Political Pistachio
Northwest Territory – Territory owned by the United States west of Pennsylvania which included today’s States of Illinois, Indiana, Michigan, Ohio, Wisconsin, and a part of Minnesota. The Northwest Territory was a part of vast territories west of the Appalachian Mountains originally claimed by Massachusetts, Connecticut, New York, Virginia, North Carolina, South Carolina, and Georgia which were all tied to royal charters, except for New York’s claim. “Landless states,” led by Maryland, demanded that some States should not have the opportunity to be so vast in size, especially since land had been offered to some enlistees during the Revolutionary War as payment for their service, and the generosity of some States may not be dependable when it came to the fulfillment of these promises. An amendment to the Articles of Confederation, offered by Maryland, had not been accepted by the other States and Maryland, New Jersey and Delaware held out ratifying the document until the “western lands” issue had been resolved. The “landless states” called for the “landed states” to offer their western territories to the United States by cession. Ratification of the Articles of Confederation was also being urged by the French who were willing to offer military supplies, ships and soldiers once the Patriots completed their union through the ratification of the Articles. Thomas Jefferson, in particular, urged Virginia to create colonies out of its western lands, free and independent of its control. Virginia was also encouraged to cede the property to the United States since a reduction in size would also reduce its financial quota apportioned to it by Congress, which later in the Constitution became a form of income tax paid by the States to the federal government based on percentage of population as determined by a census. The “landed states” agreed to cede the land to the United States so that they may be divided into States during a future time as determined by Congress, with the northern portion of those western lands becoming known as the Northwest Territory. As a part of the agreement, New York, Massachusetts, and New Hampshire also relinquished their claims on the land known as Vermont. The information regarding these agreements partially come from, and are primarily available in, the motion found in the Journals of the Continental Congress, XVII, 808.
“Motion Regarding the Western Lands, [6 September] 1780,” Founders Online, National Archives, https://founders.archives.gov/documents/Madison/01-02-02-0051. [Original source: The Papers of James Madison, vol. 2, 20 March 1780 – 23 February 1781, ed. William T. Hutchinson and William M. E. Rachal. Chicago: The University of Chicago Press, 1962, pp. 72–78.]
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
I agree with Ronald Reagan; “Peace through Strength.”
I agree with George Washington; “We are persuaded that one of the most effectual means of preserving Peace, is to be prepared for War; and our attention shall be directed to the objects of common defence, and to the adoption of such plans as shall appear the most likely to prevent our dependence on other Countries for essential supplies.”
Be strong militarily, don’t be dependent upon any other country for your supplies.
Donald J. Trump, then, agrees with Reagan and Washington. He says if elected again he will “drill, drill, drill,” to produce domestic oil so that we are not dependent upon the rest of the world for that oil, and Trump has a strong national security strategy (yet, while he was President, with a strong national security strategy, started no new wars).
Everyone else, it seems, wants us at war. The Democrats want us at war in Ukraine, and Islam wants us at war in the Middle East. Iran is taunting the United States, striking at our units in Iraq, like a bully poking a kid in the chest in the schoolyard. “I dare ya,” yells the bully. “Go ahead, hit me. I’ll give you the first swing.”
The Biden administration’s Secretary of Defense, Lloyd J. Austin, gave a statement a couple days ago explaining why the United States carried out retaliatory strikes on Christmas Day on three facilities “used by Kataib Hezbollah and affiliated groups,” in Iran. The U.S. strikes in Iran followed a series of attacks that left three U.S. service members injured — one critically, in Iraq.
Austin described American military retaliation as “necessary and proportionate strikes” that were intended to “disrupt and degrade capabilities of the Iran-aligned militia groups directly responsible.”
“And let me be clear – the President and I will not hesitate to take necessary action to defend the United States, our troops, and our interests,” Austin wrote. “There is no higher priority. While we do not seek to escalate the conflict in the region, we are committed and fully prepared to take further necessary measures to protect our people and our facilities.”
The drawing in of the United States has begun. Hamas attacked Israel, our ally, so we have been on alert, and in full support of Israel, as we should. But, it was just a test to see how far we’d step our foot into the region. Now, we are being taunted; picked at. Islam, China, and international globalist progressives want nothing more than for the United States to be dragged into a conflict in the Middle East, and for the world to turn against us as they have Israel. And, if we strike Iran any harder, they will activate the terrorist cells in the United States that are largely here because of Biden and the Democrat’s open border policy. If we hit Iran like I think we will, soon, for Americans here in the United States the attacks by Hamas in southern Israel will look like child’s play. Hardcore Muslims and radical Democrats want nothing more than an excuse to go door to door and drag Christians and conservatives out of their homes and to slaughter them on their front lawn.
I am sure a few of you right now are telling yourselves, “Doug, you’re being a little dramatic.”
Am I?
In this video on Rumble a wokester calls for those who disagree with the transgender ideology to be stabbed.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Localism is defined as local government handling the local responsibilities and revenue through locally elected public officeholders. Localism is a principle foundational feature of what became The American System. Localism is a key component in the decentralization of authority, guarding against despotic control from more centralized governmental entities, and against restrictions or mandates that may attempt to be issued by higher levels of government. In the United States Constitution the Federal Government has been granted no powers over local issues, leaving the discretion over local issues to local governments. When localism is properly followed, communities historically tend to operate more smoothly, successfully, and with a membership that is more active in civic duties. Local government thrives when it operates individually with no threat of overreach by another governmental body perceived.
In today’s society controversy over issues like local law enforcement policies, local land development, internal improvement policies and activities, election manners and procedures, and school curricula agitate communities across the country. Some communities have voted to disallow Critical Race Theory in their schools, while others have elected to rename schools named for historic figures, or pull down statues and other historical markers that do not fit the narrative of the loudest protest group pounding their fists on governmental desks and daises demanding that they “get their way.”
Localism often includes democratic formats including ballot initiatives, petition drives, and townhall meetings. Issues that affect the electorate on all sides of the political aisle have spurned intense interest in local government, largely because in the modern political climate, voters realize that local politics can profoundly affect one’s immediate quality of life.
More important than individual local votes and cultural trends is a concept often forgotten, or ignored as an archaic and obscure aspect of American political culture. Localism has a crucial effect on the culture, and the other components of the American System, because politics resides downstream from the culture. Localism serves as a critical indicator regarding where the culture might reside on the scale as compared to The Laws of Nature and of Nature’s God (Rule of Law, as presented by the Declaration of Independence). In short, while we scream for our representatives to operate in favor of our political demands, the primary duty of officeholders, whether they be local, or members of other governmental bodies, is to serve the rule of law.
The rule of law is often interpreted in a manner that is tied to the culture, which is driven by local policies and tendencies. The whims of culture can have an incredibly powerful effect on the grand scheme of things. Officeholders begin their careers at the local level, trained by the local culture, and guided by local influences. If the culture has abandoned the rule of law as prescribed by virtuous ideals then the lack of ethical and upright standards will simply multiply as that official moves up through the levels of government.
A virtuous cultural foundation at the local level ensures a better opportunity for a virtuous government at higher levels. Corruption, deceit, and viciousness in our culture and local governmental offices leads to a corrupt, deceitful, and despotic government at the upper levels.
Localism is the foundation from which our entire culture and political system begins. A firm foundation provides a firm culture and government. A shaky foundation leaves all other parts of the American System at risk to collapse should the culture falter, and the government abandon the rule of law.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
In 2021 the war for America reached a whole new level. After more than a decade and a half of trying to convince voters that Tea Party conservatives, MAGA conservatives, and constitutionalists were anti-government extremists who are armed, dangerous, and violent, yet they were unable to produce a single example to support their accusations, events on January 6 fell into their lap…or did it?
The Democrats, and their allies that dot the left-of-the-Constitution political spectrum canvas, claim that January 6, 2021 was the scene of a “Capitol Riot” that was aimed at overturning the election, overthrowing the government, and killing people if necessary during a rebellious moment of insurrectionist activity that placed the entire country at risk. Chaos of a sort not seen since the War Between the States gripped America as anti-government conservative militia-minded insurrectionists descended upon Washington D.C., foaming at the mouth with angry bloodlust brought on by the inciteful words of an evil Donald J. Trump who was determined to overthrow the election and take his place as America’s first emperor in an established modern-day dictatorship. Shocked and surprised, the Capitol Police were overwhelmed, forced to fire tear gas into the crowd in a panicked moment of scrambling defense. The lawmakers huddled in their chambers, frightened and fearing death may be upon them as the violent crowd forced its way into the Capitol, violently destroying everything in sight as they broke windows and tried to force their way into the room to stop the counting of the electoral votes and forever change America with their insurrectionist hate and malice. Fear gripped America, and it soon became clear that everyone involved not only conspired to make the horrible day in history as violent as possible, each and every one of the rioters needed to be hunted down, arrested, and convicted for the heinous crimes against America as violent insurrectionists on a day that would be seen as the greatest attack against America since 9/11.
Except, not a word of the narrative turns out to be necessarily true. The whole thing was staged, orchestrated, and carried out better than a scene in a movie with paid actors. FBI informants and government agents interspersed throughout the crowd, along with members of Antifa, Black Lives Matter, and the Capitol Police who were also present and playing a role in the deception. They played their parts well, and an illusion was created to convince all of America that finally the right-wing, anti-government, conservative Republican domestic terrorists had committed the very thing the Democrats had been warning was coming for the last couple decades. Congress-critters cried crocodile tears claiming they thought for sure they were going to die. Broken glass covered the ground. A smoky haze momentarily hovered over the Capitol from the tear gas and flash-bangs that had been used. The velvet ropes were still in place, however, inside which confused Trump supporters walked through as if on a peaceful tour through the grounds. People wearing red prayed outside and inside as confusion spread across the grounds after the worst of it. Most people in the area thought it was nothing more than a rally, but some people who were not a part of the MAGA crowd got rowdy, and tried to convince them to get crazy, too. Not a single gun, nor other violent weapon, was confiscated or present during the whole thing, aside from those weapons in the hands of Antifa or the Capitol Police. America, however, saw the footage the media wanted them to see, and regardless of the truth, most were convinced a violent insurrection had just taken place.
People were arrested and jailed in inhumane conditions, and neighbors, friends and family were shocked that their elderly acquaintance or loved one was one of those violent and evil Trump Supporters. Because the whole thing was a violent insurrection according to the government, habeas corpus was suspended and people were arrested and jailed without the proper application of due process. Lives were destroyed, and families were torn, but that’s the way it had to be because these people, after all, were violent insurrectionists who planned, conspired, and carried out one of the worst violent events in the history of the United States.
People continue to believe that January 6, 2021 was a day that will live in infamy when the U.S. Constitution and a safe and secure election was nearly overturned by a bunch of violent supporters of a wannabe dictator by the name of Donald J. Trump.
Then, questions began to be asked; and the deception deepened.
Tucker Carlson showed video footage that told a different story, revealing that the Trump Supporters were peaceful, led into the Capitol by the Capitol Police, and that the violent ones were persons not a part of the Trump Rally. In fact, the early rowdy actors showed up before the rest of the crowd, and while they wore MAGA hats and flew American Flags, they acted outside the norm for Trump Supporters, and many of them had questionable connections that might be in line with the idea that they were plants, or working with the federal government.
Was it possible that the whole January 6 thing was an orchestrated charade to put out one image, when the reality was something else?
- 12:00 pm: Trump’s speech began.
- 1:00 pm: Outer barricades stormed by protesters.
- 1:10 pm: Trump’s speech ended according to Washington Post.
- 1:30 pm: Capitol Police overtaken at steps of Capitol.
- 1:41 pm: Arrival of first Trump speech attendees, which would be those who did not stop to use the restroom, grab a bite to eat, or go to their hotel first, but walked immediately to the Capitol at the pace suggested as the average time it takes according to Google Navigator. Understand, it likely took longer since so many people clogged the streets.
- 2:15 pm: Capitol building actually breached by protesters.
- 2:50-3:00 pm: Likely earliest arrival time of Trump supporters from the rally who heard Trump speak if they lingered, or grabbed a bite to eat, or went to their hotel rooms before proceeding towards Capitol. By then, the violence was ended, and most of the earlier crowd had been dispersed. My friend, Derek Kinnison, arrived at 2:45 pm, met with fellow MAGA folks on the west side of the Capitol, prayed with his three friends, shook a few hands, never stepped on any of the concrete areas, much less the steps of the Capitol, nor did he every confront any Capitol Police or any other local officer or official, and he was tried, and convicted, on all counts in his recent January 6 trial, with the news agencies carefully pointing out his connection to those allegedly violent Three Percenters.
Note: Oath Keepers and the Three Percenters have essentially been dismantled and done away with for being violent militia operations even though they never committed any violent crimes, never marched as violent militias, nor ever committed any of the insurrectionist activities they have been accused of. What did they do that was so unacceptable? They held meetings, prepared for the worse, and talked about their distrust of the current government power structure … you know, exercising rights enumerated in the First Amendment, a part of the Constitution that begins with words stating that Congress may make no law regarding.
The Capitol Police deceptively and falsely claimed they didn’t have the personnel available to contain such an out of control riotous crowd. Surveillance techniques were illegally used. False narratives were spread regarding deaths and violent confrontations at the Capitol on January 6. An undercover cop cut into the fencing to help set the stage for the insurrection hoax.
Congressional Democrats decided that they would make the investigation look as official and menacing as possible to make sure the Capitol Insurrectionists were made an example of so that nobody dared to question government or any election ever again. Lies were told, and star witnesses suddenly vanished. Groups like the Three Percenters and Oath Keepers were portrayed as violent militia organizations who were at the heart of planning the violent insurrection; however, evidence emerged showing otherwise. Oath Keepers, for example, were shown “shielding Capitol Police” to protect them. Meanwhile, unlawful surveillance techniques by the government regarding January 6 participants began to surface.
Then other interesting information began to emerge. Evidence suddenly appeared revealing that the federal government bused in Antifa agitators on January 6. We need to ask ourselves, “Why would they do that?”
Was it about doing anything they could to stop Trump, and silencing any opposition to their ongoing coup? And one must ask, was it not Trump’s duty as President, if indeed his job as President is to ensure all laws are faithfully executed (including election laws), to question the Election of 2020 if he believed there were irregularities that might have shown that the election laws were compromised?
People began to be targeted, arrested, for spreading information that didn’t conform to the Democrat Party’s official January 6 narrative. Then, in addition to the persecution of the Three Percenters and the Oath Keepers, Proud Boys leaders began to be jailed for their participation on January 6, again with no actual evidence they acted in a violent insurrectionist manner. The FBI even planted evidence to take down the Proud Boys.
Testimony began to reveal that the instigators were the Capitol Police, not the Trump Supporters, with Capitol Police in emerging video even showing Capitol Police personnel shoving elderly attendees who were simply there to be pushed. Concussion Grenades were thrown indiscriminately into the crowd, injuring people for no reason other than to make the scene look more violent than it was. Evidence that the witnesses on the leftwing side of the aisle were committing perjury began to be revealed. Meanwhile, the Democrats were using illegal means to hunt down the alleged Capitol Rioters, such as through bank records shared with the federal government by certain banks, and illegal surveillance tracking methods that hunted down people in the area that weren’t even at the Capitol that day,
Now, new evidence is surfacing, according to Congressman Clay Higgins, that two hundred undercover federal agents were mixed in the crowd, and their involvement was much deeper than originally realized. One case reveals they encouraged people in the crowd to, for example, create and throw Molotov Cocktails. According to an FBI Whistleblower the Deputy Director told subordinates to hide Jan. 6 informants. Thomas Massie caught Attorney General Merrick Garland perjuring himself before Congress over the question regarding how many FBI agents were embedded in the crowd on January 6. Whistleblowers are now emerging claiming the whole thing was not an insurrection, but a staged false flag. Then, there’s the whole mystery surrounding Ray Epps, why he wasn’t questioned or arrested further than he was, and the fact that the Congressional January 6 Panel failed to preserve the evidence they were provided for the January 6 Congressional Inquiry and Hearing.
Now, let’s throw one more explosive log on the fire that will blow things up even more, and this is an exclusive piece of information being presented by the Political Pistachio/Mr. Constitution network of conservative news and commentary…
When I was a young man I used to play a lot of pick-up basketball. When you through body movements or the direction of your eyes inadvertently let the opposition know where you are going to pass the ball while on the court it is called “telegraphing.” As a player, deception is important, and it is not good to warn the opposition what you are going to do before you do it by telegraphing your next move. Based on an article I wrote way back on November 3, 2017, it seems that Antifa telegraphed the entire plan when it came to January 6, 2021. A screenshot of the page is at the end of this article just in case Blogger unpublishes it, something they’ve done to many of my past articles already (hence, one of the reasons Political Pistachio moved to my new site at www.douglasvgibbs.com).
During a research session I unearthed an Antifa flyer calling for an election day deception to be perpetrated by Antifa Comrades. In a Saul Alinsky fashion the Antifa faithful were planning a deceptive revolution on Election Day with the following instructions:
“Antifa Comrades! On Nov. 4, Don’t forget to disguise yourselves as patriots/Trump supporters: wear MAGA hats, USA flags, 3%er insignias, a convincing police uniform is even better! This way police and patriots responding to us won’t know who their enemies are, and onlookers and the media will think there are Trump supporters rioting so it’s harder to turn popular opinion against us! counter_resistance_movement”
https://me.me/i/antifa-comrades-on-nov-4-dont-forget-to-disguise-yourselves-19221409
Hmm, sounds an awful lot like what I just explained to you happened on January 6, 2021, doesn’t it?
Here’s the poster/meme: click the image for a larger view.
Here’s the screenshot of the article (again, you may click the image for a larger view):
Was January 6 a false flag attempt to falsely paint Trump Supporters as violent insurrectionists?
We must only ask one question. If the Trump Supporters on January 6 were committing insurrection, and if conservatives are violent, gun-toting anti-government extremists who wish to overthrow the Democrats and turn the country into a right-wing dictatorship, then why didn’t any of the so-called insurrectionists have guns on them? Why wasn’t a shot fired by the rightwing extremists on January 6? Why was not a single item at the Capitol damaged aside from some broken windows? If well-armed conservatives wanted to violently take over the government and overthrow the peaceful, well-meaning progressives, wouldn’t they have shot their way into the Capitol and busted open some doors and maybe even set the place ablaze?
Or is that kind of activity only reserved to peaceful demonstrators allegedly angry over racial issues in Portland, Seattle, Baltimore, Ferguson and Kenosha?
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary
Join the Movement. Fund the work that Mr. Constitution/Douglas V. Gibbs faithfully executes each and every day. Become a Patron by hitting the ✩JOIN link in the link bar above, or donate using one of the following methods (click image to expand):
Impeachment is first mentioned as a granted power in the United States Constitution in Article I, Section 2 of the founding document that established the federal government. The power is listed as being delegated to, and solely belonging to, the United States House of Representatives. The word impeachment means “to charge,” or “to indict.” Once an impeachment by the House is approved by a majority vote, the trial regarding the impeachment according to the Constitution (Article I, Section 3) must then be carried out by the U.S. Senate, with conviction requiring two-thirds approval by the Senators present (with a quorum in place). An impeachment hearing is a political trial, not a criminal trial, so if an officeholder impeached and convicted is to be led out in handcuffs, a criminal trial must be prosecuted and a criminal conviction reached after they leave office as a result of conviction of an impeachment. Removal from office is the worse punishment allowed after conviction of impeachment according to the final clause in Article I, Section 3 of the U.S. Constitution. In other words, a President has immunity while in office, but can be criminally prosecuted later, once he is no longer President of the United States.
With all of that in mind, a question arises; regarding President Donald Trump, must criminal charges against a President be a follow-up to an impeachment, or may any alleged criminal activity as President be chased after by those seeking to convict a former President? The Constitution at the end of Article I, Section 3 does, after all, say that a “party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law.”
The way I view the language, the Constitution views the impeachment trial as a political trial, but if it is concerning criminalities, those unlawful activities must be pursued in criminal court after the President has been removed from office. However, that does not mean that criminal prosecution is limited to those brought up during impeachment. There may be other criminal activities that were committed during one’s presidency that may not have been a part of an impeachment trial, or may not have even been realized while the person held office, or may not have any legal limitations when it comes to prosecuting those criminalities. Therefore, illegal activities by a President would be open to prosecution once a President is no longer in office, as well.
This begs the question about criminally charging a President for activities as President after they are out of office as the Democrats are doing to Trump at this moment. I suppose the answer to that would be tied to if there are any statutes of limitations regarding certain crimes. Fraud, serious theft, murder, kidnapping, arson, bribery, and perjury have no limitation period, according to the law. Therefore, yes, a President may be charged in criminal court after the end of his presidency as the left has been doing with President Trump.
The charges, however, no matter how they try to slice and dice them, are not criminal charges, however. Nearly all of the charges against citizen Trump revolve around his connection to questioning the validity of the 2020 Presidential Election. He has been accused of trying to overturn the election, or change the results of the election, which are false charges. As President, according to Article II of the United States Constitution, among his responsibilities he must “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed.” The laws he must faithfully execute, and ensure they are executed legally and without outside interference or without any tampering includes election laws. So, if he believed a violation of election law had taken place and those laws were not being faithfully executed but instead there was illegality regarding the election, would it not be the constitutional duty of the President to bring into question irregularities and anomalies associated with the election? In other words, his actions regarding doubting the validity of the election were tied to duty, not insurrection or any criminal action. As President of the United States it was his duty to make sure the election laws were properly executed, and if he believed there were anomalies or irregularities that must be investigated, it was his job as President of the United States to ensure such investigations took place. Instead, his opponents decided to criminally charge him for attempting to carry out a duty of his Office as President. One must then ask, why would they do such a thing? Could it be that the anomalies and irregularities being investigated might lead to their own criminalities?
Now, with a different President in office, one that may not even be supposed to legally hold the Office of the President of the United States, we have President Joseph Biden who is facing an impeachment effort in the House of Representatives. The impeachment inquiry, however, is being questioned by Republican Senator Markwayne Mullin of Oklahoma, who was also once a member of the House of Representatives. According to Mullin, the impeachment inquiry is regarding actions Biden took while he was vice president, and therefore the impeachment is an unconstitutional one.
If President Trump can be prosecuted for alleged presidential criminalities after his presidency is over, why can’t the same be said for Joseph Biden regarding things that happened while he was Vice President after his time in that office has ended? As they say, what’s good for the goose is good for the gander, right?
The Constitution, when it comes to impeachment, does not specifically state that the charges have to have been allegedly committed during the current office being held by the person in question. That said, I realize that the idea that one can be impeached for actions prior to taking office could create a precedent that would throw open floodgates that perhaps should not be thrown open. From Mullin’s point of view, if Biden could be impeached for actions as Vice President, then a terrible precedent could blossom to assume that he could be impeached for actions as a Senator, or even as an officeholder at any other level of government. Would that also, then, allow the Democrats to chase after Trump, if he were elected again, with impeachment inquiries for alleged questionable business practices prior to his move into politics?
From that point of view, Mullin may have a point. It may not be in America’s best interest to have ideological witch hunts regarding past practices and alleged crimes that occurred prior to the person assuming their current political office. If one accepts Mullin’s line of thinking, Joe Biden’s alleged guilty of bribery or influence peddling as Vice President of the United States should have been caught, and inquired into, while he was still Vice President. Once again, if we are going to use Mullin’s line of thinking, that still does not mean there cannot be an impeachment hearing in the first place, even regarding those actions. After all, as stated earlier, there are no statutes of limitations on those crimes. If high crimes by an officeholder, such as bribery or influence peddling, are discovered after the fact, even if discovered long after the person was in office, from a legal viewpoint, all bets are off. Inquire, indict, and fire all cannons without delay; right?
While it seems perfectly reasonable to Representative Mullins on the surface that impeachment must be regarding a charge associated with the office one is holding, which would mean a President could only be impeached for offenses committed while serving as President, even using Mullins’ reasoning Biden could still be investigated because while the bribery charges, influence peddling, and obstruction charges may no longer technically apply as Representative Mullins might suggest, Biden is continuing to lie about those things. His lies, even if regarding crimes from some past office he held or past life he held, shows that he continues to partake in corruption. Lying to Congress, or to the voting public, as President of the United States for any reason is an impeachable offense as President. And, we do indeed know that Biden continues to lie to the American public about whether or not he spoke with Hunter Biden’s business associates, about the bribery charges, and so on and so forth. So even if Mullins was correct about going after Biden for past criminalities, lying to the American People is a big deal, a charge that Clinton was impeached for, and Nixon would have been charged for had he not resigned first, and so even for lying an impeachment inquiry is called for, and very constitutional.
The current impeachment inquiry has largely focused on the actions of the Biden Crime Family from 2009 to 2017, when President Biden was vice president, and from 2018 to 2020, when President Biden was out of office. The crimes being investigated have no limitations, so they should still be open-game. If not, if Mullen’s argument holds any water, Biden’s lies regarding those actions have occurred during his current presidency which would still make the impeachment inquiry legal and constitutional. So, if one wants to argue that he cannot be impeached for his actions prior to taking office as President, he can still be impeached for lying about those things while holding the Office of President of the United States.
Mullins has stated that if evidence is presented that while in office Biden is guilty of impeachable offenses, there are five moderate Democrats willing to join the Republicans in their impeachment aspirations. But, if this impeachment inquiry is to be considered to be nothing more than a waste of time by those who are chasing after it because they decide Mullins is correct, that the charges must be regarding actions by Biden while President of the United States; then the same assumption should apply to Trump, and let Number 45 off the hook too if indeed you can only be pursued for crimes committed in office while you hold that office.
In the end, past crimes against America like bribery and influence peddling by someone like Joseph Biden should be investigated by Congress, and there should be removal from office due to impeachment conviction and prosecution and conviction by a criminal court afterward because these crimes were serious crimes against this country. Treason, if one is willing to admit it. These are major crimes with no limitations, and they were not simply crimes against the vice presidency, they were crimes against America.
The Democrats disagree, and instead spend their energy, and American tax-dollars, on trying to convict Trump of crimes that they made up out of thin air, rather than recognize and admit that Donald Trump, by questioning the 2020 Election, was actually executing the oath of his office as President of the United States.
— Political Pistachio Conservative News and Commentary