I’ve been chilling for a bit. Avoiding the repetitive BREAKING NEWS cycle. Reading a lot about the climate, human psychology, a book about a guy from the 19th century – Alfred Russel Wallace – a contemporary of Darwin and far ahead of him and his peers in ethnology and modern science. Just trying to stay sane.
I listened to the first day, 01/21/2020, of the Senate Impeachment proceedings. Fascinating, and needless to say, I have an opinion.
And Off We Go
The Senate hearing was a textbook example of facts versus coverup. Schiff laid out, in an orderly and factual argument, why the Senate Trial is an aberration from all the previous 15 impeachment trials the Senate has conducted. since the founding of our nation over 250 years ago.
First and foremost, the absence of any investigation into the charges; review of existing documents and testimony, calling in witnesses to testify or re-testify before the Senate, the use of Senatorial power to get further documentation and witnesses that the Trump has blocked and much more. Supposedly, this will be put to an up-down vote at some point, which I’m skeptical of. In all previous impeachments this was a given. How else can you hold a trial without fact finding? Schiff backed up his assertions about the power of the House and Senate to conduct a thorough investigation and trial, with paragraphs in the Constitution and legal judgements by the Supreme Court.
Schiff asserted that blocking information and witnesses was an admission of guilt because, Trump had already provided solid evidence of his actions in the form of answers to questions and in writing.
There is a legal way to not questions, the 5th Amendment. It allows the defendant not to answer a question if it might provide new evidence leaving him vulnerable to new charges. Every time that a mobster or crooked businessman invokes the 5th, I assume guilt. The 5th also permits assuming that not answering is a tacit admission of guilt.
Then it was time for Trump’s team to to present their argument. Jay Sekulow took the floor. Never asserting Trump’s innocence, he immediately attacked the process. He talked about the intentions of the Democrats, how they rushed the House hearings, didn’t allow Trump to challenge the evidence, and that the House didn’t let the process run its course through the courts.
The intentions of the Democratic party explicitly laid out the reason for investigating Trump; hold Trump accountable and that he isn’t above the Rule of Law. For example; Clinton wasn’t above accountability. Democrats supported impeachment and trial once Clinton lied under oath. This was a clear example of Democrats wanting to know the truth so that they could judge fairly. No one is above the law.
The House proceedings were not rushed. Nancy Pelosi stopped earlier attempts, including a vote to remove her from the Speaker’s Chair by fellow House Democrats, she didn’t want to put the nation through the trauma. However, in the end, Pelosi agreed to go forward with impeachment only after clear evidence, included Trump’s own words, were shown. Then she had no choice. Trump had lied and was engaged in a coverup.
The reasons that the Courts were not involved was that:
1) It isn’t required by the constitution. Indeed, the House and Senate are provided power to act as law officials and compel testimony with fines AND imprisonment. The Democrats chose not to use those harsher powers.
2) Early on, it became clear that the Trump administration was planning to stall the investigation by using the legal system to continuously challenge the House’s actions with suits about process. There is at least one suit, filed in early 2019, still tied up in the courts.
The investigations were not hurried. Beginning with the Mueller FBI investigation, starting in May 2017 and concluding in March 2019; 675 days. And then the actual House Impeachment proceedings that lasted an entire year. Spending about 1000 days on investigation is not rushing. Trump supporters like to claim that the Mueller report exonerated Trump. It did not. The report clearly stated that it did not clear Trump and that his actions were outside the scope of the investigation.
Baring the Bidens from being a subject of the impeachment was because it had nothing to do with Trump’s actions to shakedown the Ukrainian President by withholding legally appropriated money for Ukrainian defense. There was no need to do anything illegal about investing the Bidens. Indeed, there are legal channels that Trump could have used to invoke an investigation of the Bidens, including in Ukraine. Trump’s choice to go outside of channels is he didn’t want it to become public. If the public discovered his actions, he’d be forced to justify his actions. Hiding his actions shows that he knows what he doing was illegal.
During the first day, Sekulow trotted out the same misdirection and misinformation that has been used all along to defend Trump. Bottom line: If your client is guilty and you can’t legally claim innocence, then loudly argue the process, technicalities and charges without evidence. Trump’s defense clearly shows that he is guilty as charged and his lawyers know it.
Currently, what we have is a Republican Show Trial, where innocence is the foregone conclusion, unlike in Soviet show trials the assumption was guilt.