A note to readers: this is an old post on the archive website for Promethean PAC. It was written when we were known as LaRouche PAC, before changing our name to Promethean PAC in April 2024. You can find the latest daily news and updates on www.PrometheanAction.com. Additionally, Promethean PAC has a new website at www.PrometheanPAC.com.

Today, Monday, January 25, Nancy Pelosi’s impeachment minions will “solemnly” traverse the hallway of the Capitol, between the House and the Senate, bearing a single article of impeachment against citizen Donald Trump. Cameras will roll, attempting to dignify this stroll. But what they are carrying is the equivalent of an IED targeted at the U.S. Constitution. It is also an IED aimed squarely at the American people, namely, you.

They intend it to hit both those who voted for Donald Trump and those who didn’t but might dissent, nonetheless. It will kick off a phony campaign under the rubric of stopping “domestic terrorism,” to manufacture “consent” for economic policies which will wipe out whole swaths of the population. If we respond appropriately, it will blow up on them, like the rest of the scripted policies of the Avatar President, Joe Biden.

The bearers of this device are a bunch of unhinged lawyers, who proclaim themselves liberals and civil libertarians but now seek a replay of the McCarthy period and J. Edgar Hoover’s infamous COINTELPRO, having found the freedoms of the Constitution a threat to their vision of utopia where social credit is based on racial or sexual identity and, most of all, compliance and intellectual and creative passivity.

They hope that the impeachment show trial, accompanied by a campaign of threats, censorship, and social ostracism, all of it watched over by National Guard troops who will occupy Washington, D.C. until mid-March, will somehow legitimize a presidency won by massive vote fraud and put an awakened people back into the “normal” mode. By “normal” they mean a government which reacts with chill, or even hostile indifference, to the monstrous conditions which its policies impose and a population which accepts their immiserated condition and despair passively with no manifest sense of their human rights in these matters. That is a general description of “normal” before Donald Trump, the man who awoke a sleeping giant—the people who are no longer willing to accept the elites’ discredited bull pucky.

Just look at the panicked cast of characters the elites lined up to sell their plan to re-pacify the majority of the American population. James Comey, the disgraced former FBI Director, shouted hysterically last week that they need to “burn the Republican party to the ground.”

John Brennan, Obama’s brain-dead CIA Director, declared that he knows that the entire new Biden intelligence apparatus is now focused, “laser like,” on the Trump “insurgency” which includes racists, bigots, and a whole list of other deplorables, allied, it seems, with libertarians. According to Brennan, the intelligence mandarins (who have demonstrated their repeated incompetence) will use the same techniques on Trump supporters which Obama used on ISIS. Brennan, of course, knows, that Obama actually grew ISIS, thinking it useful to overthrow Syria’s President Assad.

Nancy Pelosi and Hillary Clinton, on Clinton’s séance-like podcast, called for a commission to investigate what happened at the Capitol, because, they opine, it obviously had to have something to do with Russiagate’s still unexplored deep relationship between Donald Trump and Vladimir Putin. At the very same time this insane podcast took place, declassified FBI documents showed that Clinton fabricated the entirety of Russiagate, designing it to deflect from the apparently politically devastating emails extant on her private email server.

This initial incendiary barrage was accompanied by repeated calls to “deprogram” Trump supporters by such as Katie Couric and a real former Moonie weirdo deprogrammer called Steve Hassan. All of this is being done at the same time that the Avatar president shouts at his teleprompter about “unity” and “civility.”

Finally, in laying out the schedule for impeachment Senator Chuck Schumer delivered the ultimate Freudian slip, declaring that President Trump was being tried by the Senate for inciting an “erection.”

The impeachment trial will begin on February 8. The Democrats are hoping to use the intervening period to confirm their cabinet nominees, many of whom have been the actual insurrectionists participating in the coup against Trump over the past four years. Last week’s direct assaults on the Senate itself, with Wall Street threatening Mitch McConnell and the Republican Party with funding cutoffs, McConnell embracing impeachment, and full-scale cancel campaigns against Senators Hawley and Cruz, allowed the confirmation of Biden cabinet nominees in a walk. That included Avril Haines, the Brennan protege and designer of Obama’s Tuesday afternoon drone killing sprees, for Director of National Intelligence.

Already throughout the land an awakened people are equipping themselves with the ideas about economy, science, and culture necessary to soon run the economy and government, replacing the hopelessly corrupt and incompetent elite. They are running for office. They know a lot about the secret government now, having witnessed its naked and exposed operations throughout the past four years as the would-be magicians threw everything they had against Donald Trump. The people are awake and will no longer be fooled. Things will not return to “normal.”

At the same time as Nancy Pelosi and friends walk the impeachment article to the Senate, the lords of the City of London and the oligarchs of Davos will convene to dictate the next steps in their attempted Great Reset of the world’s economy. If it isn’t clear by now, you should know that Pelosi and her deranged and enraged lawyers are actors in this larger scheme. Trump and his supporters, along with Putin and other believers in the nation-state, stand in the way of the Great Reset.

The Phony Domestic Terrorism Campaign

The House’s latest impeachment against citizen Trump was cobbled together by a bunch of rabid sophists with law degrees, whose operating precept is that of Thrasymachus in Plato’s Republic: Justice is what those in power say it is.

These are the same folks who let cities burn throughout the summer, letting the terrorists of Antifa run free, killing and maiming cops. They proclaimed that the summer’s protests were peaceful against a backdrop of burning buildings and a President put in the White House bunker by the Secret Service because they feared for his life. That served their purpose. Now, they paint the 75 million voters for Donald Trump as insurgent white supremacist terrorists, like ISIS, based on a provoked riot of 300 or so individuals at the U.S. Capitol. Of course, anyone following the actual white supremacist organizations in the United States and elsewhere knows that these groups are state-controlled entities, thoroughly penetrated already by the FBI and others in the intelligence community.

The domestic terrorism mobilization, first floated by Brennan, was confirmed by the January 23 Washington Post which named Joshua Geltzer as the coordinator of this “legally difficult” intelligence effort. Geltzer will be working to coordinate this effort in Biden’s National Security Council.

Geltzer designed the failed Obama Administration strategy concerning ISIS at the Obama National Security Council and has been up to his neck since then in the lawyers’ coup against Donald Trump. He worked out of Georgetown’s Institute for Constitutional Advocacy and Protection with Mary McCord, a central Justice Department player in the set-up and entrapment of Michael Flynn, and Neal Katyal, Obama’s Acting Solicitor General. This Silicon Valley capitalized Georgetown legal salon has spent its entire four-year tenure waging legal war against Donald Trump, which was the entire reason for its existence in the first place.

The House Impeachment’s Fake ‘Facts’

The impeachment article presents four categorically false assertions to support the overarching claim that President Trump incited an insurrection or rebellion against the United States on January 6, 2021. According to the article:

  1. President Trump repeatedly made false statements, prior to January 6, 2021, asserting that the results of the presidential election were fraudulent.
  2. President Trump repeated these false statements in speaking to his supporters at a rally on January 6 and made other statements that encouraged and resulted in the ensuing violence at the Capitol, such as “if you don’t fight like hell you won’t have a country.”
  3. Incited by Trump’s speech, members of the crowd he addressed attempted to interfere with the counting of the Electoral College vote, by attacking the Capitol, killing law enforcement personnel, menacing the Vice President, members of Congress, and their staffs, and “engaged in other violent, deadly, destructive, and seditious acts.”
  4. Prior to January 6, President Trump called Georgia Secretary of State Raffensperger, instructing him to find enough votes to overturn the Georgia presidential election result and threatening Raffensperger if he did not do so.

The problem here, of course, is that Trump’s statements about the vote fraud were substantively true and are believed by a near majority of American citizens. His attempts to get the incompetent Georgia Secretary of State to investigate the ballot theft, recorded on security cameras in Atlanta and broadcast all over the Internet, are the opposite of criminal activity.

There is also now significant evidence showing that the attack on the Capitol was pre-planned, started well before Trump’s speech, and was known and tracked by relevant federal officials. Despite official knowledge of the danger, on January 6, 2021, security at the Capitol was virtually non-existent due to the deliberate decisions of the anti-Trump officials involved, particularly Nancy Pelosi, Mitch McConnell, and Washington, D.C. Mayor Muriel Bowser.

The House’s so-called “facts” did not evolve from hearings or testimony before the House Judiciary Committee in which the President was represented by counsel and witnesses testified about facts—the process in place before Trump. Instead, the impeachment article was rushed through on a simple vote of the Democratic majority in record time. This was a snap impeachment, an event within a full-spectrum information warfare campaign designed to legitimize the otherwise illegitimate Biden presidency—the same campaign which generated the riot at the Capitol.

In addition to the fact that the President’s statements about vote fraud are true, they are also fully protected speech under the First Amendment to the United States Constitution. Our founders believed that the answer to any false speech was more speech, trusting the discernment of citizens to sort truth from falsehood. They believed even more firmly that criminalizing thought was the essence of tyranny.

As quickly as the Washington, D.C. media narrative echo machine put out that the President’s words at the January 6 rally were “incitement,” Jeffrey Shapiro, a prosecutor formerly responsible for prosecuting incitement to riot cases in Washington, D.C., came forward to call out the absurdity. Shapiro said that nothing the President said would ever be charged, even had the President not specifically instructed those attending the speech to go peacefully to the Capitol to make their voices heard. Instantaneously, the media and Justice Department suggestions that the President might be guilty of incitement dropped completely out of the narrative. Everywhere, it seems, but the rabid House of Representatives.

The Unconstitutional and Very British Legal Claims

In addition to delivering an entirely false statement of facts, the legal basis for the House’s claims is unconstitutional. It is based, rather, on the barbaric practices of the King and the British parliament against which we fought a revolution.

Impeachments and Bills of Attainder were widely used by the British Empire as the means to vanquish political opposition through the controlled parliament, including through executions without trial. That is the reason why the founders spent their time writing and debating with some exactitude how and under what circumstances impeachment under the Constitution is warranted. It is set up so that it is to be used infrequently, not to impeach a President twice because of unfettered political rage and hysteria.

The Constitution specifically bans Bills of Attainder, even extending that ban to the states. This ban prohibits Congress from enacting “a law that legislatively determines guilt and inflicts punishment upon an identifiable individual without provision of the protections of a judicial trial,” according to the U.S. Supreme Court. The ban specifically prohibits Congress from conducting trial by legislature as was done under English kings.

It is clear from the Constitution’s plain language that impeachment is only prescribed for a sitting President, not a President who has left office. Because of this, it is entirely probable that Chief Justice Roberts will not even show up for this show trial. His role is confined to proceedings involving a sitting President. Instead, it is mooted that Vice-President Harris might preside, despite the fact that she benefits from politically castrating Donald Trump, an obvious conflict of interest.

Because the Constitution’s plain language would seem to defeat the Senate’s jurisdiction to entertain impeachment of citizen Trump, the Democrats and their lawfare legal insurrectionists have drafted an alternative theory, based on the 14th Amendment, to bar Trump from running again. This theory permeates their article of impeachment and constitutes, precisely, a Bill of Attainder.

They resurrect Section 3 of the 14th Amendment to say that Congress can summarily so punish Donald Trump, even if it cannot legally impeach him. Section 3 barred officers of the Confederacy, who had previously taken an oath to the Constitution to serve in public office and then engaged in “the insurrection,” from again serving in public office, unless two-thirds of the Congress voted to reinstate them. The insurrection referenced in Section 3 was, of course, the Civil War.

Think about the insanity at work here. Because these legal eagles have to track the specific language of Section 3, they are compelled to absurdly describe the events at the Capitol on January 6 as an “insurrection” which the President somehow incited, equal to the Civil War.
Obviously, this parody of legalism is nothing but an information warfare meme aimed, once again, at falsely painting Trump and his supporters as systemic racists. This meme was invented by the prominent revisionist and left historian Eric Foner, the same nut who painted Abraham Lincoln as the historical double of Mikhail Gorbachev.

Foner’s crazy meme has been given legal substance by none other than Philip Zelikow, the man at the 9/11 Commission most responsible for covering up the true nature of that murder of 3,000 American citizens. Zelikow writes at the Brookings Institution’s Lawfare blog, which has also been a central coordinating point for the lawyers’ coup against the American presidency.

The last time Congress sought to apply just such attainders was in the McCarthy period, in which citizens were socially ostracized and effectively “cancelled” based on their political beliefs.

George Washington University Law School’s Jonathan Turley ended his testimony in President Trump’s first impeachment trial by a reference to Sir Thomas More. Turley had engaged in a fruitless effort to persuade his crazed Democratic friends to return to the Constitution and reason. Turley’s reference should be read by all of those on the nominal left today. They will be next if all of those who dissent from neo-liberalism cannot get together to defeat the outright fascist transition now underway.

Turley testified:

“Listening to these calls to dispense with such legal niceties, brings to mind a famous scene with Sir Thomas More in ‘A Man For All Seasons.’ In a critical exchange, More is accused by his son-in-law William Roper of putting the law before morality and that More would ‘give the Devil the benefit of law!’ When More asks if Roper would instead ‘cut a great road through the law to get after the Devil?,’ Roper proudly declares, ‘Yes, I’d cut down every law in England to do that!’ More responds by saying, ‘And when the last law was down, and the Devil turned ‘round on you, where would you hide, Roper, the laws all being flat? This country is planted thick with laws, from coast to coast, Man’s laws, not God’s! And if you cut them down, and you're just the man to do it, do you really think you could stand upright in the winds that would blow then? Yes, I’d give the Devil benefit of law, for my own safety’s sake!’ ”