Posted on 01/17/2020 10:16:42 AM PST by Kaslin
Do Democrats really care about the getting to the bottom of the allegations against Trump, or do they just want a show trial?
With President Trump’s impeachment trial set to begin next week, the Senate faces a stark choice: it can hold a legitimate trial that aims to get to the bottom of the allegations against the president, or it can stage an empty media spectacle like House Democrats did in their sham impeachment inquiry.
The problem for Democrats is that if Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell opts for the former, it will mean calling not just the witnesses Democrats want, like former National Security Advisor John Bolton, but also witnesses the administration wants, like Hunter Biden and Eric Ciaramella, the anti-Trump whistleblower who first set all of this in motion.
Indeed, it’s hard to see how Senate Democrats can demand to hear only from witnesses they think will bolster their preferred narrative—like Lev Parnas, the Soviet-born associate of Rudy Giuliani who was indicted for campaign law violations, and lately has been making grand accusations about Trump in the media—but not hear from Ciaramella or Biden. At least, they can’t do so while also maintaining the fiction that this impeachment is anything but bare-knuckle partisan politics, House Speaker Nancy Pelosi’s somber soliloquies about the Constitution notwithstanding.
In any case, Trump’s Republican allies in the Senate might not let them. In an interview with Politico on Wednesday, Sen. Rand Paul said he will force the Senate to vote on subpoenaing President Trump’s preferred witnesses—specifically, Hunter Biden and Ciaramella—if four or more of his colleagues join with Democrats in calling for new witness testimony in the impeachment trial set to begin next week.
“My first preference would be to be done with it as soon as possible and not to have any witnesses,” Paul said. “If they insist on having people like [John] Bolton coming forward, my insistence will be not just one witness. But that the president should be able to call any witnesses that he deems necessary to his defense.”
Even if no GOP senators call for new witnesses, Paul’s point is valid: how on earth can the Senate conduct even the semblance of a credible, fair trial without hearing from the whistleblower, the person who started all this? Until he thought better of it, House Intelligence Chairman Rep. Adam Schiff insisted that it was essential to hear Ciamarella’s testimony. Senate Republicans could rightly argue that it still is.
Do Democrats, who are presumably interested in the unvarnished truth, really expect the American people to be content with the testimony of State Department bureaucrats with second- and third-hand knowledge, or law professors with strong opinions? After all, we were told this was serious business, the Constitution itself is at stake.
Moreover, could the American people really stomach the spectacle of an impeachment trial in which Joe and Hunter Biden are at the center of a dispute over whether Trump abused his power, but are never called to testify? Imagine Joe Biden, of all people, campaigning away in Iowa while his rivals are stuck in Washington litigating a show-trail spawned in part by his family’s alleged corruption in Ukraine.
And what about the substance of the articles of impeachment? House Democrats charge that Trump abused his power when he delayed aid to Ukraine and pressured the Ukrainian president to launch investigations into 2016 election interference and corruption at Burisma, the energy company that paid Hunter Biden astronomical sums while Joe Biden was the U.S. government’s anticorruption point-man in Ukraine.
Clearly, the question about abuse of power is directly related to the question of whether there were legitimate reasons for Trump to delay the aid and ask for these investigations. Yes, an investigation of Hunter Biden’s dealings with Burisma might hurt his father’s presidential campaign, and therefore might accrue to Trump’s benefit. But that doesn’t mean it was Trump’s sole or even primary motivation, especially given Ukraine’s endemic corruption problems.
In the same way, an investigation of 2016 election meddling that, say, revealed Democratic Party officials solicited Ukrainian officials for dirt on the Trump campaign might damage Democrats in 2020, which would obviously help Trump. But was Trump’s only consideration his own personal benefit when he asked for this to be investigated? That’s not at all obvious, and in fact it’s easy to see why any U.S. president would want to get to the bottom of such a matter, regardless of how it affected an upcoming election.
Moreover, the whole question of whether a foreign policy decision might benefit Trump’s reelection bid in some way is misinformed. Any foreign policy move a first-term president can claim as a success will be politically beneficial. Just because it helps the president doesn’t mean he was using foreign policy to advance his personal political interests, as Democrats have alleged. In the same way, decrying a “quid pro quo,” as Democrats did for months about Trump’s July 2019 phone call with Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky, belies an oversimplified—and dishonest—view of American foreign policy, which is by nature transactional.
In other words, Democrats must prove that Trump’s only reason for requesting these investigations was that he believed it would hurt Joe Biden and the Democrats and benefit him personally in the 2020 election. They have to show that there were no other compelling reasons in the national interest for Trump to ask for the investigations. Manically repeating, as the media has, that 2016 election interference is a debunked “conspiracy theory” or that Joe Biden did nothing wrong just won’t cut it.
To do that, they will need to dig into whether there was anything in Ukraine worth investigating. That’s the one thing Democrats are not willing to do, which should tell you all you need to know about this impeachment.
Why not Quid Pro Joe?
Thank you Senator Paul. I’lll go get some Orville Redenbacher
they also HAVE to call Schiff and ICIG Atkinson
Both secretly co-ordinated with the “whistleblower” to get this pathetic scam going, so both have serious ethical and legal questions to answer under oath
And the IG who allowed the whistleblower complaint to gain traction. And, all of those involved with the Steele dossier.
Absolutely.
I disagree. The Rats had their chance. Now it’s the President’s turn, a turn he was denied in the House.
No more Rat witnesses. Only witnesses for the defense.
The evidence against Hunter Biden is not in The USA. There is no evidence of crime
The evidence against Hunter Biden et al is in the Ukraine. That evidence will be put forward in the proper court at the proper time
No Rand Paul is correct about Hunter Biden, or did you forget about Ukraine?
the US evidence is his father’s position and both of their bank accounts and financial records.
that is not evidence. that is merely accusation
It’s another trap. Hunter simply pleads the 5th and the rats get their parade of BS witnesses to shove knives into the president. we are stuck with worthless Mitch.. Schmukie would have shut down 3 hours after they got the articles
I agree, and they’ll be lying anyway, there is no doubt in my mind.
of course it is evidence of him being paid and where the money went. What’s wrong with you this morning. You made a false statement and you won’t let it go.
And Hillary...add more names
And shifty Schiff.
In the demonrats world, that’s what
You mean the pencil neck, don’t you?
[[It’s another trap. Hunter simply pleads the 5th and the rats get their parade of BS witnesses to shove knives into the president.]]
That is EXACTLY what is going to happen- and why the senate should not allow new witnesses- IF the left want a new trial, they can hold new impeachment hearings and present that info and issue new articles of impeachment- they will of course be as BS as the last articles of impeachment- but there is a process, and the dems believe they are above the process’s guidelines, that everyone should bend over backwards to accommodate their witch hunt-
They failed to make an honest factual case for impeachment- they know it, and they don’t care and want the rules changed to accommodate their ongoing unhinged hatred of this president
They have no new incriminating evidence, and they know it- all they want is a platform to slander this president and try to convince the public he is guilty with their lies-
I think you are right- it is a trap-
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.