WARNING:
If you are a Trump Supporter, this will challenge your pre-conceived notions
that somehow Donald J. Trump represents the best interests of the United
States. Read with an open mind. You might actually see my point.
DISCLAIMER:
All opinions on this blog are my own and quite obviously do not reflect the
opinions of the Donald J. Trump supporters who swallow every lie he tells,
overlook his obvious corruption – Russiagate, Ukrainegate, Pornstargate,
TrumpFoundationgate, TrumpUniversitygate,
AllHisAssociatesIndictedAndInJailgate, EmolumentsClausegate, etc., etc., ad
nauseum - have no problem with the sham impeachment trial being held in the
U.S. Senate, and somehow believe Mitch McConnell, William Barr, Mike Pompeo, Lindsey
Graham, Kevin McCarthy, Devin Nunes, et al have the best interests of the
United States at heart.
RANDOM
THOUGHTS
Please pardon the disjointed nature of this blog. My
goal is not flowery prose, but rather to get myriad thoughts on paper in the hope
of provoking someone to say, “hmmm”.
Sham
Trial
If you are an attorney representing a defendant who
you know to be guilty, what is the best defense?
In my opinion, (see above regarding opinions) I would
make sure the jury is rigged in my favor and pull some legal maneuverings to
ensure no witnesses testify nor allow any documents to be admitted into
evidence. This would insure a “Not Guilty” verdict and the public record would
never contain the evidence of my client’s guilt.
Lev
Parnas
“I don’t know the guy.”
I can show you several pictures with Trump and his
family that indicate differently.
Lev is an interesting guy. He’s the smoking gun to the
whole Ukraine controversy, but do we really need a smoking gun??
We know what happened. We know it was a quid pro quo –
we have Mick Mulvaney on camera admitting to that.
The President of the United States abused his power to
coerce a foreign government to help him politically. Period. Full stop.
If Obama did that, the GOP would burst a blood vessel.
Corruption
Why does Trump get a pass for his corruption? Can
someone answer that? He quite obviously acts in his own best interests and
there are multiple examples of corruption and unethical behavior. Why do so
many people seem to condone it? I hear arguments all the time that mention
Obama, Hillary, the Democrats, trying to change the election, etc. Those are
just arguments of deflection and do not address the real issue – the behavior and actions of Donald J.
Trump.
Regarding changing the election - that will never
happen. Removing Trump does not bring back Hillary. It gives us Mike Pence. It
is no great trade, but it does use a Constitutional process to remove a corrupt
President.
I get it, I get it. The stock market is doing well. It
did well under Obama also. We are in a period of sustained economic growth that
began under Obama. Trump did not inherit a recession. Obama did.
Maybe you like the tax cut that was more beneficial to
the wealthy. Maybe you like that Trump has gutted many environmental
regulations. Perhaps you are a fan of the trade war that has resulted in a
bailout of farmers that exceeds the bailout of automakers from yesteryear. Maybe
you hated the Affordable Care Act and are happy that Trump has made good on his
campaign promise to get rid of it – no wait, it is still the law of the land. My
point is does being a fan of his policies forgive a variety of unimaginable sins?
Aren’t there other Republicans who could carry the flag of conservatism without
being draped in the cloak of corruption? Are Trump supporters that shallow and
devoid of standards?
Critical
Thinking Exercise
Let us proceed with logical analysis by discarding any
preconceived notions and answering the questions as written.
Is it acceptable for the President of the United
States (any President) to use almost $400 million dollars in military aid as a
tool to coerce a foreign government into announcing an investigation into a
political rival when such an announcement would be politically advantageous for
the President?
If your answer is no, and if the question accurately
describes the events that took place, then the House has acted properly in seeking
impeachment for Abuse of Power.
If your answer is yes, and if the question accurately
describes the events that took place, I question your definition of ethics,
character, and integrity. Any other analysis would be moot as we are on a
different plane with regard to expected decorum from the Chief Executive.
Follow-up questions:
If you believe the behavior described above is
unethical, improper, or unacceptable, but have doubts whether there was a quid
pro quo involved, would you agree that the quest for truth is best served by
allowing testimony from others with intimate knowledge of the situation or
allowing the submission of documents that would provide a paper trail to bolster
either argument?
If your answer is no, I must ask why?
Our justice system allows each side in a court
proceeding to produce evidence and testimony. In the case of an impeachment
trial, do you believe the gravity of the process demands transparency?
Do you believe that suppressing witnesses and
documents is fair in a trial? Case in point – Monica Lewinsky provided taped
testimony in the Clinton impeachment trial. Her knowledge of the facts was
crucial to the case presented by Republican impeachment managers. Would the
suppression of her testimony have served America’s interests?
Are you interested in the truth even if it contradicts
your pre-conceived notions? It can be difficult to admit that you misjudged a
person (Bill Cosby, anyone?), but is it not better to make judgement calls when
armed with as much evidence as possible?
Witnesses and documents - these are the things the
House impeachment managers want, but the White House and Senate Republicans
have blocked.
It will not change the Senate vote, but it will arm
the public with facts necessary to make an informed decision about Donald
Trump.
Innocent people do not fear the truth.
Comments
Post a Comment