1) I am proud to call as many Democrats my friends as I can (or Democrat leaning souls). One such is my lifelong friend @JohnBurkart10. Recently, John challenged me regarding the basis of the current attempt at impeachment. This thread hopes to be that response.
@JohnBurkart10 2) Let us begin by hypothetically assuming Pelosi and team are right in their basis. Please, fellow @realDonaldTrump supporters, understand my use of the word "hypothetical." What follows will NOT be what I believe. It will be a hypothesis I'll address, later, below.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 3) The Pelosi charge is simple in concept. A President wields enormous power, and that power is often abused. In this case, the attack is that Trump did precisely that. He requested a foreign nation to do opposition research for him against an American citizen.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 4) They see his call with the Ukrainian President to a bald example of Presidential corruption on Trump's part. Like so: 'Please investigate my political rival, and if you do - quid pro quo - I will release military aid already appropriated and approved but held up by me.'
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 5) There is the problem, of course, that no quo ever followed the quid. Even in the Pelosi version, there's just no way to make that case, at all. The quid was granted, the quo never occurred. So, the Pelosi case accepting that, asserts that the attempt was the crime.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 6) But then, there's the problem that the "crime" is nowhere listed as a crime. There is no United States criminal code for this particular form of bumbled attempt at abuse of power, so, it is simply Abuse of Power that is the initial charge underlying the attempted impeachment.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 7) The story then looks like this. Trump abuses the power of his office to get dirt on his rival - he attempts to do so, thereby betraying his oath of office and his function as the Chief Legal Executive of the US - and was, fortunately, caught in this attempt, and thwarted.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 8) Due to the efforts of - again for Pelosi - a good and courageous whistleblower, Trump's attempt to use his office for wrongful purpose was nipped in the bud, in the nick of time. But, also fortunately, he was outed as a criminal President who must be removed immediately.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 9) I'll soon ask for feedback, but I must first turn to the second charge, Obstruction of Congress. As Pelosi's men, Schiff and Nadler, ran their House trail by means of their committees, subpoenas were issued that Trump disregarded. He prevented fact witnesses from complying.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 10) To sum up then, we have a corrupt President using held-up aid to extort corrupt help from an ally nation in order to further his own reelection efforts, and then, one willing to prevent any effort at investigating his wrongful actions as the oversight functions requires.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 11) Before I turn to my own responses to the Pelosi version of this impeachment, I'd like to ask how I've done. @JohnBurkart10, have I adequately expressed the underlying basis of the impeachment as put forward by Pelosi and team? If not, please hit me. That is...
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 12) When you respond, please tell me what I missed, or misrepresented, or any other failure on my part, will you? Thanks! Now, I will respond to this case from my own actual vantage point.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 13) The problems underlying the Pelosi case are vastly greater in number and depth of scope than I could possibly outline or detail. Here follow those that I'm able to compress into time available right now. The first is her decision to not deliver the articles to the Senate.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 14) As I'm sure you're aware, @JohnBurkart10, many have argued that Trump is not impeached yet, until she does. I'm not sure about that, as the House holds SOLE POWER to impeach, and there are no guidelines or limits as to how it does so. Let's assume Trump is impeached.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 15) There can be no question for me that it is an absolute breach of the Constitution for Pelosi to so much as attempt to negotiate with the Senate as to its procedure. The Senate has SOLE POWER to try the case, and the House holds NO power to affect its methods.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 16) Therefore, by attempting her own quid pro quo, Pelosi has caused a Constitutional crisis and has, to me, without doubt, completely failed her oath of office and should be ousted for the Constitutional atrocity. She is attempting to corrupt the Senate.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 17) In addition to this attempt at corruption, there can be no doubt for me, either, that she absolutely realizes that her weak articles have no basis in fact, are riddled with fallacies, and have been nothing more than her own attempt to execute a purely political mission.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 18) It has been much remarked that a President, under impeachment efforts, will always attempt to defend himself, and will of course - and rightly and Constitutionally - resist any such things as subpoenas by taking them to the appropriate court for judicial review.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 19) Thus, rather that Trump obstructing Congress it is Pelosi that is obstructing the proper separation of powers under our Constitution. She is distorting her function for merely political purposes and is, without doubt, doing the exact thing she's accusing Trump of.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 20) The closed door meetings run in the basement served the exact opposite function of a proper impeachment. The purpose, as designed by our founders, is to employ a process that sheds the light of day, not one that requires the dark of night.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 21) The purpose of the process is to so completely persuade members of the opposing camp that massive bipartisan agreement results. A leader is not done when the other side attacks. He is only done when his own side attacks. Trump faces zero attack from his own side.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 22) In a court of law, the standard would be a charge so completely established that guilt is beyond the shadow of a reasonable doubt. You cannot establish such guilt with hidden enclaves run only by the accusers, for the accusers, with no attempt to persuade the other side.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 23) No, very purposefully, the founders did not establish rules of court-like law, as they sought to completely empower the House. But when it comes to successful ouster of a duly elected President, they rightly knew that for success, the other side would need persuading.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 24) But in the end, who is the real jury of the accusations? It is We The People who must be satisfied in the end. Where has Pelosi considered those of us who voted for Trump in any way? She has never once granted the slightest opportunity for us to actually agree with her.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 25) So I say it is Pelosi who has obstructed the entirety of the voting public of America in addition to employing a rush to accusation, never granting a proper defense or openness in the endeavor. I say she is the obstructor, not Trump. I therefore reject her article 2, utterly.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 25) But what of the underlying cause, @JohnBurkart10, article 1, Abuse of Power? Here is the absolute most I can grant. It is possible. I'll address the problems with even that much momentarily. But here first, let's work with the possibility.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 26) If we were to assume that Trump's intention was NOT to work on the corruption that destroys the value of aid, but rather to gain advantage politically, then this would clearly be an abuse of his office. As a law and order kind of guy, I would completely oppose such acts.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 27) But the dangerous word above is "assume." Or, as the one and only fact witness Pelosi presented said, he "presumed." Obviously no court of law could conceivably accept such weak evidence. The case would be laughed out of court, not passing the smell test.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 28) To establish intent, we might consider what lawyers call "prima facie" evidence, evidence that, on its face, indicates what is purported by the accuser. In this case, the closest Pelosi comes if a 55-day hold, an implied form of abuse, with no outcome, the aid was delivered.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 29) So again, the best I can grant is: maybe. Maybe, Ms. Pelosi, you're right about the act. The problem is you have not given one stitch of persuasive evidence that you are. In fact, you have done the precise opposite. You insult my intelligence with the weakness of your charge.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 30) Before we remove a President from office, we need at least a strong enough case, not one so weak that it is as likely - maybe even more likely - to be wrong as it is to be right. And from the hold up in the transfer of these two unbelievably weak articles we see more.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 31) We see a rush to completion with the shoddiest work the House has ever done, and that's saying something, and then a slow walk to the actual trial itself in the Senate, attempting to extort wrongful power, a wrongful and corrupt quid pro quo. Not the act of an honest accuser.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 32) Go once again on the question of the wrongful act. It is completely based - in its accusation - upon the presumption of intent. Remember, the defense bears no burden of proof, the prosecution bears the entire burden of proof. I know, that is legal stuff again.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 33) So in order to NOT repeat myself, let me cut to the chase of what should have, but did not happen. First, every courtesy should have been granted to Republicans in the process, all in the warm light of day, and public disclosure at every step.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 34) Second, the case should have been made, not only to those who has already judged Trump prior to the accusation, but rather it should have been geared toward his supporters from day one, until completed in the best possible means of acquiring proof.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 35) Third, every possible courtesy should have been given Trump. Thus, when he didn't want to encourage fact witnesses, he should have been negotiated with courteously prior to the delivery of subpoenas. Then, assuming those negotiations failed, the judiciary must decide.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 36) We must linger once more on the question of the subpoenas. I judge them fiercely as a ploy, a ruse. No possible response other than to challenge them at law was available. Pelosi crassly used that knowledge to distort the process further, bending her position.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 37) This is nothing other than a bald distortion, corrupt at its heart as easy to see as on its face. The President is not without benefit of law when accused by the House. Rather, this is the rightful function of the judiciary in this matter. This is quite confusing, though.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 38) As the House has SOLE POWER to impeach, it would appear that allowing the Chief Executive to turn to a judge for aid would breach that unitary power. It does not, but it isn't an easy trail to follow. I'll try to clear it up right now. A subpoena is, ITSELF, a legal thing.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 39) When the House employs its power to create a subpoena it has commenced a legal procedure. This procedure in no way impinges on its ability to vote for an impeachment regardless of outcome. But having employed the law, the law is now introduced.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 40) Pelosi never had the slightest intent of showing up before a judge to hear that Trump may indeed NOT have to provide this or that fact witness. We do NOT have to assume that. We know it on the basis of her actions. She sent the subpoenas, but did not wait for trial at law.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 41) It is therefore unarguable that her intention was never to follow the legal path she initiated. We may revert then to the benefit she got and accept that as shown at face. Her benefit was to create a false basis for her 2nd article. This is corruption of the worst form.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 42) But let's say I'm being too harsh. Let's wrongly grant - for argument's sake - that I no more know her intent than she knows Trump's. Okay, she has failed utterly anyway. There is no chance the Senate will convict. Why? Because no conviction has been proved.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 43) Again Pelosi hangs herself with her own noose. She's attempting to extort the Senate into adding new witnesses that she could not procure at law to meet her needs. This means, unarguably, that she knows she has not proved her case. There's no way around that.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 44) So, what does the evidence show, and show conclusively? This entire impeachment ploy has been nothing but a shell game from start to finish, from top to bottom, inside and out. The depths of this wrong cuts deep into the heart and soul of America.
@JohnBurkart10 @realDonaldTrump 45) I say Pelosi should be ashamed. Had she an ounce of honor, realizing her failure, she'd resign. She should be judged for the wrongfulness of her actions. She has sold America and the world a bill of goods, but one she knew she could not deliver.
