WASHINGTON: On Fox & Friends (10/01/2019) Former Speaker of the House Newt Gingrich tells America’s Newsroom host Sandra Smith that the Democrats are not conducting an impeachment investigation as much as attempting a coup d’ etat of the Trump Presidency. Something CommDigiNews writers have been writing for months.

Watch the latest video at foxnews.com

Coup d’état is a sudden and decisive action in politics, especially one resulting in a change of government illegally or by force. The South Carolina Senator is absolutely correct because of how Pelosi is proceeding in this manner.

“So, Pelosi rushes out knowing better,” Gingrich says. “She rushes out, announces, ‘We’re moving forward on impeachment.’ They have not yet met with the whistleblower. They have not yet received the transcript of the phone call. Nothing had changed except the sheer pressure of her left. And she couldn’t get away from it!”

The Democrats are issuing a systematic series of assaults that are nothing more than a forcible transference of power from the Republicans and Donald J. Trump to the Democrats. It will require that they force out Vice President Pence as well, which if successful prior to the 2020 Election would put, wait for it, Nancy Pelosi into the Oval.





Democrats obviously do not feel that they can beat Trump in the 2020 election and that their only chance to gain control of the government, and your life, is by destroying the President.

According to Laura Ingraham, Fox Opinion Host

“Their choice to weaponize impeachment is all the proof you need of their aversion to democratic rule… The ‘Nancy-Ocasio-Pelosi Democrats’ see the voters as speedbumps on the way to the progressive promised land. But watch out kids, because these speed bumps have spikes, and if your party stay on this anti-democratic road you won’t just lose a tire, you’re going to blow an axle.”

What does Impeachment mean?

Americans often incorrectly equate impeachment with the removal of a president or other federal officials from office for committing a crime. Impeachment is nothing more than the approval of formal charges against a president, vice president or other federal officeholders accused of committing a crime.

Impeachment Procedure:

At the federal level, the impeachment process is a three-step procedure.

Congress, starting in the House Judiciary Committee, usually investigates the complaint. The Senate Judiciary Committee began the Nixon impeachment inquiry. The impeachment of Bill Clinton for perjury, lying about his sexual conduct with Monica Lewinsky, was revealed by Independent Counsel Kenneth Starr.

The House of Representatives must pass, by a simple majority of those present and voting, articles of impeachment, which constitute the formal allegation or allegations. The chamber would need 218 votes for a simple majority to impeach Trump. Reports are that 226 members of the House would be likely to vote for the Impeachment of the President. Upon passage in the house, the defendant has been “impeached”.

Once passed in the House, the Senate tries the accused. In the case of the impeachment of a president, the Chief Justice of the United States presides. Conviction in the Senate requires a two-thirds supermajority vote, which is unlikely in a Republican-controlled senate. The result of conviction is removal from office.

Impeachment is like an indictment in a criminal proceeding. It is an unproven presumption of guilt. A formal Impeachment hearing is not engaged until the House, under Pelosi, calls for a vote of all members. What Democrats are now doing is not following Constitutional Impeachment Procedures. It is not a presentation of facts, as much as a fishing expedition.

After the House, Impeachment proceedings head to the Senate:

Once an officeholder is impeached by the House, a trial is held by the Senate to determine whether the accused is guilty of the charges. If a guilty verdict is returned, only then can the accused be removed from office.

For one simple reason – as an inquiry, the House Intelligence Committee lead by Adam Schiff, can call witnesses and control the narrative without allowing the minority, ie. the President and Republicans, the ability to call witnesses, inspect documents or mount a defense of the inquiry.

Former Senator Trey Gowdy explains the need to be able to review documents and confront witnesses, not rely on hearsay or utterances of unmasked persons, as a cornerstone of prosecution in jurisprudence, or the application of law.

When facts are fictional

Despite Democrats presenting hearsay information about the business of the president as fact.





These manipulations include, but are not limited to:

Changing the wording on a “whistleblower” complaint to not include a first-hand knowledge requirement; Calling for an inquiry before seeing the transcript of the call as Democrats did not anticipate the President releasing the transcript; Because Pelosi is not calling for a House vote on impeachment, the White House is not able to mount a defense thus allowing Democrats to control the media narrative. That by not calling for a House vote on impeachment, the White House is precluded from issuing subpoenas to gather information or mount a counter-narrative / defense; Presenting non-factual information as truth.; Democrat operatives, including lawyers and other persons in intelligence agencies, working with the “whistleblower” to craft the complaint; Adam Schiff’s false “parody” of the call between President Trump and President Zelensky was meant to be misleading to the American people. Note, in the following video, Schiff is not reading what the President said, but Schiff’s interpretation of what the President meant:



Getting rid of President Trump to protect Joe Biden

We have to critically ask if the confusion around impeachment has more to do with what Joe and Hunter Biden did, than any faux pas committed by the President. Biden, the presently failing candidate for the 2020 Democratic presidential nomination, threatened to withhold $1 billion in American loan guarantees to Ukraine unless the Ukrainian president fired a prosecutor Biden didn’t like.

This is without a doubt an example of Biden bragging about a quid pro quo demand of the Ukrainian government. Coupling this with the fact that the prosecutor, who is now willing to testify to the US House and Senate as to the events surrounding his dismissal at Biden’s demand, was investigating what is knowingly questionable actions by Biden, both Joe, and Hunter.

Actions that led to the enrichment of Hunter Biden by millions of dollars. What Hunter Biden did offer to Burisma was access to his father, the Vice President.

Sol Weisenberg, Deputy Independent Counsel, in the Whitewater/Lewinsky investigation who conducted grand jury questioning of President Bill Clinton, says of the investigation that:

“I see this as an effort from the beginning to shut down the John Durham investigation… And to go against Barr when a party in power uses intelligence agencies to spy on an opposing candidate.”

Because AG Barr has clearly stated his intent to look into the origins of the Russia Hoax. That the actions that led to the Steele Dossier, FISA abuse and the acts of collusion between the Dossier creator, Christopher Steele, and the Clinton – Obama cabal require investigation.

And the Bidens, Burisma and Ukraine are all players in the Russia hoax to salaciously demean the President, Donald J. Trump. To deny the peaceful transference of power that Americans deserve, but that they have been denied by Democrats and liberal media.

Burisma Holdings

In April 2014, Hunter Biden became a paid board member of the Ukranian natural gas company Burisma Holdings. Biden remaining on the board through early 2019. Biden holds no previous experience in gas or energy development or policy. As such, his duties as a board member are largely undefined.

In March 2016, then-Vice President Biden pressured the Ukranian government to fire Viktor Shokin, who was investigating Burisma Holdings.

Radio Free Europe reports:

Here is a look at the arguments, facts, and evidence in the dispute pitting Trump against former Vice President Joe Biden, a front-runner for the Democratic nomination to challenge the incumbent in the election next year.

Trump and his allies, including his personal lawyer, Rudolph Giuliani, the former mayor of New York, accuse Biden of using his position as vice president and point man on relations with Kyiv in 2016 to help Burisma — a Ukrainian energy company that was paying Biden’s son Hunter, who was on its board of directors — avoid damage from a criminal investigation.

They assert that Shokin was overseeing an active criminal investigation into Burisma and that Biden at the time told Ukrainian President Petro Poroshenko that the United States would withhold $1 billion in loan guarantees unless Shokin was fired. (see above video)

Another Bidenism rewriting facts

Biden says that he never discussed his son’s foreign business dealings.

But a photo obtained by Fox News’ “Tucker Carlson Tonight” shows Biden and his son golfing in the Hamptons. Golfing with Devon Archer, who also served on the board of Burisma Holdings.

One has to ask oneself if it is possible that during a day of golf, much less the time spent on Airforce Two traveling back and forth from Ukraine, that the father and son never spoke of his lucrative new gig with Burisma.

Finally, the Whistleblower complaints did not follow normal procedures.

The Whistleblower complaint is turning out to be more Presidential harassment and less fact. Former CIA officer John Kiriakou explains why he feels President Donald Trump should ask the Senate to investigate the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA).

Kiriakou, a former CIA insider, describes the difference between the process of his whistleblower complaint and the highly polished complaint as a result of Trump’s July 25 phone call to the president of Ukraine. President Trump and Rudy Giuliani, his personal attorney are seeking the identification of the Whistleblower. Not for purposes of retaliation, but to determine if the Whistleblower is an individual with knowledge or a person who is acting as the persona of the Whistleblower when the complaint is actually the creation of a group of intelligence operatives seeking to destroy the President.

Not unlike the Peter Strzok insurance policy (Peter Strzok and his failed coup: None dared call it treason).