With the impeachment trial moving ahead, it's time to step back and return to reality for a moment. It's easy enough to get caught up in some of the bizarre points that have been argued, but we need to get back to the basics in order to keep track of what is actually happening. Here are a few basics and why they are important.
1. As in any proceeding, it is up to the prosecutor (in this case the Democrats from the House) to prove that the defendant (in this case the President) is guilty of wrongdoing. This has to be done with actual proof in the form of witness testimony or documents. It is never enough to prove guilt for someone to guess what happened or to give evidence about what someone else said. There has to be ACTUAL proof. Think of it this way: supposed you were on trial for robbing a liquor store and your neighbor came into court and testified that you had to have robbed that store because you are a heavy drinker. The neighbor didn't see you rob the store. The neighbor didn't hear you say you robbed the store. In fact, all that the neighbor knows is that you like to drink. That could never be enough to convict you of robbing the store because there is no proof tying you to the robbery. In fact, in most courts, your neighbor wouldn't even be allowed to testify about your drinking habits.
So far, the Democrats haven't offered any proof of wrong doing of any sort by the President. They have witnesses who say that Trump didn't follow the old ways of US foreign policy when it came to Ukraine. Of course, the President doesn't have to follow the old ways even if the state department crowd doesn't like it. The Dems have not a single witness who says that the President held up military aid to Ukraine because he was pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. Imagine that! Not a single witness can actually testify that he heard Trump direct that aid be held up until the Biden investigation went ahead. Oh, there are witnesses who guessed that this was what was going on, but that doesn't cut it. Remember your neighbor who tied you to that liquor store robbery? Suppose the neighbor said on the stand that he guessed that you were the one who committed the robbery. The judge would strike such testimony as improper, instruct the jury to disregard it and warn the witness to stop speculating. So there's no proof there. (This is not to say that if there were such proof, it is an impeachable offense; that is a different argument.)
2. The Democrats were in total control of the hearings and impeachment proceedings in the House. Not a single Republican ever voted for any of the Democrats' impeachment moves, but yet they went ahead with strong support from most Democrats. That's another important bit of basic information to remember when we get to the Democrats' big push now for new witnesses and documents to be produced in the Senate. The Democrats had their chance, they did not act, and now it is not up to the Senate to do the investigation that was the obligation of the House.
Basically, the Democrats are saying that even though they had full control in the House, they still need extra witnesses or documents that they decided to skip in the House investigation. Imagine a criminal trial where the prosecutor is asked by the judge what proof of the crime will be presented and the prosecutor responds that the state still needs to find witnesses who can testify about what actually happened. That's just like the Dems saying that they need to question John Bolton or others. The judge would dismiss the case and warn the prosecutors that if they ever do that again in his court, he will hold them in contempt.
So what the Dems actually have is no actual proof of wrongdoing. That's why they want to try for new witnesses. The Dems, though, chose not to question these witnesses in the House when they had total control. Having made that choice, they are stuck with the results.
Remember these points the next time some fool tells you that even Trump isn't convicted, he obviously did something wrong. The Dems/prosecution have no proof of wrongdoing. And don't forget to throw in that the Dems have still been saying that they have overwhelming proof of wrongdoing -- even though they have nothing. It's just like the Russia hoax where the Dems said they had overwhelming proof that Trump collude with Russia only to have the Mueller team investgate fully and find that there was no such collusion. In other words, the Dems will say anything no matter the truth.
1. As in any proceeding, it is up to the prosecutor (in this case the Democrats from the House) to prove that the defendant (in this case the President) is guilty of wrongdoing. This has to be done with actual proof in the form of witness testimony or documents. It is never enough to prove guilt for someone to guess what happened or to give evidence about what someone else said. There has to be ACTUAL proof. Think of it this way: supposed you were on trial for robbing a liquor store and your neighbor came into court and testified that you had to have robbed that store because you are a heavy drinker. The neighbor didn't see you rob the store. The neighbor didn't hear you say you robbed the store. In fact, all that the neighbor knows is that you like to drink. That could never be enough to convict you of robbing the store because there is no proof tying you to the robbery. In fact, in most courts, your neighbor wouldn't even be allowed to testify about your drinking habits.
So far, the Democrats haven't offered any proof of wrong doing of any sort by the President. They have witnesses who say that Trump didn't follow the old ways of US foreign policy when it came to Ukraine. Of course, the President doesn't have to follow the old ways even if the state department crowd doesn't like it. The Dems have not a single witness who says that the President held up military aid to Ukraine because he was pressuring Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. Imagine that! Not a single witness can actually testify that he heard Trump direct that aid be held up until the Biden investigation went ahead. Oh, there are witnesses who guessed that this was what was going on, but that doesn't cut it. Remember your neighbor who tied you to that liquor store robbery? Suppose the neighbor said on the stand that he guessed that you were the one who committed the robbery. The judge would strike such testimony as improper, instruct the jury to disregard it and warn the witness to stop speculating. So there's no proof there. (This is not to say that if there were such proof, it is an impeachable offense; that is a different argument.)
2. The Democrats were in total control of the hearings and impeachment proceedings in the House. Not a single Republican ever voted for any of the Democrats' impeachment moves, but yet they went ahead with strong support from most Democrats. That's another important bit of basic information to remember when we get to the Democrats' big push now for new witnesses and documents to be produced in the Senate. The Democrats had their chance, they did not act, and now it is not up to the Senate to do the investigation that was the obligation of the House.
Basically, the Democrats are saying that even though they had full control in the House, they still need extra witnesses or documents that they decided to skip in the House investigation. Imagine a criminal trial where the prosecutor is asked by the judge what proof of the crime will be presented and the prosecutor responds that the state still needs to find witnesses who can testify about what actually happened. That's just like the Dems saying that they need to question John Bolton or others. The judge would dismiss the case and warn the prosecutors that if they ever do that again in his court, he will hold them in contempt.
So what the Dems actually have is no actual proof of wrongdoing. That's why they want to try for new witnesses. The Dems, though, chose not to question these witnesses in the House when they had total control. Having made that choice, they are stuck with the results.
Remember these points the next time some fool tells you that even Trump isn't convicted, he obviously did something wrong. The Dems/prosecution have no proof of wrongdoing. And don't forget to throw in that the Dems have still been saying that they have overwhelming proof of wrongdoing -- even though they have nothing. It's just like the Russia hoax where the Dems said they had overwhelming proof that Trump collude with Russia only to have the Mueller team investgate fully and find that there was no such collusion. In other words, the Dems will say anything no matter the truth.
No comments:
Post a Comment