Let me rephrase the title of this piece: Are you watching Trump Impeachment 3? I am not.
Oh, I am following the progress of the proceedings, but after the two impeachment trials against Donald Trump, the second of which was after he left office, I am really skeptical as to the objectivity of this proceeding. Not that I defend what happened on January 6, I don't, but given the make-up of this panel, seven Democrats (including the ubiquitous Adam Schiff) and two Trump-hating RINOS, it's hard to put much faith in this show trial. (House Republican leader Kevin McCarthy originally chose Jim Jordan of Ohio and Jim Banks of Indiana, both of whom were rejected by Nancy Pelosi, at which point the Republicans declined to participate, and Pelosi named Lynn Cheney of Wyoming and Adam Kinzinger of Delaware, both Trump-haters.)
Nor am I swayed by this latest appearance of a lady named Cassidy Hutchinson, who has testified to hearsay statements made about Trump while riding in the presidential limousine, the so-called "beast" on January 6 when video shows he was riding in an SUV on January 6. In addition, Miss Hutchinson's hearsay statements are contested by the Secret Service agent who reportedly made them. There is also the question of a handwritten note that Hutchinson claims was written by her but may have been written by someone else. At least she didn't testify to Russian hookers peeing on Trump's bed.
Of course, the mainstream media, from the New York Times to the LA Times, thinks that this is the bombshell witness who will finally bring down old Trump-just as they called Michael Avenatti, "Trump's worst nightmare" not to mention a serious possible presidential candidate in 2020. Well, Trump's worst nightmare (Avenatti) is now in jail though I'm not sure it's a NY jail or an LA jail, but no matter.
As we recall, Trump Impeachment Trial Number One centered around his alleged collusion with foreign powers in the 2016 election. It centered largely around his phone call with Ukrainian president Volodymyr Zelenskyy. It came in the backdrop of all the charges of Trump having colluded with the Russians to sway the 2016 election in Trump's favor. Remember all that? The Steele Dossier about those Russian hookers with loose bladders, the Carter Page wiretaps under a FISA court order, based largely on the Steele Dossier, which the FBI brass knew was questionable and unverified-not to mention paid for by the Clinton campaign and the DNC. That sordid mess involved Peter Strzok, Lisa Page, Andrew McCabe, James Comey, and the whole gang. The setting up and the railroading of Michael Flynn. It was not the FBI's proudest moment. Now we know that if anybody colluded with the Russians, it was Hillary Clinton and her gang. It was they who paid for the Steele Dossier.
There was so much made of Trump's conversation with President Zelenskyy of Ukraine asking for an investigation into what happened when then-Veep Joe Biden got the then-president of Ukraine to fire the prosecutor who was investigating Burisma, the corrupt energy company that had Hunter Biden on its board of directors at a salary of tens of thousands of dollars a month. Nobody ever tried to impeach Joe Biden for that even though they have the smoking gun video of him bragging in a speech how he successfully got the prosecutor fired by threatening to block a foreign aid package to Ukraine.
Impeachment Trial Number 2 accused Trump of inciting an insurrection on January 6, 2021. The trial was actually held after he had left office. It ended in another thud.
So now we have Trump and others allegedly trying to overturn the 2020 election based on reports that there were suspicious goings-on at election centers in Atlanta, Philadelphia, and Milwaukee. Was there hanky-panky going on in those cities on election night? I'm not sure. William Barr has testified that whatever election fraud might have occurred, it was not enough to affect the outcome of the election. I take him at his word. I would also add that I am not comfortable with the tape of Trump's telephone conversation with the Georgia secretary of state as to "finding 11,000+ votes" that would put him ahead. In that same conversation, however, Trump speaks extensively about hundreds of thousands of suspicious ballots cast. Was Trump soliciting fraudulent votes in his favor or asking that suspicious Biden votes be investigated? In that same vein, I was never comfortable with what Al Gore and his lawyers tried to do in Florida in 2000. But this is the reality: If it's a close election, there will be recounts. And yes, I do believe that election fraud does exist in general.
As for the January 6 hearings, we will have to see if Ms Hutchinson's words are true or rebutted by others in the White House and/or Secret Service. Of course, no matter what comes out of the hearings, this is about preventing Trump from running in 2024 and-if they can- getting him indicted for his post-election actions including on January 6. Did Trump actually incite a riot on January 6, 2021? You may argue that his take-no-prisoners stump speech riled up the crowd, but he told them to march "peacefully and patriotically" down to the Capitol to make their voices heard. Legally, that's pretty exculpatory.
4 comments:
I'm going to respond to your questions on an older thread since you brought up the two impeachment hearings for Trump.
Let's be real about what happened in both cases.
Trial #1: McConnell and Graham flat-out said that they wouldn't be impartial. Also, no witnesses were allowed to testify at the trial. I might agree with you if you accuse the left of being too quick to assume Trump's guilt, but you're making the same mistake in reverse. We don't have enough information because a proper trial never took place.
Trial #2: This didn't even exist. McConnell specifically said that Trump was responsible, but didn't let anything go further than that because he believed that the Constitution doesn't allow for an impeachment trial of a President who has left office. (I'm sure that he would have had no problem with it if it was a Democrat on trial.)
So yeah, a "thud" for both. But definitely not for the reasons you give - which is an incredibly selective overview of what happened.
I find the term "RINO" to be troubling as it seems to mean "any Republican who is against Trump". This is the language of a cult. It's like when Scientologists call members who left and became critical of the movement as being "suppressive persons". It becomes an insult that enables one to stop thinking about things any deeper than a simple black/white view of the world.
You're also being incredibly selective when you quote Trump's "peacefully and patriotically" statement, and I know that this has been pointed out to you before, but I'm sure that you'll repeat it again the next time this comes up.
Lastly, you've got a lot hanging on Hutchinson's testimony. You are aware that there have been several others who have testified, right? I know that she's the only one that right-wing media mentions because some secret service members have contradicted her (as well as some people who are corroborating her story).
But this seems to be the standard operating procedure of today's "conservatives" - instead of going straight to the source, listen to what right-wing commentators have to say, and then repeat that.
It must save you a lot of time, to be sure.
There are two ways to look at this entire Trump saga. Though none of the three proceedings have been held under the rules of criminal law, I have a habit based on my experience of asking whether Trump or anyone else-like Bill Clinton- could be convicted of a crime. There is very little to convict Trump on if anything-as to did he collude with the Russians and/or abuse his power in dealing with Ukraine-as VP Biden admits he did a few years previous. Did Trump incite a riot? In a legal sense, I can't see him being convicted. Now we want to know if he improperly tried to overturn an election.
If you want to accept the truth of Hutchinson's testimony, which is mostly hearsay- and contested by others, you are free to believe that Trump violated the law based on a one-sided and non-adversarial hearing that is going on now. I may even come to that conclusion-but not if I were a juror in a criminal trial.
Chatting over a beer in a bar, you and I might agree on several things when it comes to Trump. But if your aim is to put him behind bars, you don't have much. Not beyond a reasonable doubt based on the evidence presented-in a one-sided proceeded that one might rightfully call a show trial.
Again, I don't know how we can know if there's enough to convict Trump when no witnesses were allowed to give testimony. We'll see what the DOJ does or doesn't do with the evidence that's been brought forth by these proceedings.
I can't say with certainty that he should be put behind bars, but I feel confident saying that his behavior should disqualify him from running for the Presidency ever again. And I would feel the same even if I agreed with all of his policies and opinions.
I hope Trump decides not to run for president again, and if he does, I hope Republican voters choose someone else. However, by your standards, Washington is full of people who theoretically should not be allowed to run again for any office. That said, let's let the voters decide that question.
Post a Comment