← Impeachment as a Means to An End, and Not The End Itself…

Senate Leader Mitch McConnell: “The House Conduct Has Damaged The Institutions of American Government”

Posted on December 19, 2019 by sundance

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/19/senate-leader-mitch-mcconnell-the-house-conduct-has-damaged-the-institutions-of-american-government-video-and-transcript/

After the House of Representatives passed two partisan articles of impeachment, Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell rises to deliver a speech from the upper chamber of congress.

Last night, House Democrats passed the thinnest, weakest presidential impeachment in American history. Now they’re suggesting they are too afraid to even submit their accusations to the Senate and go to trial. The prosecutors are getting cold feet in front of the entire country.  ~ Mitch McConnell

.

[Transcript] – Last night House Democrats finally did what they decided to do long ago: They voted to impeach President Trump.

‘Over the last 12 weeks, House Democrats have conducted the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history.

‘Now their slapdash process has concluded in the first purely partisan presidential impeachment since the wake of the Civil War. The opposition to impeachment was bipartisan. Only one part of one faction wanted this outcome.

‘The House’s conduct risks deeply damaging the institutions of American government. This particular House of Representatives has let its partisan rage at this particular President create a toxic new precedent that will echo into the future.

‘That’s what I want to discuss now: The historic degree to which House Democrats have failed to do their duty — and what it will mean for the Senate to do ours.

‘Let’s start at the beginning. Let’s start with the fact that Washington Democrats made up their minds to impeach President Trump since before he was even inaugurated

‘Here’s a reporter in April 2016. Quote, “Donald Trump isn’t even the Republican nominee yet… [but] ‘Impeachment’ is already on the lips of pundits, newspaper editorials, constitutional scholars, and even a few members of Congress.”

‘On Inauguration Day 2017, this headline in the Washington Post: “The campaign to impeach President Trump has begun.” That was day one.

‘In April 2017, three months into the presidency, a senior House Democrat said “I’m going to fight every day until he’s impeached.” That was three months in.

‘In December 2017, two years ago, Congressman Jerry Nadler was openly campaigning to be ranking member on House Judiciary specifically because he was an expert on impeachment.

‘This week wasn’t even the first time House Democrats have introduced articles of impeachment. It was the seventh time.

‘They started less than six months after the president was sworn in.

‘They tried to impeach President Trump for being impolite to the press… For being mean to professional athletes… For changing President Obama’s policy on transgender people in the military.

‘All of these things were “high crimes and misdemeanors” according to Democrats.

‘This wasn’t just a few people. Scores of Democrats voted to move forward with impeachment on three of those prior occasions.

‘So let’s be clear. The House’s vote yesterday was not some neutral judgment that Democrats came to reluctantly. It was the pre-determined end of a partisan crusade that began before President Trump was even nominated, let alone sworn in.

‘For the very first time in modern history we have seen a political faction in Congress promise from the moment a presidential election ended that they would find some way to overturn it.

‘A few months ago, Democrats’ three-year-long impeachment in search of articles found its way to the subject of Ukraine. And House Democrats embarked on the most rushed, least thorough, and most unfair impeachment inquiry in modern history.

‘Chairman Schiff’s inquiry was poisoned by partisanship from the outset. Its procedures and parameters were unfair in unprecedented ways.

‘Democrats tried to make Chairman Schiff into a de facto Special Prosecutor, notwithstanding the fact that he is a partisan member of Congress who’d already engaged in strange and biased behavior.

‘He scrapped precedent to cut the Republican minority out of the process. He denied President Trump the same sorts of procedural rights that Houses of both parties had provided to past presidents of both parties.

‘President Trump’s counsel could not participate in Chairman Schiff’s hearings, present evidence, or cross-examine witnesses.

‘The House Judiciary Committee’s crack at this was even more ahistorical. It was like the Speaker called up Chairman Nadler and ordered one impeachment, rush delivery please.

‘That Committee found no facts of its own and did nothing to verify the Schiff report. Their only witnesses were liberal law professors and congressional staffers.

‘There’s a reason the impeachment inquiry that led to President Nixon’s resignation required about 14 months of hearings. 14 months. In addition to a special prosecutor’s investigation.

‘With President Clinton, the independent counsel’s inquiry had been underway for years before the House Judiciary Committee dug in. Mountains of evidence. Mountains of testimony from firsthand fact witnesses. Serious legal battles to get what was necessary.

‘This time around, House Democrats skipped all of that and spent just 12 weeks.

‘More than a year of hearings for Nixon… multiple years of investigation for Clinton… and they’ve impeached President Trump in 12 weeks.

‘So let’s talk about what the House actually produced in those 12 weeks.

‘House Democrats’ rushed and rigged inquiry yielded two articles of impeachment. They are fundamentally unlike any articles that any prior House of Representatives has ever passed.

‘The first article concerns the core events which House Democrats claim are impeachable — the timing of aid to Ukraine.

‘But it does not even purport to allege any actual crime. Instead, they deploy this vague phrase, “abuse of power,” to impugn the president’s actions in a general, indeterminate way.

‘Speaker Pelosi’s House just gave into a temptation that every other House in history had managed to resist: They impeached a president whom they do not even allege has committed an actual crime known to our laws. They impeached simply because they disagree with a presidential act and question the motive behind it.

‘Look at history. The Andrew Johnson impeachment revolved around a clear violation of a criminal statute, albeit an unconstitutional one. Nixon had obstruction of justice — a felony under our laws. Clinton had perjury — also a felony.

‘Now, the Constitution does not say the House can impeach only those presidents who violate a law.

‘But history matters. Precedent matters. And there were important reasons why every previous House of Representatives in American history restrained itself from crossing this Rubicon.

‘The framers of our Constitution very specifically discussed whether the House should be able to impeach presidents just for “maladministration”— in other words, because the House simply thought the president had bad judgment or was doing a bad job.

‘The written records of the founders’ debates show they specifically rejected this. They realized it would create total dysfunction to set the bar for impeachment that low.

‘James Madison himself explained that allowing impeachment on that basis would mean the President serves at the pleasure of the Congress instead of the pleasure of the American people.

‘It would make the President a creature of Congress, not the head of a separate and equal branch. So there were powerful reasons why Congress after Congress for 230 years required presidential impeachments to revolve around clear, recognizable crimes, even though that was not a strict limitation.

‘Powerful reasons why, for 230 years, no House opened the Pandora’s box of subjective, political impeachments.

‘That 230-year tradition died last night.

‘Now, House Democrats have tried to say they had to impeach President Trump on this historically thin and subjective basis because the White House challenged their requests for more witnesses.

‘And that brings us to the second article of impeachment.

‘The House titled this one “obstruction of Congress.” What it really does is impeach the president for asserting presidential privilege.

‘The concept of executive privilege is another two-century-old constitutional tradition. Presidents starting with George Washington have invoked it. Federal courts have repeatedly affirmed it as a legitimate constitutional power.

‘House Democrats requested extraordinary amounts of sensitive information from President Trump’s White House — exactly the kinds of things over which presidents of both parties have asserted privilege in the past.

‘Predictably, and appropriately, President Trump did not simply roll over. He defended the constitutional authority of his office.

‘It is not a constitutional crisis for a House to want more information than a president wants to give up. It is a routine occurrence. The separation of powers is messy by design.

‘Here’s what should happen next: Either the President and Congress negotiate a settlement, or the third branch of government, the judiciary, addresses the dispute between the other two.

‘The Nixon impeachment featured disagreements over presidential privilege — so they went to the courts. The Clinton impeachment featured disagreements over presidential privilege — so they went to the courts.

‘This takes time. It’s inconvenient. That’s actually the point. Due process is not meant to maximize the convenience of the prosecutor. It is meant to protect the accused.

‘But this time was different. Remember: 14 months of hearings for Richard Nixon… years of investigation for Bill Clinton… but 12 weeks for President Trump.

‘Democrats didn’t have to rush this. But they chose to stick to their political timetable at the expense of pursuing more evidence through proper legal channels.

‘Nobody made Chairman Schiff do this. He chose to.

‘The Tuesday before last, on live television, Adam Schiff explained to the entire country that if House Democrats had let the justice system follow its normal course, they might not have gotten to impeach the president in time for the election!

‘In Nixon, the courts were allowed to do their work. In Clinton, the courts were allowed to do their work. Only these House Democrats decided due process is too much work and they’d rather impeach with no proof.

And, they tried to cover for their own partisan impatience by pretending that the routine occurrence of a president exerting constitutional privilege is itself a second impeachable offense.

The following is something that Adam Schiff literally said in early October. Here’s what he said:

“Any action… that forces us to litigate, or have to consider litigation, will be considered further evidence of obstruction of justice.”

‘Here is what the Chairman effectively said, and what one of his committee members restated just this week: If the President asserts his constitutional rights, it’s that much more evidence he is guilty.

‘That kind of bullying is antithetical to American justice.

‘So those are House Democrats’ two articles of impeachment. That’s all their rushed and rigged inquiry could generate:

‘An act that the House does not even allege is criminal; and a nonsensical claim that exercising a legitimate presidential power is somehow an impeachable offense.

‘This is by far the thinnest basis for any House-passed presidential impeachment in American history. The thinnest and the weakest — and nothing else comes even close.

‘And candidly, I don’t think I am the only person around here who realizes this. Even before the House voted yesterday, Democrats had already started to signal uneasiness with its end product.

‘Before the articles even passed, the Senate Democratic Leader went on television to demand that this body re-do House Democrats’ homework for them. That the Senate should supplement Chairman Schiff’s sloppy work so it is more persuasive than Chairman Schiff himself bothered to make it.

‘Of course, every such demand simply confirms that House Democrats have rushed forward with a case that is much too weak.

‘Back in June, Speaker Pelosi promised the House would, quote, “build an ironclad case.” Never mind that she was basically promising impeachment months before the Ukraine events, but that’s a separate matter.

‘She promised “an ironclad case.”

‘And in March, Speaker Pelosi said this: “Impeachment is so divisive to the country that unless there’s something so compelling and overwhelming and bipartisan, I don’t think we should go down that path, because it divides the country.” End quote.

‘By the Speaker’s own standards, she has failed the country. This case is not compelling, not overwhelming, and as a result, not bipartisan. This failure was made clear to everyone earlier this week, when Senator Schumer began searching for ways the Senate could step out of our proper role and try to fix House Democrats’ failures for them.

‘And it was made even more clear last night, when Speaker Pelosi suggested that House Democrats may be too afraid to even transmit their work product to the Senate.

‘The prosecutors are getting cold feet in front of the entire country and second-guessing whether they even want to go to trial.

‘They said impeachment was so urgent that it could not even wait for due process but now they’re content to sit on their hands. It is comical.

‘Democrats’ own actions concede that their allegations are unproven.

‘But the articles aren’t just unproven. They’re also constitutionally incoherent. Frankly, if either of these articles is blessed by the Senate, we could easily see the impeachment of every future president of either party.

‘Let me say that again: If the Senate blesses this historically low bar, we will invite the impeachment of every future president.

‘The House Democrats’ allegations, as presented, are incompatible with our constitutional order. They are unlike anything that has ever been seen in 230 years of this Republic.

‘House Democrats want to create new rules for this president because they feel uniquely enraged. But long after the partisan fever of this moment has broken, the institutional damage will remain.

‘I’ve described the threat to the presidency. But this also imperils the Senate itself.

‘The House has created an unfair, unfinished product that looks nothing like any impeachment inquiry in American history. And if the Speaker ever gets her house in order, that mess will be dumped on the Senate’s lap.

‘If the Senate blesses this slapdash impeachment… if we say that from now on, this is enough… then we will invite an endless parade of impeachment trials.

‘Future Houses of either party will feel free to toss up a “jump ball” every time they feel angry. Free to swamp the Senate with trial after trial, no matter how baseless the charges.

‘We would be giving future Houses of either party unbelievable new power to paralyze the Senate at their whim.

‘More thin arguments. More incomplete evidence. More partisan impeachments.

In fact, this same House of Representatives has already indicated that they themselves may not be done impeaching!

‘The House Judiciary Committee told a federal court this week that it will continue its impeachment investigation even after voting on these articles. And multiple Democratic members have already called publicly for more.

‘If the Senate blesses this, if the nation accepts it, presidential impeachments may cease being once-in-a-generation events and become a constant part of the political background noise.

‘This extraordinary tool of last resort may become just another part of the arms race of polarization.

‘Real statesmen would have recognized, no matter their view of this president, that trying to remove him on this thin and partisan basis could unsettle the foundations of our Republic.

‘Real statesmen would have recognized, no matter how much partisan animosity might be coursing through their veins, that cheapening the impeachment process was not the answer.

‘Historians will regard this as a great irony of this era: That so many who professed such concern for our norms and traditions themselves proved willing to trample our constitutional order to get their way.

‘It is long past time for Washington D.C. to get a little perspective.

‘President Trump is not the first president with a populist streak…Not the first to make entrenched elites uncomfortable. He’s certainly not the first president to speak bluntly… to mistrust the administrative state… or to rankle unelected bureaucrats.

‘And Heaven knows he is not our first president to assert the constitutional privileges of his office rather than roll over when Congress demands unlimited sensitive information.

‘None of these things is unprecedented.

‘I’ll tell you what would be unprecedented. It will be an unprecedented constitutional crisis if the Senate hands the House of Representatives a new, partisan “vote of no confidence” that the founders intentionally withheld, destroying the independence of the presidency.

‘It will be unprecedented if we agree that any future House that dislikes any future president can rush through an unfair inquiry, skip the legal system, and paralyze the Senate with a trial. The House could do that at will under this precedent.

‘It will be unprecedented if the Senate says secondhand and thirdhand testimony from unelected civil servants is enough to overturn the people’s vote.

‘It will be an unprecedented constitutional crisis if the Senate agrees to set the bar this low — forever.

‘It is clear what this moment requires. It requires the Senate to fulfill our founding purpose.

‘The framers built the Senate to provide stability. To take the long view for our Republic. To safeguard institutions from the momentary hysteria that sometimes consumes our politics. To keep partisan passions from boiling over.

‘The Senate exists for moments like this.

‘That’s why this body has the ultimate say in impeachments.

‘The framers knew the House would be too vulnerable to transient passions and violent factionalism. They needed a body that could consider legal questions about what has been proven and political questions about what the common good of our nation requires.

‘Hamilton said explicitly in Federalist 65 that impeachment involves not just legal questions, but inherently political judgments about what outcome best serves the nation.

‘The House can’t do both. The courts can’t do both.

‘This is as grave an assignment as the Constitution gives to any branch of government, and the framers knew only the Senate could handle it. Well, the moment the framers feared has arrived.

‘A political faction in the lower chamber have succumbed to partisan rage. They have fulfilled Hamilton’s prophesy that impeachment will, quote, “connect itself with the pre-existing factions… enlist all their animosities… [and] there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt.” End quote.

‘That is what happened in the House last night. The vote did not reflect what had been proven. It only reflects how they feel about the President.

‘The Senate must put this right. We must rise to the occasion.

‘There is only one outcome that is suited to the paucity of evidence, the failed inquiry, the slapdash case.

‘Only one outcome suited to the fact that the accusations themselves are constitutionally incoherent.

‘Only one outcome that will preserve core precedents rather than smash them into bits in a fit of partisan rage because one party still cannot accept the American people’s choice in 2016.

‘It could not be clearer which outcome would serve the stabilizing, institution-preserving, fever-breaking role for which the United States Senate was created… and which outcome would betray it.

‘The Senate’s duty is clear. The Senate’s duty is clear.

‘When the time comes, we must fulfill it.’

[End Transcript]

Democrats Begin to Applaud Impeachment…Until Pelosi Gives Them a Look

Cortney O’Brien| @obrienc2|Posted: Dec 18, 2019 8:58 PM  Share (68)  Tweet 

Source: AP Photo/Jose Luis Magana

Laughs, smiles, and applause. Does that sound like a “solemn” day to you? Throughout Wednesday’s debate on the House floor over impeaching President Trump, Democrats cracked jokes about wanting to impeach him months before he even called the Ukrainian president, and others applauded while their colleagues painted him as an unconstitutional ogre.

Tommy Pigott@TCPigott

So much for being “sad” and “solemn” about pursuing impeachment…

Democrats erupt in laughter and applause on the House floor shortly after Democrat Rep. Maxine Waters touts, “yes I called for Trump’s impeachment early”5305:14 PM – Dec 18, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy434 people are talking about this

House Speaker Nancy Pelosi had promised us that today was going to be a “sad and prayerful” day as they prepared to vote on their two articles of impeachment against Trump. Both articles, abuse of power and obstruction of Congress, have now passed.

As soon as the speaker announced that the “yays” had it, a few Democrats began to applaud. That peetered out quickly as Pelosi gave them a dagger of a look. 

Townhall.com✔@townhallcom

After reading the vote totals for Article I of impeachment, @SpeakerPelosi appears to cut off clapping Democrats. The speaker had reportedly told her colleagues not to do so.1,0537:42 PM – Dec 18, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy786 people are talking about this

Todd Zwillich✔@toddzwillich

Pelosi gives a mean evil eye to her caucus to prevent applause breaking out as she drops the gavel on Donald Trump’s impreachment1,7787:39 PM – Dec 18, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy513 people are talking about this

NBC anchor Lester Holt and Dana Bash noticed “the look.”

RecommendedConstitutional Crisis? Pelosi Threatens to Withhold Impeachment Articles from Senate Republicans Matt Vespa

“She did not want any kind of victory celebration on the floor of the House,” Bash said.

As you can hear, Republicans also jeered the Democrats’ celebration.

VATICAN

Pontifical Biblical Commission examines question: What is man?

The Pontifical Biblical Commission publishes a new systematic study on the anthropological vision of Scripture, from Genesis to Revelation. In an interview with Vatican News, Jesuit Father Pietro Bovati says that the sacred texts contain principles for reflecting on the great questions of our age.

By Vatican News

A new book-length study by the Pontifical Biblical Commission examines the Scriptural understanding of the human being. Entitled “What is man? An itinerary of biblical anthropology”, the document aims not at giving an answer to every question about man, but rather, providing foundational principles for discernment.

That’s according to Father Pietro Bovati, SJ, the secretary for the Commission. In an interview with Vatican News, he explained the significance of the document. “The Pope wanted this theme to be addressed starting precisely from Scripture, which is the foundation and soul of all Christian reflection”, Fr Bovati said. “At the basis of this is a question: what is man? This question runs through the whole of the Bible as an itinerary”.

Providing fundamental principles

Emphasizing the need to be guided by Scripture, Fr Bovati said that “Scripture teaches man the truth about man”. This kind of “methodology of biblical theology”, he explained, is not intended to give answers to every possible question, but to provide foundational principles “for a discernment of the sense of man in history”.

The Commission’s study is composed of four chapters, dealing with major themes including man as created by God; man in relation to the rest of creation; the relational reality of anthropology (focusing on spousal, parental/filial, and fraternal relationships); and the salvific plan of God for humankind.

Helping respond to modern questions

With regard to specific questions about human beings (for example, questions related to gender) Father Bovati said the Commission did not intend to go beyond what the Bible actually says about those questions. “So we agreed to address the issues, respecting the level of information that we have from Scripture”, he said. Recognizing that our “cultural situation” is very different from the situations in which the Biblical books were written, Fr Bovati noted that we cannot necessarily find “immediate and precise” answers to contemporary questions in the Bible. Nonetheless, in the Scriptures we can find principles, “useful indications for reflection” which can help “theologians, moralists, pastors” respond to modern concerns.

A systematic work

Father Bovati said the Commission “kept in mind… the whole Christian tradition” in the work, but at the same time wanted to do the preliminary work of “showing what Scripture really says”. That work, he explained, “had never been done”, since theologians normally only cite texts that are useful for the arguments they are making. “We, on the contrary, wanted to do a systematic work”, he said, “in order to offer a path of what the Bible says about all the complexity of the human being”.

This work, said Fr Bovati, is one of the most original contributions of the new document. “We have not only tried to clarify some points, and perhaps give a more mature, more complex interpretation even of certain biblical texts”. The originality, he continued, “lies in the itinerary, in offering to theologians, to those involved in the transmission of the faith, an understanding of man that is more complex, more organic, more in conformity with our Biblical traditions”.

In response to the question, “What is the truth of man?”, Fr Bovati said “the Bible gives some indications that must be considered absolutely fundamental for all”.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

hilarityjane’s profile

Tweets

Hilary White

@hilarityjane

“Only the Real counts.” (sedes still get blocked)Umbria, Italyanglocath.blogspot.comJoined May 2011 

Hilary White‏ @hilarityjaneFollowFollow @hilarityjaneMore

Hey, guess what! https://infovaticana.com/2019/12/18/comision-biblica-no-se-deben-condenar-las-uniones-homosexuales/ …

4:01 PM – 18 Dec 2019

• 63 Retweets
• 93 Likes

78 replies63 retweets93 likesReply 78 Retweet 63 Like 93

1. mary jo anderson‏ @maryjoanderson3 6h6 hours agoMoreReplying to @hilarityjaneThis can’t be right….need verification.1 reply0 retweets0 likesReply 1 Retweet  Like 
2. Hilary White‏ @hilarityjane 6h6 hours agoMore@Infovaticana is an official news source of the Vatican. But you’re as free as I am to do the Googling.2 replies0 retweets3 likesReply 2 Retweet  Like 3
3. 1 more reply

https://theconservativetreehouse.com/2019/12/18/cunning-lawfare-maneuver-house-will-withhold-submission-of-articles-from-senate/

Cunning Lawfare Maneuver – House Will Withhold Submission of Articles from Senate…

Posted on December 18, 2019 by sundance

Seemingly overlooked by most, when the House voted on the ‘rules of impeachment’ they removed the traditional appointment of House Managers to a later date.

Normally the House Managers would be appointed at the same time as the impeachment vote; however, by withholding the appointment House Democrats are indicating they will not immediately send articles of impeachment to the senate but will rather hold the articles as support for pending court cases toward their judicial authority.

A cunning Lawfare ploy.

As interested observers will note the House never voted to authorize the full judicial impeachment process; instead they voted to approve an inquiry into whether an impeachment should take place.  By not voting to authorize articles of impeachment the House never gained ‘judicial enforcement authority‘.  The absence of judicial authority is now working its way through the courts in various cases.

It appears the absence of appointing House impeachment managers; and the decision to withhold sending the articles of impeachment to the Senate; is now a specific design.

As the process appears to be unfolding, the Lawfare contracted lawyers representing the House: chief legal counsel Douglas Letter, Barry Berke, Norm Eisen and Daniel Goldman will now argue before the courts that all of the constitutionally contended material is required as evidence for a pending judicial proceeding, a trial in the Senate.

What the house crew have assembled is an interesting back-door attempt to position a valid claim for evidence against the accused without having first gained judicial authority for it.  The Lawfare crew will argue to the lower courts, and to SCOTUS, the blocked evidentiary material is critical evidence in a soon-to-be-held Senate trial.

The material they have been seeking is: (1) Mueller grand jury material; (2) a deposition by former White House counsel Don McGahn; and less importantly (3) Trump financial and tax records.  Each of these issues is currently being argued in appellate courts (6e and McGahn) and the supreme court (financials/taxes).

The House impeachment of President Trump succeeds in applying the label “impeached president” that was their primary political purpose. President Trump is marred with the label of an ‘impeached president’.

Now the delay in sending the articles of impeachment allows the House lawyers to gather additional evidence while the impeachment case sits in limbo.

The House essentially blocks any/all impeachment activity in the Senate by denying the transfer of the articles from the House to the Senate.  Additionally, the House will now impede any other Senate legislative action because the House will hold the Senate captive. Meanwhile the Democrat presidential candidates can run against an impeached President.

Lawfare’s legal svengali Lawrence Tribe recently penned an op-ed with this type of  recommendation; and it appears the community that worships Tribe, including the House lawyers writ large, are following his advice.

While Politico outlines the plan from a position if the scheme as a new idea, the fact the House impeachment rules were changed to drop the appointment of the managers speaks to considerable forethought on this type of plan.

It does not appear this is a new idea; rather it looks like this is a pre-planned procedural process by design:

Washington – House Majority Leader Steny Hoyer, the second-ranking lawmaker in the House, said Wednesday that Democrats must discuss a last-ditch gambit to delay sending articles of impeachment to the Senate and prevent the Republican-controlled chamber from summarily discarding the case against President Donald Trump.

“Some think it’s a good idea. And we need to talk about it,” Hoyer said just as the House began debating articles of impeachment that charge Trump with abuse of power and obstruction of Congress.

In recent weeks, some legal scholars have suggested Speaker Nancy Pelosi could consider refusing to transmit articles of impeachment — likely to pass the House Wednesday evening — to the Senate, where Majority Leader Mitch McConnell has declared he is coordinating trial strategy with the White House.

[…] Notably, House Judiciary Committee Democrats huddled with Tribe earlier this month as they practiced behind closed doors for their series of impeachment hearings.

[…] the House could use the delay to continue to build on its evidence for impeachment, and possibly to score additional legal victories that could unlock troves of new evidence and witness testimony that the Trump administration has withheld from Congress. Some of those court cases could be decided within weeks. (read more)

Rep. Paul Gosar, DDS✔@RepGosar

SICK: Nancy Pelosi has to quiet down fellow Democrats who begin to clap and cheer after impeaching @realDonaldTrump… A very solemn and serious process.4957:46 PM – Dec 18, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy341 people are talking about this

Manu Raju✔@mkraju

No vote on naming impeachment managers tonight, which means articles won’t be transmitted to the Senate tonight. House has adjourned5687:57 PM – Dec 18, 2019Twitter Ads info and privacy172 people are talking about this

AdvertisementsREPORT THIS ADAdvertisementsREPORT THIS AD

Share this:

• Email
• Facebook
• Twitter
• WhatsApp
• Pinterest
• Reddit
• Tumblr
• More

Related

UPDATED: Pelosi Calls House Vote to Affirm Speaker Impeachment Inquiry The House Never Authorized…In “4th Amendment”

REPOST: Details of House “Impeachment Inquiry” Resolution…In “Big Government”

Newly Empowered Chairman Jerry Nadler Moves on Second Front for Impeachment Assault – HJC Moves To Enforce McGahn Subpoena…In “4th Amendment”This entry was posted in Big Government, Big Stupid Government, Conspiracy ?, Decepticons, Deep State, Dem Hypocrisy, Donald Trump, Election 2020, Impeachment, Legislation, media bias, Nancy Pelosi, Notorious Liars, President Trump, Professional Idiots, propaganda, Supreme Court, Typical Prog Behavior, Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. ← Christmas Rally – President Trump MAGA-KAG Rally, Battle Creek Michigan – 7:00pm ET Livestream…

10 Responses to Cunning Lawfare Maneuver – House Will Withhold Submission of Articles from Senate…

1. MM says:December 18, 2019 at 9:13 pmSick and tired of their damn games!Liked by 2 peopleReply
2. Jason Ross says:December 18, 2019 at 9:15 pmI’m not sure how this is good optics for the DEMs… clearly looks like a stunt and it is certainly fodder for Trump to continue his ‘sham!’ bombast at his rallies.Liked by 1 personReply
3. jeans2nd says:December 18, 2019 at 9:16 pmPelosi declared several times that Pres Trump was a “Threat to our democracy” and the House must impeach before waiting on the next election due to the threat Pres Trump poses.
   How will they get around that?LikeReply
   • TMonroe says:December 18, 2019 at 9:18 pmLack of coverage and pressing on itLikeReply
4. anotherworriedmom says:December 18, 2019 at 9:16 pmMcConnell is right. They should have the vote immediately in the Senate. Any witnesses means that rinos will have an excuse to vote against PDJT. If Mitch has the votes to keep PDJT in office then that’s the only thing that counts. All other roads are dangerous.LikeReply
5. TMonroe says:December 18, 2019 at 9:17 pmBarely 24 hours after the media propped up Schumer’s words about the need for fairness on th Senate procedure part, they now prop up gamesmanship once again on the House side. Pravda-eqsue, especially when the stakes are highLikeReply
6. CNN_sucks says:December 18, 2019 at 9:17 pmSounds more like money machine for lawfare. Milking taxpayers again… drain the swamp.LikeReply
7. Jason Ross says:December 18, 2019 at 9:18 pmPelosi is not handling the presser very well…. what is the matter with her teeth. Who is that ‘handler’ to her left???LikeReply
8. digitaldoofus says:December 18, 2019 at 9:18 pmI screamed from the beginning that Trump should play HARDBALL at every turn with these Democrat vermin. But of course…our side never does.When the other side uses flamethrowers, and all you do is lob paper matches at them…guess who will do more damage?LikeReply
9. Gabriel says:December 18, 2019 at 9:18 pmSheesh, that picture. I’ve never seen so many upside down smiles in a single image. They are so filled with hate and darkness that it manifests itself in their physical appearance. So creepy …LikeReply

Nolte: Schumer Admits Trump Impeached ‘Without the Facts Coming Out’

6,797

JOHN NOLTE18 Dec 201910603:36

https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2019/12/18/nolte-schumer-admits-trump-impeached-without-the-facts-coming-out/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191218&utm_content=Final

Sen. Chuck Schumer (D-NY) made a startling admission Tuesday when he said President Trump is about to be impeached “without the facts coming out.”

The Senate Minority Leader accidentally told the truth while crybabying in the hopes of violating 200 years of impeachment precedent during Trump’s upcoming senate trial.

Schumer confessed:

So, to engage a trial without the facts coming out is to engage in a cover-up. To conduct a trial without the facts is saying: we’re afraid, we have something to hide. To conduct a trial without relevant witnesses who haven’t been heard from, to just rehash the evidence presented in the House just doesn’t make any sense.

So here’s Schumer openly admitting the impeachment case coming from the U.S. House is one “without the facts.”

Want Breaking News from Breitbart Direct to Your Inbox? Takes Just 2 Seconds…SIGN UP

Well, no shit.

Everyone knows this. But House Democrats are going to go ahead and impeach the president anyway.

What Schumer is pushing for is testimony from people the House did not bother to get testimony from, including former national security adviser John Bolton and acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, as well a couple of others.

But the only way Schumer can push for this unprecedented request for more witnesses is to make the admission that not all the facts are known, and he is doing so in a desperate bid to galvanize a public already opposed to impeachment.

Believe me, if the House had produced anything resembling a prosecutable case, Schumer would not be asking for the unprecedented right to keep digging for evidence against Trump, and would sure not be admitting that this is an impeachment “without the facts.”

It is the House’s job to investigate and present evidence to the Senate.

It is the Senate’s job to hold a trial based on that evidence.

Period.

The fact that the House violated 200-plus years of precedent in its rush to impeach does not give Democrats in the Senate the greenlight to violate 200-years of precedent to turn a trial into another fishing expedition.U.S. House of RepresentativesVolume 60% 

What’s more, why are Democrats suddenly okay with waiting for these witnesses? The House was unwilling to wait to compel their testimony using the courts and it is not as though the court system will move any faster for Chuck Schumer. So…

Now the Democrats are willing to wait for the courts?

Why the sudden change?

I’ll tell you why: they’re losing public support and know history will condemn them for impeaching a president with zero evidence. A fishing evidence is their last, best hope.

Thankfully, Cocaine Mitch is having none of it and even cucks like Mitt Romney aren’t cucking.

Had the House respected precedent, respected due process, and not turned itself into a kangaroo court determined to impeach Trump before Christmas regardless of the facts, they would have waited for the courts to decide on the separation of powers issues regarding the subpoenaing of these witnesses.

Instead, they not only rushed to impeach Trump without charging him with a crime, without a shred of evidence he engaged in any wrongdoing of any kind, they are charging Trump for obstruction because he sought relief from the courts, which is one of the most obscene and un-American things Congress has ever done.

Power Line’s Paul Mirengoff argues Schumer’s admission serves as an invitation for the Senate to immediately dismiss the charges against Trump. I could not agree more.

Bottom line: Democrats have no case, Schumer knows this, and he’s admitting it here because it’s the only Hail Mary left to rescue this debacle.

WH Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham on Impeachment: Democrats ‘Trying to Overturn 2016 Because They Know What’s Coming for Them in 2020’

3,260

JOHN HAYWARD18 Dec 20193,2747:44

https://www.breitbart.com/radio/2019/12/18/wh-press-secretary-stephanie-grisham-impeachment-democrats-trying-overturn-2016-know-whats-coming-2020/?utm_source=newsletter&utm_medium=email&utm_term=daily&utm_campaign=20191218&utm_content=Final

White House Press Secretary Stephanie Grisham joined SiriusXM host Alex Marlow on Wednesday’s Breitbart News Daily for an exclusive interview to discuss President Donald Trump’s letter to House Speaker Nancy Pelosi blasting the impeachment process. She described impeachment as a desperate Democrat effort to overturn the 2016 election because they know President Trump is likely to win reelection in 2020.

LISTEN:

When Marlow quoted Trump’s charge that House Democrats have “cheapened the importance of the very ugly word ‘impeachment,’” Grisham agreed that Democrats’ impeachment vote would mark “a very sad day in history.”

Want Breaking News from Breitbart Direct to Your Inbox? Takes Just 2 Seconds…SIGN UP

“It’s such a partisan issue right now, and this will be a partisan impeachment. This is going to change things forever. Future presidents will have to worry about this very thing – and that would be Republican or Democrat,” she said.

Grisham said President Trump personally composed the letter to Pelosi because he wanted to “put this down on paper for future generations because he is seeing what this is going to do for years to come.”

“They are truly changing history because they don’t like his policies,” she said of the Democrats. “It’s a very, very sad day.”

Grisham said Democrats would proceed with their impeachment vote despite growing public opposition, particularly in must-win battleground states, because they want to “overturn the 2016 election” and have been trying to do so ever since President Trump’s victory over Hillary Clinton.

“From the very beginning, the Democrats have been calling for his impeachment – and that’s prior to his success,” she noted. “Since then, he has had nothing but success, and they see what’s coming for 2020.”

“It’s not just the president,” she pointed out. “The president noted in his letter that his family has been hurt by this. Here you’ve got a family – Mrs. Trump – who has been working so hard on behalf of the children of this country. You’ve got Ivanka Trump, who has been pushing relentlessly for paid child leave and women’s empowerment all over the world, and you’ve got Jared, who has been pushing for Middle East peace, for crying out loud.” 

“You’ve got a whole family who have been working really hard on behalf of this country and who continue to be abused and demonized by the Democrats. It’s just really unfortunate,” she said.

She stressed the Democrats are determined to “overturn 2016 because they know what’s coming for them in 2020.”

Grisham slammed the Democrats for floating “bribery” as an impeachment charge purely because it “polled well with their voters” but then quietly dropping the charge when it was time to draft the actual articles of impeachment.

“They came up with these two sham impeachment articles, one of which in our mind doesn’t even exist: ‘obstruction of Congress.’ That just means they’re angry we didn’t participate in their sham impeachment hearings,” she said of the White House perspective on the articles.

“I think there are a lot of people who are questioning the constitutionality of it. At the end of the day, we’re excited to get to the Senate, where he will be given a fair trial. I hate to use that word, but he will be given a fair shake. Then, hopefully, we can just get on with governing for this country,” she said.

“The president continues to produce results, as you know. We’ve got USMCA coming down and NDAA – all kinds of great things happening,” she said, referring to the new North American trade deal and the National Defense Authorization Act, respectively.

“That’s what he’s really, really focused on,” she said of President Trump. “He’s traveling tonight to Michigan to speak with supporters. It’s amazing to watch him. I want your listeners to know that he’s very focused, despite what a lot of the mainstream media is saying. He’s not sitting around angry. He is continuing to work, which I think is obvious, and he’s just ready to get on with the work he has to do for this country.”

Grisham agreed with Marlow that it would be illuminating to have a proper trial with numerous Democrats and people like former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter, called to testify under oath about their actions.

“I’d like people to answer for what has been done not only throughout this process, but in the past and the things that have been done to this president and to his campaign before he took office,” she said.

Grisham said President Trump was comfortable leaving the Senate proceedings in the hands of Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY).

“I think we have to take into account what’s best for the country,” she urged. “While a trial may be a two-week trial, having people testify, is wonderful to think about, we don’t know if that’s what would actually happen. We don’t know what kind of games people would play to stop those individuals from testifying, et cetera.”

Grisham found some grim humor in Marlow asking if Joe Biden might be charged with “obstructing the Senate” for his stated refusal to respond to its subpoenas – precisely the same charge Democrats leveled against Trump in one of their impeachment articles.

“When the sham went through the House and we were afforded no due process and we were given no rights to have witnesses and every witness that was called forward was stacked against us – I think you’ll remember the constitutional scholars; it was three to one in terms of people who were in favor of our president – and now that we’re about to move into the Senate, everybody’s calling for ‘fairness,’ and people on the other side are saying that they’re not going to comply,” she observed.

“Once again, the hypocrisy continues. The irony is crazy. As the president always says, we’ll just see what happens,” she said.

Grisham said President Trump has not been given a “fair shake” by either Democrats or establishment media, with the latter constantly omitting vital context from reporting on the Ukrainian corruption story at the heart of the impeachment fight.

“We’re used to that. We’re doing the best we can to get the facts out there and to fight back. We’re thankful for outlets such as yours that take the time to understand context and explain it to your listeners,” she told Marlow.

“We’re just used to it now. We’re used to the constant siege and the constant misinformation and the constant attack on this president and this administration. We’re doing the best we can,” she said.

“I think we’re winning, though,” she added, referencing the polls that show the public turning against impeachment.

“The American people are starting to see what the media does, and I think the American people are starting to do their own research and see that this president is working really hard on their behalf and that the country is doing better,” she said.

Grisham said the White House remains focused on the first phase of the developing trade agreement with China, on sharing the burden of U.S. military deployments with allied nations, and building up America’s military strength. She credited President Trump with doing a “fantastic job” on the latter score.

“Veterans Affairs is very, very important to this president, making sure that our veterans are honored and taken care of,” she added.

“And then, of course, the opioid crisis in our country – both the president and the first lady are very, very devoted to that issue and want to ensure that children and families have all of the resources needed,” she said. 

“The economy is booming. Jobs are great. We’re doing really, really good things. The president knows that. He’ll be sharing that tonight with all of his supporters. Those are the things we’re going to continue to focus on. He came here to make this country better, and he’s succeeding. Nothing is going to stop him from that,” Grisham vowed.

Jeff Jacoby Lindsey Graham and the impeachment pearl-clutchers by Jeff Jacoby The Boston Globe December 18, 2019 http://www.jeffjacoby.com/23588/lindsey-graham-and-the-impeachment-pearl-clutchers      Senator Lindsey Graham, an ally of President Trump, says he won’t “pretend to be a fair juror” when impeachment goes to a Senate trial.ON WEDNESDAY, the US House of Representatives, voting almost entirely along party lines, will impeach President Donald Trump. Next month, the US Senate will conduct an impeachment trial, and is certain to vote — again, almost entirely along party lines — to acquit Trump and retain him in office. The outcome in each chamber has long been a foregone conclusion. So it was hardly a revelation when South Carolina Senator Lindsey Graham, the Republican chairman of the Judiciary Committee, told an interviewer on Saturday that “I have made up my mind” that Trump’s impeachment should “die quickly” in the Senate. “I’m not trying to pretend to be a fair juror here,” he added.Graham didn’t say anything that everyone didn’t already know. But the media’s reaction was an orgy of pearl-clutching.”Don’t worry, Sen. Graham. No one thought you’d be fair,” a Washington Post column was headlined. Graham’s “demeanor,” lamented CNN’s Martin Savidge, “seems to be a total abrupt affront to this whole impartiality thing.” On MSNBC, anchor Joy-Ann Reid spotlighted a tweet from historian Ibram Kendi, who compared Graham’s message to the behavior of “the all-white jury” in “a Jim Crow trial.” Martin Longman in the Washington Monthly, excoriated Graham (and Texas Senator Ted Cruz, who also said he’ll vote for Trump’s acquittal) of being “biased and partisan jurors” poised to “become accomplices in obstructing Congress.” The most common criticism was that Graham had preemptively violated the vow of impartiality he will have to take when impeachment reaches the Senate. It’s a great talking point. It’s also wholly disingenuous.The Constitution requires that members of the Senate “shall be on Oath” when they take up an impeachment. At the start of the trial in January, each senator will swear that “in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald J. Trump, now pending, I will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws. “In a real trial, the words “impartial justice” signify an open mind that has not prejudged the guilt or innocence of the accused. Judge and jury are expected to bring an unbiased objectivity to the courtroom. They must not reach a verdict until they have heard the evidence and the arguments on both sides.But an impeachment trial is not a judicial trial, and senators are not members of a jury. They are partisan politicians. They have well-formed political opinions about the president, his behavior, and his fitness for office. Most of them know going in exactly how they intend to vote. That was the case at Andrew Johnson’s trial in 1868 and at Bill Clinton’s in 1999. It will be true at Trump’s impeachment trial as well. It’s why everyone already knows the Senate won’t vote to remove the president.”If the [Constitution’s] Framers had wanted the president’s fate to depend on politically neutral actors,” political scientist Jonathan Bernstein writes in a Bloomberg essay, “then United States senators are the very last people they would’ve given the responsibility to.” Georgetown University’s Matt Glassman, though he considers Trump unfit for office, makes a similar point: The impeachment mechanism is by design “almost wholly political” and “it’s silly to demand that individual Senators conform to some notion of impartiality in the process.”During Bill Clinton’s trial in 1999, Chief Justice William Rehnquist sustained an objection to Republican House managers repeatedly referred to senators as “jurors.” An impeachment trial is not a judicial trial, and senators are not members of a jury.Just as impeachment doesn’t require a true crime, notwithstanding the constitutional standard of “high crimes and misdemeanors,” neither does the Senate trial require true impartiality. During Clinton’s impeachment trial, Democratic Senator Tom Harkin formally objected to the Republican House managers’ repeated references to senators as “jurors.” His objection was sustained by Chief Justice William Rehnquist, who instructed the managers to refrain from using that word to refer to senators. Graham’s declaration that he’s not going to “be a fair juror” was obnoxious. If his goal was to get a rise out of his listeners, he succeeded. But he’s hardly the only senator to announce a conclusion before the trial even begins. Kamala Harris declared on TV more than two months ago that she would vote to remove Trump in a Senate trial. Connecticut’s Richard Blumenthal published an essay declaring that Trump’s deeds “deserve the strongest penalty Congress can provide — removal from office.” Elizabeth Warren has vocally supported Trump’s impeachment, and when asked in October whether she had seen enough evidence to support removing the president, she answered succinctly: “Yes.” Everything about an impeachment, from House investigation to Senate trial to White House defense, is drenched in politics. And so are journalists when they pretend to be shocked (shocked!) that members of Congress have made up their minds about whether to impeach and remove the most polarizing president in American history.(Jeff Jacoby is a columnist for The Boston Globe).– ## —

The Summit Conference You Didn’t Hear About

The Summit Conference You Didn’t Hear About

The Summit Conference You Didn’t Hear About

It’s been a time since regular visitors to the SBC website last saw a new article by me and a number of excellent developments have taken place during it. Indeed, there have been too many to discuss all of them here. We’ll consider only a couple.

First, what do I mean by excellent? I speak of developments reflecting upward trends in society, politics and religion that promise the eventual renewal of life as men of the Christian West knew it before they fell under the liberal illusion that for their own good they should conduct themselves and their affairs according to their own will instead of God’s, as if He did not exist. In short, I speak of the kind of developments which portend a new, second Christendom whose advent is not as improbable or remote as we may think if we fix our attention only on news and information about all that is wrong.

That includes news out of the Vatican. Paying too close attention to it these days is to risk forgetting that the very gates of Hell will not prevail against the Church. In any case, the developments that interest us have taken place independent of Vatican involvement and even contrary to much currently heard from Rome. To be sure, when the Church is again more truly herself and she works in tandem with the right-thinking laity who, above all others, would welcome her collaboration, the advent of a new Christendom will be speeded. In the meantime, the kind of men of whom I speak move ahead without her.

They do things like conduct the summit conference that took place in Budapest last September 5-6 and that you probably didn’t hear about. That you did not was due to it being totally ignored by mainstream corporate globalist media. That was understandable. Conference participants were concerned with strengthening the family, enriching culture, upholding tradition, defending freedom – things necessary to achieving conference aims but which the media seek to undermine.

The conference was hosted by Hungary’s formidable Prime Minister Viktor Orban. Its overall concern was demographics and how to prevent the peoples of European lands from being swamped and ultimately replaced by alien, mainly Muslim migrants. Strengthening borders – building walls, if you will – is obviously necessary to achieving this aim, but conference participants were more interested in exploring ways to defend the fundamental institution of society, the family, and promoting population growth.

Besides Orban, the principal conference participants were the heads of government of Slovakia, Serbia, and the Czech Republic. Also on the scene was Tony Abbot, conservative former prime minister of Australia.

Back to the question before them: How to strengthen the family and promote the birth of more babies. The host country, Hungary, gives the example, which is precisely why it was host.

Hungarian couples who marry are automatically eligible for a government loan of 30,600 euros to help them get started by buying a home, a car, and so on. As soon as they have a third child the balance of the loan, whatever it may be, is forgiven. Additionally, the couple becomes exempt from income tax for the rest of their working lives when a third child is born.

Do such incentives work? Between 2010 and 2017 the number of marriages in Hungary rose 42 percent, the number of divorces fell from 23,873 to 18,600 and abortions from 40,449 to 28,500.

Of course more than financial incentives are needed in order to strengthen the family as an institution and to buttress the welfare of society. It’s why in October the government’s consumer protection agency slapped a heavy fine on Coca-Cola for plastering the nation’s cities with advertising posters that showed same-sex couples enjoying the beverage.

Last month, November, another international conference took place in Budapest. The subject of this one was religious persecution. Like the September summit, it was also largely ignored by mainstream media. The main takeaway: 80 percent of the people being persecuted today on account of their religion are Christians.

It is fitting and natural that Hungary would see to the disclosure of such a fact, as well as that the nation plays a leading role in the formation of a new Christendom. After all, it is declared by its constitution, written and ratified in 2012 after Viktor Orban and his Fidesz party came to power, that “we are proud that our King St. Stephen established the Hungarian state on firm foundations a thousand years ago and our country as part of Christian Europe… We recognize the role of Christianity in preserving our nationhood.” The document also states: “Hungary protects the institution of marriage between a man and a woman” and that “the life of a fetus will be protected from conception.”

Not all of the recent good news has been out of Hungary. We said at the beginning here that space permits discussing only a couple of developments, but before we come to the second a few others need at least mentioning.

National elections in Poland returned the Law and Justice Party to power with a larger parliamentary majority than ever. Readers will remember that it is under Law and Justice that Our Lord has been officially proclaimed the King of Poland.

The “far right” AfD (Alterrnative for Germany) Party beat globalist Angela Merkel’s CDU to come in second in elections in the eastern German state of Thuringia.

Polls are showing that in a head-to-head contest between France’s globalist President Emmanuel Macron and Marine Le Pen of the “far right” National Party, Le Pen would win. The next French presidential election is due to take place in 2022 – plenty of time for Le Pen to widen her lead.

In an October regional election a fifth Italian region in less than a year was won by Matteo Salvini’s Lega party after decades of Socialist rule. Also in October, Salvini himself spoke at a Rome rally attended by 30,000. Polls continue to show him as Italy’s most popular political figure by far.

As for the second development I want to emphasize, I speak of the outcome of Spain’s snap national election at the end of November. The “far right” nationalist populist Vox party emerged from it as now being Spain’s third-largest political party.

Bear in mind that Vox was founded barely six years ago. By last April it captured 20 seats in parliament in a national election. Now it holds 52. The rise of Vox and its charismatic leader Sebastian Abuscal has been truly meteoric!

Usually described by media as anti-immigration, Vox is that, but in the November election and to the outrage of Spain’s feminists its candidates emphasized their party’s pro-family, pro-life position.

The Vox victory was particularly gratifying because it came just days after the country’s current Socialist government, enabled by a court decision, shamefully succeeded in removing the remains of General Francisco Franco from their place of honor at the Valley of the Fallen memorial site.

When Vox finally enters government either as the nation’s number-one party or as a partner in coalition with the Popular Party, it will leave Portugal as the only country in Europe still ruled by a Socialist party.

Share this:

Australian bishops’ Conference secretary: Catholics can become Freemasons ‘with no penalty’

https://www.lifesitenews.com/opinion/australian-bishops-respond-to-priest-claiming-catholics-can-be-freemasons
Kathy Clubb

Australian bishops’ Conference secretary: Catholics can become Freemasons ‘with no penalty’ 

December 16, 2019 (Family Life International) — Back in July, I wrote an article for The Remnant on a Queensland priest who publicly admits to having been a Freemason for more than a decade. While that is shocking enough, the most disturbing part of this story was that the priest claims to have a letter from the Australian Catholic Bishops Conference, giving permission for Catholics to become Masons. This permission was said to be based on the erroneous conclusion that ‘Australian’ Freemasonry is somehow different from any other form of Freemasonry.

As my previous article explained, the communications officer for the ACBC Secretariat responded to my query with this statement:

The Australian Catholic Bishops Conference has exchanged private correspondence with officials from the Freemasons in recent years. Fr. Costigan’s writings do not accurately reflect the contents of that private correspondence nor any policy of the Conference.

As will become clear, that statement might be technically true, but in no way explains the reality of the correspondence’s contents.

Hiding in plain sight

Multiple phone calls and emails to archdioceses over several months rendered little fruit — only independent Catholic news sites and the Freemasons themselves seemed interested in Fr. Costigan’s conflicting loyalties. However, a careless social media post led to the discovery of the letter online, along with the letter from the Freemasons which originally sparked the ACBC’s response.

That letter was written by the former Grand Master of Northern Territory/South Australia, Stephen Michalak to Fr. Stephen Hackett, the ACBC Secretary, in 2016. In it, Mr. Michalak sought to clarify the Catholic Church’s position on its members becoming Freemasons.

Mr. Michalak is himself a Catholic, as were the Grand Masters of Queensland and Western Australia at that time. In his letter, Mr. Michalak expounds on the supposed virtues of Masonry, while also admitting that the Church maintains its ban on Catholics being members. He speaks of his ‘long-standing friendship’ with a former Vicar-General of Adelaide, who advised him to contact then Vicar-General, Fr. Philip Marshall.

Fr. Marshall advised him to obtain the agreement of all of the Australian Grand Masters before contacting the Church, and suggested to Michalak that he then write to the ACBC ‘seeking pastoral resolution to the present challenges as well as outlining a pathway for Catholics who are Freemasons to full participation in the sacramental life of the Church.’

Mr Michalak concluded his letter by stating his hope that Roman Catholic Freemasons will eventually be allowed to receive the sacraments without being in a state of sin.

Fr. Hackett’s response

The response from Fr Hackett is dated July 2017, exactly one year after Mr Michalak sent his enquiry. This time was needed, he writes, in order to consult with the Bishops Commission for Canon Law, the Bishops Commission for Doctrine and Morals and the Bishops Conference itself.

Without any explanation other than an acknowledgement of Mr Michalak’s glowing report of Masonry, Fr. Hackett expresses his satisfaction that ‘Australian’ Freemasonry’ is not hostile to Catholicism. 

However, if this is truly the case, then it is reasonable to ask why this assessment has never been made public or revealed to be the official stance of the ACBC — even though, as Fr. Hackett alleges below, the Bishops Conference came to that conclusion in 1984. 

Surely, if a thorough investigation involving multiple apparati of the ACBC and which took a year to complete had actually taken place, then it would behoove the Secretary to publicly disclose this fact, and to allow the mysterious 1984 directive to be promulgated.

But there is more.

Fr. Hackett goes on to imagine the Church and the Masons working in a ‘spirit of harmony’ which would be ‘informed by circumstance, need and opportunity.’ He then makes the following alarming and frankly, false, statement:

Perhaps most importantly for Catholic members of Freemasonry, I can reiterate a directive first made by the Bishops Conference in 1984 and affirmed this year. No penalty attaches to Catholic membership of the Masonic order. The involvement of Catholics in Freemasonry is foremost a moral matter which should normally be dealt with personally and pastorally in the local parish. I suggest that where a local pastoral response is not consistent with this expectation and liturgical-sacramental participation is made difficult or refused, that this might be referred to the local vicar general or to me.

I will raise issue of Catholics and Freemasonry during the annual meeting of Archdiocesan Vicars General, next due to be held in May 2018, to ensure that they are familiar with the preferred approach of the Bishops Conference.

Fr Hackett’s excuse — that the secrecy is necessary in case there are some Australian lodges which are hostile to the Church — does not hold water, since he provides no criteria by which to judge ‘hostility’ and given that the Church condemns all Masonry in any case.

“No local authority has the competence to derogate from these judgements“

In case there is any doubt as to the Church’s constant teaching on Freemasonry’s incompatibility with the Faith, a summary of the most recent Vatican directive on Masonry is given below. This was the 1983 Directive on Masonic Associations from the Vatican’s Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith and it was issued after the Code of Canon Law was changed in that same year, omitting the charge that Catholic Freemasons incur ex-communication. That revision had caused confusion amongst Catholics who in some cases assumed that there was no longer any penalty attached to their holding Masonic membership. Then-Cardinal Joseph Ratzinger felt compelled to issue the Directive in order to dispel confusion about Freemasonry. According to the 1983 Directive:
Declaration on Masonic Associations Nov 26, 1983

1. The Church’s negative judgment on Masonry remains unchanged, because the Masonic principles are irreconcilable with the Church’s teaching.

2. Catholics who join the Masons are in the state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion.

3. “No local ecclesiastical authority has the competence to derogate from these judgments of the Sacred Congregation.“

That last point, regarding a prohibition on local authorities to promulgate an alternative teaching on Masonry, is very pertinent in this case. For in suggesting that the Australian Bishops Conference can administer a bespoke interpretation of the relationship between Masonry and the Church, Fr. Hackett is in clear violation of the CDF’s directive. Obviously, he has also violated the first point by suggesting that so-called ‘Australian Freemasonry’ can be reconciled with the Church, and the second by failing to advise Catholics who remain Masons that they are not to receive Holy Communion.

Fr. Hackett’s claim that the ACBC directive of 1984 approved Freemasonry after the CDF’s definitive proclamation hints at an arrogance that defies belief.

Freemasonry is an “instrument of Satan”

Fr. Hackett’s assessment of Freemasonry, in addition to violating the 1983 Directive, stands in contrast with that of the many popes, bishops and laymen who have denounced Masonry since its inception four hundred years ago. In fact, there have been more than twenty encyclicals and papal bulls written on this matter by the popes alone.

The most famous of these, Humanum Genus, was written by Pope Leo XIII in 1884. In it, Pope Leo wrote,

We wish it to be your rule first of all to tear away the mask from Freemasonry, and to let it be seen as it really is; and by sermons and pastoral letters to instruct the people as to the artifices used by societies of this kind in seducing men and enticing them into its ranks, and as to the depravity of their opinions and the wickedness of their acts.

As our predecessors have many times repeated, let no man think he may for any reason whatsoever join the Masonic sect, if he values his Catholic name and his eternal salvation as he ought to value them.

In 1985, American Cardinal Law specifically debunked the idea that Masonry could be acceptable even if ostensibly not hostile to the faith, when he said: “And even though Masonic organizations may not in particular cases plot against the faith, it would still be wrong to join them because their basic principles are irreconcilable with those of the Catholic faith.”

Bishop Athanasius Schneider, in a December 2016 talk, referred to Freemasonry as the ‘Instrument of Satan,’ reminding Catholics that St Maximilian Kolbe founded his Knighthood of the Immaculata in direct response to threats from the Italian Freemasons of his day. As Bishop Schneider pointed out, reiterating the Church’s constant teaching, Freemasonry’s goal is “to eliminate the entire doctrine of God, especially Catholic doctrine.”

Former 32nd degree Mason, layman John Salza, is just as blunt. He states that “Freemasonry is a religion that is opposed to Jesus Christ and the Catholic Church. That’s the bottom line.”

The Bishops respond

FLI contacted Archbishop Anthony Fisher OP, Vice-President of the ACBC and Archbishop Julian Porteous for a response to our queries:

Archbishop Fisher stated via his private secretary that:

… he has no recollection of this being discussed at the Bishops Conference. The 1983 Declaration on Masonic Associations from the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith makes clear that Catholics who enrol in Masonic activities are in a state of grave sin and may not receive Holy Communion. Furthermore, the Declaration expressly says it is not within the competence of local ecclesiastical authorities to derogate from this.

Further, the Archbishop said that it is his understanding that while penalties have varied, the Church has never been in favour of Catholics joining any secret organisations with quasi-religious doctrines.

Additionally, Archbishop Fisher’s secretary drew our attention to the 1937 Plenary Council for Australia which passed a decree that prohibited Catholics becoming members of the Freemasons.

Paul Hanrahan spoke to Archbishop Julian Porteous, FLI’s Patron, who would like to withhold any comment until he has had a reply to his letter to Father Stephen Hackett MSC, asking him for clarification, especially where he received the information he has quoted. He does however endorse the comments of Archbishop Anthony Fisher.

“For there is nothing covered, that shall not be revealed”

It’s quite ironic that attempts by Catholic clergy to undermine the Church by embracing Freemasonry were undone by that ‘secret’ society advertising the fact on social media.

One day, as Jesus has promised us, all such secrets will be laid bare. But in the interim before that fearful day, there are sure to be many more betrayals revealed.

In light of the ACBC’s failure to adequately defend the Church’s teaching on a matter as fundamental as Catholicism’s incompatibility with Freemasonry, it should also be asked how any sane Catholic could expect the upcoming Plenary Council to fare any better.

Unless information to the contrary is made known by the bishops, Catholics could well conjecture that there exists in Australia a cabal of the clergy who are involved in Freemasonry, a number that is possibly not insignificant. Knowing the sad state of the Catholic Education system, the widespread incidence of heterodoxy in Australian parishes, unfettered homo-clericalism and its attendant abuse scandal, as well as the continued failure of anyone in authority to censure Fr Costigan — a spiritual work of mercy that is the obligation of every bishop — those fears would not be unfounded.

The offices of the Bishops Commission for Canon Law, the Bishops Commission for Doctrine and Morals, the Vicars-General and the Bishops Conference itself might be a good place to start looking.

The letters in question from Grand Master Stephen Michalak and the response from Father Stephen Hackett MSC on letterhead of the ACBC can be found here.

Published with permission from Family Life International.

ANGLICAN BISHOP AND QUEEN’S CHAPLAIN CONVERTS TO CATHOLICISM

NEWS:WORLD NEWS

by Jules Gomes  •  ChurchMilitant.com  •  December 16, 2019    

Dr. Gavin Ashenden makes the leap from Canterbury to Rome

SHROPSHIRE, ENGLAND (ChurchMilitant.com) – An internationally renowned Anglican bishop and former chaplain to Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth II is leaving the Anglican Church to become a Catholic. 

Bishop Gavin Ashenden will be received into full communion by Shrewsbury’s Bp. Mark Davies on the fourth Sunday of Advent at Shrewsbury Cathedral, England.

The outspoken prelate became a global media celebrity after he objected to the reading of the Koran at St. Mary’s Episcopal Cathedral in Glasgow, Scotland.

The Koranic chapter on Mary, read from the lectern at the service of Holy Communion, on the Feast of the Epiphany 2017, explicitly denied the divinity of Jesus. 

Under pressure from Buckingham Palace, Dr. Ashenden resigned his royal chaplaincy in order to be free to challenge the rising tide of apostasy in the Church of England. 

Later that year, Ashenden was consecrated a missionary bishop to the United Kingdom and Europe by the Christian Episcopal Church to provide episcopal cover to traditionalist Anglicans leaving the Church of England.It has been a special joy to accompany Gavin Ashenden in the final steps of a long journey to be at home in the Catholic Church.Tweet

Bishop Davies told Church Militant it was “very humbling to be able to receive a bishop of the Anglican tradition into Full Communion in the year of the canonization of Saint John Henry Newman.”

He commented:

It has been a special joy to accompany Gavin Ashenden in the final steps of a long journey to be at home in the Catholic Church. I am concious of the witness which Ashenden has given in the public square to the historic faith and values on which our society has been built. I pray that this witness will continue to be an encouragement to many.

Ashenden explained to Church Militant that for some time he believed he had “the advantage of working out his faith in a broad church as an Anglican,” until Anglicanism capitulated “to the increasingly intense and non-negotiaible demands of a secular culture.”

“I watched as the Church of England suffered a collapse of inner integrity as it swallowed wholesale secular society’s descent into a post-Christian culture,” he noted. 

Ashenden testified he was “especially grateful for the example and prayers of St. John Henry Newman,” who “did his best to remain a faithful Anglican and renew his Mother Church with the vigor and integrity of the Catholic tradition,” adding:

Now, as then, however, his experience informs ours that the Church of England is rooted in the values of secularized culture rather than the bedrock of biblical, apostolic and patristic tradition. Newman’s experience charts the way to our proper ecclesial home which is built on the Petrine charism in our struggle for salvation and Heaven.

A commentator for various media outlets, including the BBC, Ashenden revealed three major truths that led him to Catholicism. 2017 video of Dr. Gavin Ashenden explaining why he left the Church of England

The first was an examination of the encounter between the children and our Lady at Garabandal in 1963.

“Curious and skeptical, I was watching the film with a child psychologist friend who noted that ‘whatever was going on with the children it was essentially real, as ecstasy among children could never be faked,'” he said. “From then, I found that Our Lady’s apparitions, beginning with Gregory Thaumaturgus in the 3rd century through to Zeitoun in Cairo in 1968 and indeed the present day, deeply compelling.”

Ashenden’s friendship with Abbé Rene Laurentin, expert on the Marian apparitions, blossomed into a deep dependence on the Rosary.

“Curiously, this was accompanied by an unwanted visitation of metaphysical evil which only the Rosary seemed to overcome,” he observed.

The second factor leading to Ashenden’s conversion was his discovery of the phenomena of eucharistic miracles.

“The fact that they were unknown amongst those who celebrated the Anglican version of the Eucharist carries obvious implications,” he noted. “It is of the greatest relief to belong to the Church where the Mass is truly the Mass.”It is of the greatest relief to belong to the Church where the Mass is truly the Mass.Tweet

“Faced with the increasingly lethal assault on the Faith in our day, I found there was no means to draw orthodox Anglicans together in ecclesial unity and so the third reason for my conversion is the Magisterium,” Ashenden remarked. 

“You can find a different Anglicanism for each day of the week — almost each hour of the day,” he said. “I came to realize that only the Catholic Church, with the weight of the Magisterium, had the ecclesial integrity, theological maturity and spiritual potency to defend the Faith, renew society and save souls in the fullness of faith.” 

Ashenden also shared with Church Militant his deep conviction that the Catholic Church is the only alternative to the tyranny of cultural marxism.

In the early 1980s, as a young Anglican priest, I smuggled everything from bibles to medicines for Orthodox and Catholic Christians across the Iron Curtain. My trips to Prague involved carrying theological books to an underground Catholic seminary which continued despite a ban on ordinations. The underground Catholic Church was the only organized and ideological alterative to totalitarianism there. When the Berlin wall fell in 1989, I thought that was the end of Marxism. I and many others were wrong. Little did I know that my experiences of the underground Catholic Church in Czechoslovakia would act as a catalyst and an example to bring me to my true spiritual home.

Catholic academic, blogger and convert from Anglicanism, Fr. Dwight Longenecker, told Church Militant: “Gavin Ashenden comes to the Catholic Church with a wealth of erudition, experience and talent. As so many before him, he has made a long journey from Evangelical Anglicanism to the fullness of the Christian faith in the Catholic Church.”

“In these divisive and troubling times,” he continued, “it is encouraging to be reminded that in the midst of the tumultuous seas so many still find refuge in Peter’s boat.”

Ashenden studied law at Bristol University and theology at the conservative evangelical Oak Hill Theological College in London, and served as a parish priest in the Anglican diocese of Southwark. 

After postgraduate study in the Psychology of Religion at the Jesuit-run Heythrop College at the University of London, he completed a doctorate and spent 23 years as a senior lecturer and senior chaplain at the University of Sussex, lecturing on the Psychology of Religion and in Literature.  

Ashenden was a member of the Church of England’s General Synod for 20 years and was appointed a Chaplain to the Queen in 2008.

He resigned from the Church of England in 2017, after being convinced that ordaining women to the priesthood and consecrating them bishops represented the implosion of apostolic and biblical order. He also dissented from the increasing accommodation of the Church of England to radical secular views on gender theory.

“I am grateful to the bishop of Shrewsbury and the Catholic community in his diocese for the opportunity to mend 500 years of fractured history and be reconciled to the Church that gave birth to my earlier tradition,” Ashenden told Church Militant. 

Although Anglican orders were declared “absolutely null and utterly void” in 1896 by Pope Leo XIII, the diocese of Shrewsbury has sent Ashenden’s episcopal genealogy to the Congregation for the Doctrine of the Faith, as his episcopal consecration is considered to be valid in the line of Catholic apostolic succession, though not licit.

Anglican clergy received by Rome are generally re-ordained to the priesthood. However, the former Anglican bishop of London, Msgr. Graham Leonard, who converted to Catholicism in 1994 after rejecting the Anglican Church’s decision to ordain women, was ordained sub conditione(conditionally) owing to there being “prudent doubt” about the invalidity of his previous ordination in the Church of England.