There is a central problem with all the breathless charges levied against the President in the Senate impeachment trial. None of the allegations, pompously delivered by hyperventilating politicians and pundits, amounts to a crime. In fact, in an odd twist, if Trump failed to act in response to Joe Biden’s prior actions, he could have been accused of negligence.
As a young law student decades ago, I took part in an exercise mandatory for all in that branch of academia: breaking down a case into its basic elements. A performance of that same rigorous mental endeavor breaks down in a fascinating manner.
Burisma Holdings is a Ukrainian gas company widely considered to be corrupt. It employed former Vice President Joe Biden’s son, Hunter Biden, while Biden served as the point man for the Obama Administration to that nation. Hunter has no known expertise in the gas business. (He is an attorney who has been a cocaine abuser and was dismissed from the Navy.) The matter is similar to Hunter’s activities in China. Hunter flew along with his father on Air Force two to China on Biden’s official mission, and returned with an over one billion dollar financial deal in his pocket, on a business area he also knew little or nothing about.
Based on that objective analysis, there was nothing unlawful or unethical about President Trump’s actions in seeking to prosecute this obvious misuse of a federal office. Indeed, a failure to do what his Administration did could well have been considered negligent.
It is readily apparent that Joe and Hunter’s actions are deeply questionable, and should have been investigated thoroughly. That is precisely what the Trump Administration did. Some have quibbled about whether it was necessary to delay by three months lethal aid to Ukraine while the matter was being reviewed; others point out that it was necessary to encourage Kyiv’s cooperation. Ironically, those complaining about the several months delay in aid (aid which, by the way, was clearly given after that time period without any quid pro quo) supported the complete and total denial of that lethal aid by the Obama Administration.
A rigorous legal analysis of the charges against President Trump thoroughly indicates that his administration acted correctly, and, once again, failing to have acted as it did would have been negligent.
The second of the two charges against the President is that he obstructed Congress.
Since before he was even inaugurated, his opponents have sought to eliminate his ability to govern. I was in Washington, D.C. hours before Trump’s inauguration. His opponents, who refused to accept the election results, were marching around the Capital holding signs demanding that he be impeached! Shortly thereafter, a charge of Russian collusion was levied at him, which was thoroughly investigated and found not only to be completely false, but the product of a smear effort by his campaign opponent.
Dogs are susceptible to cancer, arthritis, spinal disc disease, digestive cialis online purchase disorders, and other pain and dysfunction. The high flow blood run purchase tadalafil india in gentile area and make the erection of male penis possible. There cheap viagra australia are number of recognized universities that offer MCA distance learning institute in Delhi that prepare graduate students for productive careers in software industry. However, it can also deal with Get More Info professional viagra online damage that has been already done, using the tool for wrong ends.Any opposition to the various smear campaigns has been labelled “obstruction.” Any attempt to restrict the harassment of presidential appointees, a rather overt move to cripple the ability of Trump’s Administration to govern, has been labelled “obstruction.”
Failing to come up with any legal basis to overturn the 2016 election, the opposition has resorted to attempts to divert the White House’s attention away from fulfilling its campaign promises by forcing it to defend against various unfounded charges. Absent any real basis, hyperbole is employed. Every baseless allegation is nonsensically labelled “devastating news against the President.”
The fiery language and the extreme opposition currently observed in the Senate trial are the result of two key Democratic Party concerns.
The first is their fear that they will not be able to defeat him in a fair election. Rep. Adam Schiff, a key figure in the impeachment, has already said that a Trump re-election would be “invalid.”
The second is more subtle, and includes greedy politicians of both parties.
Americans have always wondered about the shocking ability of federal elected officials of relatively modest means to become astoundingly wealthy after taking office. Trump’s threats to stop that, to, as he puts it, “drain the swamp” is a direct threat to them. This is particularly true in terms of financial relations between members of Congress and foreign governments. The President is not alone in this endeavor. Louisiana Senator John Kennedy has called for a ban on financial dealings by elected officials with Ukraine.
This impeachment, as a fair legal analysis would reveal, is a textbook exercise in what lawyers call “Abuse of Process,” a foul practice arising when a plaintiff misuses or perverts legal proceedings not justified by the underlying legal action, for the purpose of intimidating or harassing an opponent.
Photo: Pixabay