From TheHill dot com: Senators are expected to acquit Trump
Comment:
If it plays out this way, it will be unsatisfying to almost everyone.
People expect a clear-cut result. This leaves many questions unanswered. There will be those who will say that this means the GOP is hiding the truth. However, it is unsatisfying to those who believe that the truth is on Trump's side. That is my position.
The never-Trumpers get to hurt Trump, but they didn't get to oust him.
The partisan Democrats get to run against the GOP Senate and Trump, but they didn't get to oust him. Given that they are in the wrong, this is actually a good outcome for them.
As usual, the GOP faction that includes the never-Trumpers are the spoilers. They spoil everything for themselves and the rest of us. If they were capable of doing the right thing, they would approve a plan in which Bolton could testify, and Trump could get his witnesses. I believe the truth is on Trump's side, and I do not fear what Bolton would say.
The only thing to fear from witnesses is to have only those who the Democrats want. That is what happened on the House side. The President got no witnesses at all there, and not even legal representation. It was totally one-sided. Too bad the Senate couldn't even manage an even-handed treatment of the POTUS.
The argument that this would be unprecedented may be plausible, but the Democrats should have been spanked for this. As usual, the GOP spoilers made sure to hurt Trump the most at the least cost to themselves.
Update:
It looks like I may have goofed a little in my argumentation.
There's a very good reason to exclude any NEW witnesses after the impeachment. The reason is that the trial should have a definite limit placed upon it. Otherwise, they could call NEW witnesses forever ( or until election day).
In a trial court, the witnesses are already lined up ( I would think). It is a fair bet since I don't know for sure, that no trial court will accept NEW witnesses either. They might do it for the defense, but not for the prosecution. The bias is in favor of the defendant.
In other words, the parameters of the trial are well-defined before the trial. If you allow witnesses after the fact, then the trial can continue indefinitely. This also favors the defendant, since the government can go on with this forever, but any individual has limitations.
Once again, the left-wing is in the wrong. The reason we are in need of witnesses for the POTUS is that the Democrats would not allow any witnesses for the POTUS in the impeachment inquiry. You cannot correct that defect. To allow witnesses for the POTUS would open the door for the Democrats to demand their own NEW witnesses, which would bring about a chaotic process that could never end.
Therefore, no NEW witnesses for anybody is a fair outcome and the only correct outcome.
If it plays out this way, it will be unsatisfying to almost everyone.
People expect a clear-cut result. This leaves many questions unanswered. There will be those who will say that this means the GOP is hiding the truth. However, it is unsatisfying to those who believe that the truth is on Trump's side. That is my position.
The never-Trumpers get to hurt Trump, but they didn't get to oust him.
The partisan Democrats get to run against the GOP Senate and Trump, but they didn't get to oust him. Given that they are in the wrong, this is actually a good outcome for them.
As usual, the GOP faction that includes the never-Trumpers are the spoilers. They spoil everything for themselves and the rest of us. If they were capable of doing the right thing, they would approve a plan in which Bolton could testify, and Trump could get his witnesses. I believe the truth is on Trump's side, and I do not fear what Bolton would say.
The only thing to fear from witnesses is to have only those who the Democrats want. That is what happened on the House side. The President got no witnesses at all there, and not even legal representation. It was totally one-sided. Too bad the Senate couldn't even manage an even-handed treatment of the POTUS.
The argument that this would be unprecedented may be plausible, but the Democrats should have been spanked for this. As usual, the GOP spoilers made sure to hurt Trump the most at the least cost to themselves.
Update:
It looks like I may have goofed a little in my argumentation.
There's a very good reason to exclude any NEW witnesses after the impeachment. The reason is that the trial should have a definite limit placed upon it. Otherwise, they could call NEW witnesses forever ( or until election day).
In a trial court, the witnesses are already lined up ( I would think). It is a fair bet since I don't know for sure, that no trial court will accept NEW witnesses either. They might do it for the defense, but not for the prosecution. The bias is in favor of the defendant.
In other words, the parameters of the trial are well-defined before the trial. If you allow witnesses after the fact, then the trial can continue indefinitely. This also favors the defendant, since the government can go on with this forever, but any individual has limitations.
Once again, the left-wing is in the wrong. The reason we are in need of witnesses for the POTUS is that the Democrats would not allow any witnesses for the POTUS in the impeachment inquiry. You cannot correct that defect. To allow witnesses for the POTUS would open the door for the Democrats to demand their own NEW witnesses, which would bring about a chaotic process that could never end.
Therefore, no NEW witnesses for anybody is a fair outcome and the only correct outcome.
No comments:
Post a Comment