Initially, I watched a good bit of the impeachment proceedings. The witnesses called (predominantly by the Democrats) to testify about President Trump's actions and a phone call inquiring about Ukraine's issuance of a statement that Hunter and/or Joe Biden would be investigated due to their receipt of substantial money from a widely acknowledged to be crooked company in the Ukraine were quite interesting. They were all very polished and very well spoken. They were all very succinct in their language.
So, it was a splendid display of questions, answers, and quite a bit of "read between the lines" type testimony. What I was left wondering though was this: The Ukraine never did anything differently, never did what was inquired of by the President, and there was no evidence that anything done or not done by the Ukraine was influenced by anything done or not done by the President. Why then is this carrying on?
The definition of impeach is, in short, to formally note that one is accused of wrongdoing. Did we need several weeks of time, attention, and expenditure of resources to arrive at the position that there is an ardent commitment to the belief that the President did something wrong? We didn't. We knew many weeks ago the Democrats would affirm the formality and we knew the Republicans would rebuke the impeachment.
That, in turn, causes me to ask: Why is this transpiring? I think it is for the very reason the Democrats think the President wanted the Ukraine to issue a statement that it was going to open an investigation -- to create an influence on a presidential election. That though is a very, very high-risk proposition it seems. If the proceedings are viewed as a colossal waste of time and money that really produces less than enthralling evidence, will the middle of the road voter be persuaded to use that against Trump or be left with a bitter disposition towards the Democrats? I am the last person to know, but it feels like that's the gamble the Democrats are taking.
In turn, the Republicans are having to gauge how they play their hands. Thus far I've not been particularly impressed by their antics. Most of the more prominent voices have been more theatrical than substantive. For my buck, if you're theatrical it means your substance is lacking. The Republicans really can't point to the character of the President as a strong point - his history isn't particularly impressive. I think their strength is in the facts, but theatrics get attention and facts are more easily lost on media consumers.
And, it sure seems we have heard a lot in the last day or so that this is only the third time a president has been impeached. The first two? Andrew Johnson and William Jefferson Clinton. Their party affiliation? Democratic Party. What was behind Andrew Johnson's impeachment? He fired and appointed persons within the US government, moves the Republicans did not approve. What was behind Clinton's impeachment? He lacks morals and lied under oath. From my vantage point, the Trump impeachment is much like the Johnson impeachment.
The ultimate point I hope you get from this is to get beyond headlines and sound bites. Spend less time playing games on your phone or reading blips on social media about how photogenic somebody's dog is. Read something, anything. While reading, think. After you are done reading, think. Arrive at whatever conclusion you deem fit, but at least arrive at it based on your own analysis and not what the mass media feeds us.
The material contained herein is provided for informational purposes only and is not legal advice, nor is it a substitute for obtaining legal advice from an attorney. Each situation is unique, and you should not act or rely on any information contained herein without seeking the advice of an experienced attorney. All information contained in links are the property of the linked site.
