A sad day -- due to Congress's abuse of power

During the impeachment speeches just before the vote in the House, Democrats, led by Speaker Nancy Pelosi, kept making the same talking points, that it was a "sad day for America."

Dressed in black as if at a funeral, they all tried to appear so solemn. More hypocrisy. Those same Democrats have been trying to use any excuse to remove Trump from office since the day he was elected. Adam Schiff lied for three years that he had evidence that Trump colluded with Russians to affect the 2016 election. Al Green, Maxine Waters, the Squad and a slew of Democrats refused to accept Trump as president.

Pelosi stated several months ago that impeachment would only go forward if 1) there was overwhelming evidence of illegal activity by Trump, and 2) if there was bipartisan support for impeachment.

Democrats passed two articles of impeachment without any Republicans voting for it. None. Zero. And four Democrats voted no or present. Four Democrats defected.

Democrats in the House did not achieve either of Pelosi's requirements, but she still impeached Trump anyway. Nancy lied.

TRENDING: Bloomberg camp rocked as complaint lists Mike's shockingly racist and sexist remarks

A sad day for America? Maybe, but Democrats are rejoicing.

Now, what will the Senate do?

It is obvious that the Senate will not remove Trump from office. Democrats will be lucky to get all 45 Democratic senators to vote to remove Trump when they need 67 to do so. And no Republicans will vote to remove Trump (except maybe Mitt Romney).

Pelosi is already complaining that impeachment will not get a fair hearing in the Senate.

Impeachment get a fair hearing? How about the accused getting a fair hearing? Did Democrats provide a fair hearing for Trump in the House? Did they use due process? No, of course not.

What is Pelosi implying? The Senate is the jury, not the judge. Chief Justice John Roberts will preside over a trial in the Senate. So is Nancy saying that Roberts will be partisan or biased, as Schiff and Nadler were in the House? Is she saying that Roberts will not administer a fair proceeding?

Or is the real problem that Roberts will enforce due process as stated in the Constitution, which Schiff and Nadler ignored? Will Roberts allow the Trump lawyer to call witnesses the Democrats in the House refused to allow (i.e. the whistleblower, Schiff staff, Hunter Biden)? Will Roberts exclude hearsay evidence and only allow direct witnesses and evidence? Democrats only produced two direct witnesses out of the 17 that they had testify. And neither of them could verify any illegal actions by Trump.

Schumer and Pelosi now claim that they need additional witnesses to make their case.

Once again, they must think that we the people have Schiff for brains. If Democrats did not have enough witnesses in the House to make their case, then how did they vote to impeach Trump?

On that same day of the House impeachment vote, Inspector General Michael Horowitz was testifying to senators about his investigation of the FBI. Horowitz stated that the amount of errors (17) in the FISA requests goes beyond gross incompetence. A case can be made that something other than incompetence was at work.

Did Obama know about this investigation of Trump by the FBI? Horowitz testified that Obama's staff certainly knew but that he was unable to question Obama personally, and none of the staff would answer if they informed Obama.

Horowitz also stated that he could not rule out political bias affecting the FBI. He stated that Comey signed off on the requests. Comey refused to indict Clinton for destruction of evidence and allowed his staff to change "gross negligence" to "gross carelessness." The buck stopped with Comey – and Clinton/Democrats benefited from his actions.

So how will testimony by Horowitz to the Senate affect Republican senators for the impeachment trial?

Also, the Supreme Court stated that Trump did not have to comply with demands of Congress unless the courts said that he did because POTUS is an equal branch to Congress and not subservient to it. So what is the case for obstruction of Congress? There is none since Democrats never requested a ruling from SCOTUS about their requests of Trump.

As Jonathan Turley testified, this impeachment is an abuse of congressional power. As Fiona Hill testified, the winner from this impeachment is Vladimir Putin as this impeachment divides Americans. Is that what Democrats want? A divided USA?

Since Schiff started his impeachment drive as soon as Trump was elected, and especially since he lied for three years that he had evidence that Trump colluded with Russians to affect the 2016 election, something other than Trump actions is driving this impeachment. What is it?

Was it a sad day for Americans? Yes, Democrats were not trying to protect the Constitution. They were using that as an excuse to justify their abuse of congressional power and as one more way to divide Americans. Add it to their list of class warfare, gender warfare, religious warfare and race warfare. Yes, Putin is the winner.