Chief Justice Roberts swears in the jury, the United States Senate.
The trial of a President of the United States is something that should never be taken lightly. After all, any attempt to remove a sitting President by means other than an election rubs at the "craw" of most American who feel, rightly so, that a decision of that nature is one that should be left for the people to make. And with only a little over nine months until the next election, many are wondering why in the world is this happening. In the two hundred and thirty one years that the United States has had a Chief Executive, only three, including Donald Trump, have been tried, with a fourth resigning before he was brought to trial. In the case of the three, the first two, Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were acquitted and it certainly appears clear that Mr. Trump will also be acquitted quite quickly. Why? Because the trial that is underway has, after two of the three days of the prosecution's case, has failed to provide the proof of any such high crimes or misdemeanors being committed by the President. Instead, we have second, third and even fourth person hearsay offered as evidence while the government is at a stalemate because of an event that should be rare, solemn and dignified and instead is showing itself as a national joke. It is even indicated by the low number of those watching or listening, less than half of those who followed the Kavanaugh hearings, another fiasco.
When Adam Schiff took to the podium to introduce the two charges against Donald Trump before the jury, consisting of the United States Senate, he said that the trial would prove conclusively that Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress had been committed by President Donald J. Trump. What he failed to mention is that neither charge is included in federal code and in the case of the way they are using the charge against Congress, it violates the President's right to request judicial review, which he did at the time. Then Schiff proceeded in his comments to discuss the charges by saying that Trump was guilty, refusing to acknowledge that they were only allegations until such time as a guilty verdict is obtained. Other House manager parading before the cameras have used that same playbook. So, now with two days down and only one to go as they try to make their case, I expect more of the same; more of the same words, more of the tapes from the impeachment hearings and more statements about guilt that have in no way been proven. And remember, those tapes that show lots of criticism of Trump by government employees supporting their own interest, all end with statements that no one can say that Trump violated the law in anything he did.
Beginning tomorrow, the President's team takes the floor to make the case for why there is no basis for impeachment and no proof of high crimes and misdemeanors by the President. This will be the first time that either body of Congress has allowed him that basic right, thanks to a process employed by the Democrats which has never been used before. We've been through weeks of impeachment hearings where the President was offered no opportunity to defend himself and call for witnesses and his party was only allowed to speak with the approval of Chairman Schiff in the impeachment process. In a number of cases, the speaker was even cut off in mid-sentence as King Adam and his minions violated all principles of fair play. And then, with the two articles of impeachment forwarded to the Senate, Schiff and Jerrold Nadler, the two committee chairs which led the effort, both say they have a slam dunk case. Yet, however, they say they now need more witnesses. I think that presents a case for stupidity, for can you imagine a prosecutor going to trial and asking the judge to get the jury to give him more evidence? I don't think so and neither do they, if they would only be honest. So, let's listen to the three days (maybe less) of the President's legal team presentations and see where we are. Since most Americans have heard none of it and, of course, the mainstream media won't cover it, in my humble opinion that should likely be enough. But we'll have to see what the four Republican amigos decide about how much more they want to hear. Hopefully, this stain on American politics will soon be shuttered for good.
All I can say for certain is that the Framers never had in mind such a jaded effort to use impeachment on strictly political ideology as a way to get rid of a duly elected Chief Executive. Sadly, it may have just created a precedent where every President going forward faces impeachment. Wouldn't that be a sad state of affairs for a Congress which already has trouble focusing on the things that they need to pay attention? Only time will tell, my friends.
When Adam Schiff took to the podium to introduce the two charges against Donald Trump before the jury, consisting of the United States Senate, he said that the trial would prove conclusively that Abuse of Power and Obstruction of Congress had been committed by President Donald J. Trump. What he failed to mention is that neither charge is included in federal code and in the case of the way they are using the charge against Congress, it violates the President's right to request judicial review, which he did at the time. Then Schiff proceeded in his comments to discuss the charges by saying that Trump was guilty, refusing to acknowledge that they were only allegations until such time as a guilty verdict is obtained. Other House manager parading before the cameras have used that same playbook. So, now with two days down and only one to go as they try to make their case, I expect more of the same; more of the same words, more of the tapes from the impeachment hearings and more statements about guilt that have in no way been proven. And remember, those tapes that show lots of criticism of Trump by government employees supporting their own interest, all end with statements that no one can say that Trump violated the law in anything he did.
Beginning tomorrow, the President's team takes the floor to make the case for why there is no basis for impeachment and no proof of high crimes and misdemeanors by the President. This will be the first time that either body of Congress has allowed him that basic right, thanks to a process employed by the Democrats which has never been used before. We've been through weeks of impeachment hearings where the President was offered no opportunity to defend himself and call for witnesses and his party was only allowed to speak with the approval of Chairman Schiff in the impeachment process. In a number of cases, the speaker was even cut off in mid-sentence as King Adam and his minions violated all principles of fair play. And then, with the two articles of impeachment forwarded to the Senate, Schiff and Jerrold Nadler, the two committee chairs which led the effort, both say they have a slam dunk case. Yet, however, they say they now need more witnesses. I think that presents a case for stupidity, for can you imagine a prosecutor going to trial and asking the judge to get the jury to give him more evidence? I don't think so and neither do they, if they would only be honest. So, let's listen to the three days (maybe less) of the President's legal team presentations and see where we are. Since most Americans have heard none of it and, of course, the mainstream media won't cover it, in my humble opinion that should likely be enough. But we'll have to see what the four Republican amigos decide about how much more they want to hear. Hopefully, this stain on American politics will soon be shuttered for good.
All I can say for certain is that the Framers never had in mind such a jaded effort to use impeachment on strictly political ideology as a way to get rid of a duly elected Chief Executive. Sadly, it may have just created a precedent where every President going forward faces impeachment. Wouldn't that be a sad state of affairs for a Congress which already has trouble focusing on the things that they need to pay attention? Only time will tell, my friends.
RSS Feed