James Comey’s legal case just exploded as new evidence and leaked emails expose his secret communications and political motives.
Now impeachment articles have been filed against Judge James Boasberg after revelations of secret warrants and possible law violations.
Snapshots and Notes
Apparently, James Comey was absent the day they taught corrupt politicians NEVER to use their personal emails to do government business??? SMH
Former DOJ official, now a Columbia University law professor, Daniel Richmond, was assisting the FBI during the 2016 election, who just happens to be the same guy who later helped Comey by conveniently leaking the so-called Comey memos to the NY Times in 2017, right after Comey was fired by Trump, which was a deflection from the bogus Trump-Russia saga alive…
Comey expected Hillary to win - a LOT of Democrats expected Hillary to win, but alas, that was NOT the case, and did they have a plan B? Who needs a plan B when you’re that cocky?
If you haven’t already, see the email above; it fits with this unfolding story and is the same letter Hillary blames for her losing the election.
Comey’s reaction to Richmond’s “success” in leaking info to the NYT…
The evidence to take down Comey came from?
Remember those burn bags discovered in the hidden room of the Hoover Building?
Uh, yeah, THAT…
One of the damning notes in his own writing…
Then the 2nd smoking gun comes from the Arctic Frost investigation…
Everything tyrannical thing they said they didn’t do, every law they said they didn’t break, they did… they being the Biden DOJ, the Biden FBI, and the Biden administration.
If it weren’t so serious, it would be a hilarious scene out of the Keystone Cops.
The daughter of the judge involved…
Partners of Justice, which provides representation for ILLEGAL immigrants, gets 76% of their funding from government grants… wonder who they won those grants…
All of USAID funds are now defunct… more caught in the abuse of the system
Kerri provides a list of examples that are only the tip of the proverbial iceberg, all of which led to a call for impeachment
Impeachment is not the same as removing someone from the bench1
Words Have Meaning
The rhetoric and the actions that have occurred in light of them have been going on, especially since September 10th (the assassination of Charlie Kirk), have many members of the Cabinet living on military bases.
Border Czar has not lived with his wife and kids, so to keep them safe, due to the fact of Leftist reporters are probing around to find out who either of them is.
The Left is totally unhinged, and events lead them to be eventually reeled in - whether it is in a very bad way or peacefully, is totally up to them.
Impeachment vs. Removal of a Judge
Federal judges hold their offices “during good behavior”, which generally means they have lifetime appointments unless removed through impeachment.
The Constitution allows for judges to be removed from office only through impeachment by the House of Representatives and conviction by the Senate. A two-thirds majority vote (67%) in the Senate is required for conviction and removal.
Since 1804, 15 federal judges have been impeached by the House, and only 8 of those were convicted and removed by the Senate.
Common charges for impeachment have included making false statements, favoritism, intoxication on the bench, abuse of contempt power, and criminal conduct like tax evasion or bribery.
Perspectives
Impeachment should be used to address judges exceeding constitutional authority or violating duties.
Judges who are not following the law or are exceeding their constitutional authority and not abiding by their oath to support and defend the Constitution should be impeached
It is perfectly appropriate to impeach a judge for anything, as impeachment is a political punishment
The standard for impeachment for judges is very high, similar to that for a president
Some argue that the “good behavior” standard for judges is distinct from “high crimes and misdemeanors,” and Congress may remove judges whose misbehavior does not constitute a high crime or misdemeanor
Impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement with judicial decisions.
Chief Justice John Roberts has stated that impeachment is not an appropriate response to disagreement concerning a judicial decision, emphasizing that the proper method for disagreement is to appeal the decision
Historical practice, including the failed impeachment of Justice Samuel Chase in 1804-05, suggests a strong tradition against impeaching judges for their decisions and established a norm that judicial acts would not be a basis for removal
Calls for impeachment of judges are often futile due to the high bar for conviction, requiring a two-thirds Senate vote, which is difficult to achieve without bipartisan support
