In the last week, the Democrats and the media keep repeating that President Trump refused to take part in the impeachment hearings in the House Judiciary Committee. It's important that you understand the reality here and not the talking points pushed by the media and the Dems.
1. To the extent that there were any fact witnesses presented to Congressional committees, they testified in front of the House Intelligence Committee chaired by Adam Schiff. Under the rules that the Schiff committee put in place, the President had no right to have a representative question the witnesses. In fact, Republicans on the committee were not allowed to call any witnesses. In other words, the only "evidence" presented to the Intelligence committee was the story presented by the Democrats. The was no defense allowed, not for the President or for the Republicans.
2. In the Judiciary Committee, the only witnesses have been professors who claim to be experts. They are only commenting on the evidence presented to Schiff's committee. If the President had a representative at the Judiciary committee, that representative would not be presenting a defense, but rather only disputing the "expert" opinions of a few law professors. Jerry Nadler, the chair of the committee, made clear that the President would not have any ability in that committee to present fact witnesses for his defense.
This is a total travesty of justice. Think of it this way. Suppose you were arrested and charged with robbing your neighbor's house. The prosecutors put on witnesses who testified that they think it was you because someone else told them that it was you. That's a rough equivalence of what the Dems presented in the Intelligence committee. Suppose, though, that you had witnesses who could prove that first, the neighbor wasn't robbed, and second, at the time of the supposed robbery you were three hundred miles away speaking at a conference in front of 60 people. But suppose further that the judge decided that you couldn't present your witnesses who would prove your innocence. All you could do would be to question witnesses who were giving opinions as to whether or not the claims made by the neighbor constituted robbery. That's roughly the procedure that the Democrats adopted.
The Dems have asked the President to participate in a kangaroo court in which he would be blocked from defending himself. That's why he is not participating. Why should he give this farce any legitimacy by participating in it.
It's hard to believe that elected representatives of the American people would act in this way. The Democrats have disgraced themselves forever.
1. To the extent that there were any fact witnesses presented to Congressional committees, they testified in front of the House Intelligence Committee chaired by Adam Schiff. Under the rules that the Schiff committee put in place, the President had no right to have a representative question the witnesses. In fact, Republicans on the committee were not allowed to call any witnesses. In other words, the only "evidence" presented to the Intelligence committee was the story presented by the Democrats. The was no defense allowed, not for the President or for the Republicans.
2. In the Judiciary Committee, the only witnesses have been professors who claim to be experts. They are only commenting on the evidence presented to Schiff's committee. If the President had a representative at the Judiciary committee, that representative would not be presenting a defense, but rather only disputing the "expert" opinions of a few law professors. Jerry Nadler, the chair of the committee, made clear that the President would not have any ability in that committee to present fact witnesses for his defense.
This is a total travesty of justice. Think of it this way. Suppose you were arrested and charged with robbing your neighbor's house. The prosecutors put on witnesses who testified that they think it was you because someone else told them that it was you. That's a rough equivalence of what the Dems presented in the Intelligence committee. Suppose, though, that you had witnesses who could prove that first, the neighbor wasn't robbed, and second, at the time of the supposed robbery you were three hundred miles away speaking at a conference in front of 60 people. But suppose further that the judge decided that you couldn't present your witnesses who would prove your innocence. All you could do would be to question witnesses who were giving opinions as to whether or not the claims made by the neighbor constituted robbery. That's roughly the procedure that the Democrats adopted.
The Dems have asked the President to participate in a kangaroo court in which he would be blocked from defending himself. That's why he is not participating. Why should he give this farce any legitimacy by participating in it.
It's hard to believe that elected representatives of the American people would act in this way. The Democrats have disgraced themselves forever.
No comments:
Post a Comment