This Is Why No Witnesses Were Allowed To Testify

For those who have been hoping for the Senate to oust Trump from office, that’s not likely. The Senate Republicans decided to not allow witnesses to testify.

Of course, the “Impeach!” crowd is crying foul. Then again, how many of them have watched even clips of the proceedings, rather than picking and choosing biased reports telling them what to think about the proceedings?

I will admit to have seen only a few clips from the proceedings but that was enough to make me understand why no witnesses would be called. Ulcerative colitis and respect for my own sanity dictated that I could only listen to Adam Schiff for so long. Just as I have never been able to listen to a Trump speech in it’s entirety or listen to Pelosi for over 2 minutes. In each case I can feel my brain cells actively imploding from the sheer vacuum emanating from the black holes which substitute for their intellects.

In his opening statements, Schiff sounded more like he was trying to impeach Vladimir Putin rather than Donald Trump. He completely ignores the fact that we have already suffered through over 3 years of Russiagate, which concluded in absolute discredit for Mueller and should have been complete shame for the Democrats and MSM. Yet here was Schiff stating such things as “Putin wakes up every morning dreaming of ways to destroy our democracy.” This while the DNC is installing methods of rigging the convention after already rigging the primary against Tulsi Gabbard. He compared Russia to a wounded animal.

He has offered such gems as “We need to fight Russia over there (Ukraine) so that we don’t have to fight them over here.” Hmm. I don’t see Russia arming Mexico or placing ABM sites along the Canadian border to the US. I do not see Russia holding massive military exercises right on our doorstep.

Yes, the US is arming Ukraine against Russia. Something happening under Trump which even Obama refused to do because of the risk involved. Never mind the fact that Ukrainian president Zelensky ran on a platform of improving relations with Russia. That’s why the people of Ukraine voted for him. Never mind that if we send weapons to Ukraine, most of those weapons wind up in the hands of right-wing neo-Nazi groups. Schiff thinks if he doesn’t mention any of that, that none of us will know about it. For most Americans, that is true. That would not fit with their 1 dimensional view of the world. “Us good, Russia bad.”

“My own presumptions.” I will hearken back to the testimony of former ambassador Sondland. When asked where he got the idea that any quid pro quo took place between Trump and Zelensky, his reply was, “By my own presumptions.” He was the absolute central source for all the information regarding the Ukraine allegations and all other “witnesses” were downstream from Sondland. There were no other direct witnesses to the events in question, so all other witness testimony relied on his account. The so-called “whistleblower” did not hear anything directly. Their own account states they heard something from someone who heard something from someone who may have heard the conversation between Trump and Zelensky.

No quid pro quo. The accusations involved are that Trump required an agreement from Zelensky that Zelensky would publicly announce that he had ordered the reopening of the corruption case involving the oil company for which Joe Biden’s civilian son worked for. Until that happened, Trump would withhold monetary aid for military purposes from Ukraine. The problem is, the funds were released to Ukraine and Zelensky never made any announcement, nor did he order the reopening of that investigation. The funds were released weeks before the initial charges were filed against Trump.

Without a proven crime, there was no obstruction. The accusations being raised against Trump do not rise to the extent of being called a crime, nor are they impeachable offenses. They would be considered ethics violations which would be best addressed by official Congressional sanction against Trump. Therefore, with no crime committed or even directly accused, there is no legal precedent to claim there was obstruction of justice because justice would only be involved regarding criminal acts. Not ethics violations.

Impeachment definition. Yes, Trump has been impeached. However, impeachment doe not mean removal from office. The official definition of impeachment per Merriam-Webster is: 1- to charge with a crime or misdemeanor. specifically : To charge (a public official) before a competent tribunal with misconduct in office. 2- To cast doubt on. especially : to challenge the credibility or validity of. (Such as impeaching the credibility of a court witness.)

This strengthened Trump’s support. As I and many others have warned, the result of this debacle has had the effect of strengthening support for Trump. This is more true when it comes after 3 years of Russiagate, which was a miserable and foreseeable failure. This is even more true when the Democrats openly and blatantly resuscitated Russiagate in the opening arguments for impeachment, which had absolutely nothing to do with Russia. This made it crystal clear that the Democrats are still trying to use Russia to justify Hillary’s loss in 2016 by any means possible, regardless of how immense the risk is.

It would have been better to leave him alone. The literal fact of the matter is that if the Democrats simply left Trump unmolested, his own failures would cause a massive decline in his approval ratings. The more they attack him and the attacks they choose are globally visible failures displaying an obvious witch hunt attitude, the more his approval ratings increase. Not because of actual approval for him but disapproval for the “Resistance”.

Other charges could have worked. If the Dems had used charges of war crimes or human rights abuses, the impeachment would have had far more chance of succeeding. Especially after he ordered the outright assassination of a foreign military leader of a country we are not at war with. This action violating the sovereignty of an “allied” nation, nevertheless one that had ordered our military to leave before that happened. Then including the concurrent assassination of one of Iraq’s own military leaders. However, using such charges would entail the Democrats objecting to what has become standard US policy, which they do not oppose in the least. Trump could order the assassinations of Putin and they would still claim it was Putin’s idea. He could order the murders of Xi, Kim Jong Un, Maduro, Duterte and maybe Merkel and they would not file charges against him for any of it, long as they got to sell more bombs.

This ends the DNC platform. Perpetuating Russiagate and keeping the impeachment going all the way through 2020 was the DNC platform for this election year. They seem to literally have nothing else aside from rigging the primary in favor of Biden or Bloomberg. So this tactic has failed, which was highly predictable. Honestly, I did not expect it to happen this quickly but I am very happy it did. That does not mean it will change anything the Dems do for the rest of the year. I fully expect them to continue having nothing to discuss as a party for all of 2020 except “hate Trump” and “Russia, Russia, Russia”. Doing anything else would mean the DNC as a party would have to move leftward, which they have no intention of doing. For now, they have no more distractions to use for anyone that is conscious. For the far too many that are not conscious, they will go right along with talking about the impeachment for the rest of the year, with neoliberal MSM leading the way.

Written by

Issues unite, names divide

Get the Medium app

A button that says 'Download on the App Store', and if clicked it will lead you to the iOS App store
A button that says 'Get it on, Google Play', and if clicked it will lead you to the Google Play store