Much to everyone’s surprise, and to his chagrin, the gloves, having reacted to the soaking in blood, had become hardened, and possibly even shrunken in size. OJ was not able to draw the convicting evidence over his rubber-gloved hand. He looked up with a helpless shrug and wry smile. “It won’t fit.” (I think I recall his comment, but it was obvious.)
That came to mind as I witnessed a recording of the announcement of impeachment. (Did not waste my time to watch it live.) In somber, sepulchral tones, one after another, the House bigwigs maintained their giddiness and glee as they announced the pending, potential, impeachment charges that they had developed.
I am not a lawyer, nor the son of a lawyer, but I have watched a few “procedural” dramas on TV. Even with that shallow and limited understanding, I pity the poor prosecuting attorney who will have to present this case to the jury. He is starting with three strikes.
Charge one: abuse of power. Even the rawest newcomer in the DA’s office would recognize the dearth of probity in this. Point A: The accused denies that he did anything. (Nothing surprising here. Most of the times this is the case.) Point B: The alleged victim denies that anything happened. (Again, a reluctant witness is not the worst impediment to conviction.) Point C: Nothing happened. Well now, that poses a little more of a challenge. The supposedly interrupted aid was delivered and no QPQ (quid pro quo) was received.
I remember noticing one case, an actual one in the news, I believe, where an obviously guilty man was acquitted on appeal because the prosecuting attorney had failed to establish the fact that a crime had been committed. Everyone in the courtroom “knew” that the victim was dead, but that fact was never actually introduced into the evidentiary record. An appeal court subsequently overturned the verdict based on the fact that the defendant had been convicted of a non-existent crime.
Quick, before anyone notices, turn to Charge two: The President obstructed Congress. (Aside: I saw a presentation of the “Wizard of Oz” where the curtain was drawn back, showing the “wizard” as a diminutive little guy frantically attempting to present an imposing image of the great wizard, replete with a bull-horn. He turned to the audience and commanded, “Ignore that little guy behind the curtain!”) I did not hear it, but can imagine that over half of the country was cheering when the House leaders lamented that Donald J. Trump had thwarted the will of Congress. Well, the will of the House of Representatives, but why quibble? “Ignore that swell of cheering!”
Now, if DJT had simply ignored the subpoenas they might have a case. But, dastardly, dirty, devil that he is, he appealed to courts, even the Supreme Court.
The cry rang out. “We do not have time for such frivolities! We want, what we want, when we wants it. And we want, what we wants, right now!” The response reminds us of a spoiled, five-year-old child stamping his or her foot, waving arms, and screaming, “I want it! I want it now!” (Well, both sexes of spoiled brats in this instance.)
And we have yet to consider the actual merits of this brouhaha. Did the President intentionally and overtly refuse to respond to the subpoenas? Well, an appeal is a response. If they refuse to consider the appeal process as being legitimate, what kind of justice system are they proposing? Obviously, one that differs from what we currently enjoy under the Constitution.
Oh yes, they continue to trumpet their respect and love for said Constitution. That is the one that they are violating. But let’s go on. Even if the President does eventually defy these tin-pot dictators, oops, that just slipped out. If DJT actually does defy a legal order that has been validated and confirmed by the appeals process, then, and not until then, is there an obstruction charge.
The poor novice prosecutor may even begin with four strikes. No crime. No obstruction. He has less chance than the proverbial tissue paper sail in a hurricane. So, is the declaration, “We must impeach,” making less and less sense? OJ was probably guilty. President Trump is not.
One minor thought, and we will retire for the time being. If the guy in the Ukraine oil company had been the son of John Doe, Bill Gates, or Mike Pence, would the Democrats have gone so berserk at the request to investigate the “corruption?” Or, conversely, had it been the son of Donald Trump, and it had NOT been investigated in these same circumstances, would we be right back here? “Abuse of power!”
(For the record, there are multiple videos floating around the internet, dated 2016, calling for an impeachment. Why did they bother to wait three years? They didn’t need any real charges then, and they seem to have no more now.)
George Washington warned the fledgling country against political parties. His valedictory warning may be translated today as avoiding “career politicians.” They get so caught up in their own games that they forget who the REAL Boss is. Hide and see. November’s appeal to the voters may surprise a lot of posers.
Hopefully, next time, someone with some smarts will advise, “If you find no grounds, you must not impeach.”
No comments:
Post a Comment