Senate Impeachment Trial Defense Riddles House Case

President Trump’s Defense Team’s Mike Purpura struck the perfect chord in the song “Let’s Tell the Truth” in the impeachment case on Monday. He very concisely destroyed each of the points of Article I of the House case against President Trump.

Purpura introduced NEW not previously introduced evidence that took the House Manager’s “evidence” — which had been snippets of witnesses testimonies –and gave Senators in the Chamber a first-hand look at what those witnesses said in whole.

  • POTUS Required a Biden Investigation for release of Ukraine Aid. In the cases of Ambassadors Sondland, Voker, and Yovanovitch, all three in House testimony stated that President Trump had NEVER tied any aid to Ukraine to actions of any kind required by Ukraine — certainly not an investigation into Joe or Hunter Biden.
  • POTUS Required Biden Investigation for meeting with President Trump for Ukraine legitimacy in Europe. All testimony by any of the House 18 witnesses clearly stated that while Ukraine President Zelensky wanted a White House meeting or a meeting with President Trump in Warsaw. Hurricane Dorian required Mr. Trump to remain in the U.S. However, the President met in  a highly publicized meeting at the U.N. in New York. There were no pre-conditions for that meeting.
  • President Trump’s White House Meeting Invitations. House Managers did not reveal that President Trump had invited Zelensky two times before the July call that started these latest of the impeachment cries. None of those invitations had any pre-conditions especially not a Biden investigation.
  • POTUS Withholding Ukraine Aid Threatened Ukrainian Safety. Ambassadors Volker, Sondland, and Yovanovitch all three confirmed that the fact that President Trump had much earlier provided Ukraine javelin missiles — which President Obama had refused to give to Ukraine — gave Ukraine a level of defense against any pending military action they had never had before. Javelin missiles are designed and used specifically for effective defense against Russian tank attacks. By the way, three of the members of the House managers voted against the bill to provide aid to Ukraine.
  • Rudy Giuliani Trump was “hatchet man.” Democrat House managers alleged that Rudy Giuliani’s mention in the July 25 phone call between Presidents Trump and Zelensky was President Trump’s notification to Zelensky that he was sending Giuliani as an official gov’t representative to meet with Zelensky gov’t members. House managers painted Giuliani as a Trump “hit-man” sent to threaten Ukraine to cave to Trump’s demands for Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden. The President’s Defense team on Monday revealed several emails, the contents of several phone calls, and portions of witness testimonies (that House Managers failed to reveal). it was made clear by several of those who testified that Giuliani was acting on his own and had started his Ukraine investigation months before the July 25 call was held. Ambassador Volker testified that he was contacted by Ukrainian officials more than a month after the July call with President Trump asking Volker how to reach Giuliani.
  • The hurry for the impeachment inquiry. With House managers, a host of Democrats from the House, and now at least two of the moderate Senators are recommending the call of additional witnesses in the impeachment trial. That brings to the table for consideration one question: what was the rush to get the inquiry completed? The President’s legal team on Monday took that issue to task. Think about these: the House wants the Senate to force Mick Mulvaney to testify. They want John Bolton to testify, Mike Pompeo as well. But the House constitutionally “has the sole power to impeach” a President. If the House must collect sufficient evidence to create an overwhelming case to present to the Senate, why did they not complete the process by forcing these witnesses to testify. “IF” their doing so in necessary to their impeachment case? It may be true they used that as a ploy to force the Senate to do their dirty work regarding witnesses while hoping some damning evidence would surface to help their cause. Some feel the snippets leaked from John Bolton’s upcoming book could be one tidbit of evidence. But they certainly demanded the inquiry start and end when it did. Why? In numerous news reports and interviews with Democrats, when asked what was the timing for getting articles to the Senate, several dozens of those replied, “It is critical we complete this inquiry to get to the Senate immediately.” Nancy Pelosi especially pushed for it, but then waited 28 days to forward the Articles of Impeachment to the Senate. The answer? Only one I can think of is that they had emergency Christmas plans!
  • Alan Dershowitz: “Impeachment Charges are Not Impeachable.” Dershowitz is a Democrat and did not vote for Donald Trump. He’s a Constitutional lawyer who is considered one of the foremost experts on the Constitution. Attorney Dershowitz spent an hour meticulously explaining why neither of the Articles of Impeachment reach the level of constitutional justification for impeachment. In his presentation he very carefully and clearly explained the meanings of applicable segments of impeachment law, on which fundamentals each of the two Articles are based, and the specifics of what is required to impeach a President. If you have interest, I highly suggest you on YouTube watch his presentation. If you do, you will never need to wonder what is and what is not an impeachable offense under the U.S. Constitution. Oh: both articles of impeachment fall far short of the qualifications necessary to impeach a president.

Summary

The bottom line on Day 6 of the Senate Impeachment trial is this: the President’s Defense team put one or two (maybe three) more nails in the coffin of the House managers’ impeachment case. Once more, they were concise, factual, singular, and amazingly understandable not only to the gaggle of attorneys who comprise the Senate, but to millions of Americans who were looking in. This Cajun redneck was one of those.

The icing on the cake in their presentation had to be how Alan Dershowitz dumbed-down the Constitutional requirements for presidential impeachment. He made it abundantly clear that the president may have done something wrong, something suspicious, or something surreptitious in his handling of Ukraine regarding the military aid in question. But none of those rise to the level of an impeachable offense according to the Constitution. In fact, even if President Trump made such a request of President Zelensky, it still would NOT be an impeachable offense for two reasons: there was no “pro” that came from the “quid pro.” In other words, Ukraine received their aid within the legal timeframe set in U.S. law, there was no Ukrainian announcement (as the House managers claim Trump demanded) of a restart of the corruption investigation of the Bidens.

Dershowitz put the dot on the i regarding this entire impeachment folly with this: “Not liking a president, not liking his policies, not agreeing with his methods, or disagreeing with his actions may be distasteful. His words and actions may be uncomfortable and even egregious in nature as perceived by some. But even if all of those are present, they are not impeachable offenses even if they ARE offenses.” He continued, “There is a constitutional method to remove a President when he is not liked or he is disagreed with or even if a majority feel any or all of the above. It’s called an election. The American people have the sole right to kick any President from office.”

I’ll end with this: Rep. Maxine Waters (D-CA) illustrated best the problem with the House of Representatives’ position and process taken and used in this impeachment process when she stated this: “He doesn’t have to break the law to be impeached. There IS no impeachment law. Congress decides the law.”

Read through this twice: Rep. Waters really believes that. If that was what was intended by our forefathers when they penned the Constitution, there would be no need for the executive branch or the judicial branch of government. There would be no “co-equal” branches of government. There would be no “rule of law.” Congress would be the sole arbiter of everything that happens in the U.S. and could float with the wind each day as the party in the majority decided all laws and who must abide by them!

That would be a state of anarchy like has never existed in any nation in World history. I doubt the founders had Maxine’s idea in mind in the eighteenth century.

Corruption

As promised, we today are bringing to you details with evidence of one of the corrupt acts committed by the previous administration which cost billions of U.S. tax dollars and robbed millions of Americans under on the Obama watch.

The mortgage crash almost destroyed the economy of the U.S. and cost numerous Americans their homes. Big Wall Street banks were at the top of this horror that existed only because of their corrupt banking practices to make much money.

This story details exactly what happened, who were involved, the dollars involved and who made those dollars and lost those dollars. More importantly, you will see the ties to the Barack Obama Administration. (It’s better than a Jack Ryan spy novel)

https://www.thenation.com/article/archive/how-americas-biggest-bank-paid-its-fine-for-the-2008-mortgage-crisis-with-phony-mortgages/

This will be the first of these exposures of Government corruption. Get ready to read and do follow-up research. We’ll give you truth. It’s up to you to confirm!

 

See you tomorrow.


Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

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