TELEGRAPH & FLEET STREET FINANCIAL DISPATCH LONDON — SEPTEMBER 2025 — SPECIAL ECONOMIC INVESTIGATION THE ARCHITECTURE OF GLOBAL CAPITALISM AND THE MECHANICS OF UNIVERSAL DEMAND An Analytical Examination of the Post-War Industrial Order, the Fallacy of Unfettered Laissez-Faire, Mechanisation, and the State-Guaranteed System of Participatory Remuneration BY OUR SPECIAL ECONOMIC CORRESPONDENT IN FLEET STREET, Warren A. Lyon with Cheuy Leon Stephen Lam Tom. LONDON — In the tenth year following the cessation of European hostilities in 1955, as the Western world navigates the transition from wartime economic controls to the mid-century industrial consensus, thoughtful observers in Fleet Street, Westminster, and the City must confront a fundamental problem of political economy. The modern capitalist apparatus—stretching across the United Kingdom, the Commonwealth, North America, and Western Europe—operates upon a single, immutable law: the imperative equilibrium between Supply and Demand. Yet, despite the vast expansion of mechanized production, factory automation, and electronic computation, our financial architectures continue to suffer from a crippling structural defect: the systemic failure to guarantee requisite consumer purchasing power (ability to pay/ATP) across the whole of the populace. I. THE LESSONS OF THE POST-WAR CONSCIOUSNESS: SUPPLY, DEMAND, AND THE ELECTRIC CIRCUIT To comprehend the crisis of modern industrial organization, one must discard the antiquated Victorian dogma that human existence is defined solely by manual toil. Under the classical doctrine of laissez-faire, labour was treated as an elastic commodity, hired when factories required muscle and cast aside into poverty when machines replaced handiwork. In an age dominated by automatic machinery, conveyor systems, and early electronic computing, such a doctrine is not merely obsolete; it is actively destructive to the civic health of the realm. Consider the macro-economic structure as an electrical power grid carrying a constant current of thirty amperes. Under a rational and balanced order, this current is bifurcated equally along two parallel conductors: fifteen amperes are directed to energise the lamp of Industrial Supply (the manufacturing apparatus, capital investment, and technological innovation), while the remaining fifteen amperes flow uninterrupted to power the lamp of Demand—the Ability to Pay vested within the consumer public. In an unregulated laissez-faire system, however, an artificial blockage is introduced along the conductor powering Consumer Demand. It acts as a deliberate obstruction—resembling a corkscrew jammed into the brass fittings of a ship's engine room. The electrical energy, unable to reach the lamp of Demand, encounters extreme resistance; heat builds rapidly within the circuit, insulation scorches, and the entire socio-economic edifice is threatened with catastrophic conflagration. Energy in an economic system, like energy in physics, is never destroyed; if it is denied its proper outlet in legitimate consumer spending, it manifests as market collapse, civil unrest, shoplifting, and social decay. Click here.