Equivocation in the Senate trial

Senate “trial” by Defense Counsel Day Two
*************************************************
…it’s confusing…I didn’t know the Bidens were on trial, or that Hunter Biden was “trading on his father’s position”, but the Defense counselor had nothing to say about Ivanka or Jared, who has no military, legal, or diplomatic experience at all, and who was repeatedly denied a security clearance, yet who has an office in the White House. Or perhaps Andrew Giuliani, Rudi’s son who holds a job in the White House titled: “Public Liaison Assistant”; but who no one has ever seen in any official capacity.
 
It should be noted that Hunter Biden is a licensed attorney, had served on the Board at several American corporations, including Amtrack, and had some claim to being useful to a corporation in Ukraine; but what claim does an untrained, unlicensed, ultra-orthodox Jew with no relevant experience have to be intimately involved in White House affairs like being charged with “Middle East Peace”, restructuring the Government, and a host of other professional assignments.
 
And then counselors brought up an Obama era episode referred to as the “open mic” in which he claimed Obama did the same thing as trump is accused of doing, and it is Obama who should have been subject to impeachment. Conveniently ignoring the fact the House and Senate were controlled by Republicans and could have initiated charges if they believed they were valid. Unfortunately for their argument, Obama never engaged in bribery or extortion to obtain a personal benefit.
 
Then they came back to the no linkage argument – which, again runs contrary to the recent disclosure by Ambassador Bolton that trump personally told him, Bolton, that the aid was being withheld to force action on the bogus investigations.
 
In the middle of the presentation, Prof. Gershovitz tried to assert trump’s alleged actions were not impeachable offenses, and even if they were, the potential harm to civil government outweighed the drastic step of impeachment.
 
Yet another argument was the false assertion that the House Intelligence Committee was not authorized to issue subpoenas until after the whole House authorized the inquiry. Aside from being completely false as presented, it does not address the question of why the Administration still refused to provide documents or allow witnesses even after the House formally voted for the inquiry.

Leave a Reply

You can use these HTML tags

<a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <s> <strike> <strong>

  

  

  

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.