Patrickov wrote:To be fair Trump is more powerful so the credibility of whoever he summons is probably lower than whoever the Senate does.
Impeachment was always going to fail, because Democrats did not have the votes in the Senate. However, I think the Democrats had hoped that they could score some sort of a moral victory and that this moral victory would translate into political support for the Democrats. That has backfired in a big way. Here's why: American law presumes all persons are equal under the law and have the same rights under law, some secured by the constitution itself via the Bill of Rights. For example, all criminal defendants have:
1. Right to be represented by counsel at all stages of the proceedings.
2. Right to confront their accusers
3. Right to question witnesses against them
4. Right to compel witnesses to their own defense
5. Right to be informed of the nature and cause of the charges against them
6. Right to a speedy trial.
7. Right to remain silent and to be free from compulsion to testify against themselves.
8. Right to a jury of their peers
9. Right to be free from cruel and unusual punishments
... and so on.
The Democrats have systematically violated much of what is standard practice for private citizens under American law during these proceedings. So morally, what the Democrats have done is a procedural abomination--it's what communist countries do to their political dissidents.
1. Criminal defendants are entitled to be represented by counsel at all stages of proceedings against them. Trump's attorneys were not allowed to attend House proceedings. Democrats hoped nobody would notice, but we did.
2. Eric Ciaramella is the accuser but his attorneys have threatened to sue pretty much everyone involved if his name is brought into the proceedings. Accusers are not entitled to anonymity. The whistleblower law only applies to actions within the whistleblower's employ--meaning actions by CIA personnel for a CIA whistleblower. The protections of the whistleblower statute do not apply to Ciaramella. The CIA and intelligence overseers like Schumer and Schiff leveraged this law to try to create an array of anonymous accusers. That's basically against the US Bill of Rights in a trial accusing someone of a crime. Democrats were hoping nobody would notice, but everyone did.
3. As a consequence of having no attorneys present at all stages of the proceedings, Trump's attorneys were not allowed to question or cross-examine witnesses against him. Republicans did a fine job impeaching their credibility, but Trump was expressly denied his right to question and cross-examine witnesses against him.
4. Trump was not allowed to call witnesses to his own defense. Again, the Republicans did an excellent job of forcing the witnesses to admit that they had not witnessed any criminal wrongdoing, and that everything they had heard was from hearsay sources--evidence that is typically inadmissible in criminal cases.
5. The charges are not actual laws. Consequently, the charges against him violate the laws of notice, and fail to inform him of both the nature (what are the elements of the offense) and the cause of the charges. By trying to define them in the articles of impeachment themselves, the Democrats are effectively trying him
ex post facto of something that wasn't a law when they charged him. Again, Democrats hoped nobody would notice or object. However, the proceedings against Trump are manifestly unfair.
6. So in impeaching Trump and then sitting on the articles of impeachment, the Democrats are now violating Trump's right to a speedy trial--yet another constitutionally enumerated right of a criminal defendant.
In addition to the foregoing, Trump's persecutors have already breached attorney-client privilege in examining everything between him and his erstwhile counsel, Michael Cohen. The House wanted to, and Senate Democrats are asking to make the White House counsel--Trump's official attorney--a witness against Trump. Again, these are actions that are way outside the norms of American law.
That's just a collateral attack on what the Democrats are trying to do to Trump. The Democrats obvious motivation is that the DoJ is uncovering the lies of the Trump-Russia hoax, including the use of US intelligence agencies to spy on domestic political campaigns, and to collude with other political campaigns and operatives such as Fusion GPS and Christopher Steele, which may lead to the prosecution of Democratic-sympathizing deep state actors. Additionally, Trump has taken the affirmative step of reviewing the actions of people like Joe Biden for violations of the Foreign Corrupt Practices Act--which the Democrats are trying to assert is an abuse of power. It isn't. In fact, nobody would even know about this as a political matter had the Democrats not made an effort to make it public and predicate an impeachment effort upon it.
Patrickov wrote:The Senate is in Republican majority so at least half of the witnesses should be the same as who Trump would summon.
As noted, I don't think the witnesses are relevant, because the charges are not relevant. Indeed, Pelosi has not even transmitted them to the Senate.
Patrickov wrote:But did the Republican Congressmen try to summon anybody?
All witnesses were determined by the Democrats.
"We have put together the most extensive and inclusive voter fraud organization in the history of American politics."
-- Joe Biden
- By Rich
- By ingliz
- By Unthinking Majority