 |
| White House Counsel Pat Cipollone radio.wosu.org |
It is a lovely Tuesday afternoon and The Blogger Candidate Forum is stepping with a summary of today in the Senate trial of Mr. Donald Trump. True to their word, the president's defense team took less than the allotted 24 hours to present their arguments in favor of acquittal, only to have their case hit an enormous boulder in the form of former National Security Council Adviser John Bolton's forthcoming book. The Candidate Forum found it rather amusing that all the Republicans that were thumping their chests, declaring that the House managers' case is over, no need for witnesses, let us acquit and move on with life are suddenly quiet.
Just this morning, Republican Iowa Senator Joni Ernst said the quiet part out loud. Speaking to reporters on Monday evening, Senator Ernst mused about whether voters in next Monday's Democratic Iowa Caucus would continue to support VPOTUS Joe Biden. Whoops. For months,the administration and their congressional sycophants have been arguing that the president's demand for an investigation into corruption in Ukraine had the purest intentions. In light of the fact that VPOTUS Biden is the president's chief rival, the argument that a corruption investigation was purely motivated just got undermined. The Candidate Forum guesses that sometimes politicians cannot help themselves in front of a microphone and camera. Oh yes, former President Barack Obama was figuratively dragged into the trial. Onward.
 |
| youtube.com |
How would The Blogger Candidate Forum describe the defense team's arguments in favor of acquittal? Ironic. Specifically, lack of irony.
Breaking News: Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-KY) announced that Republican senators do not have enough votes to block witnesses, paving the way for former-NSC Adviser Bolton to testify.
Back to the subject.
Why does The Candidate Forum use the word ironic to describe the defense team' arguments? Perhaps it was the Ghost of Impeachment past Kenneth Star arguing how the impeachment and removal process has been abused. This is coming from the former Clinton special prosecutor who was appointed to delve into allegedly corrupt business dealings by the Clintons and uncovered the former president's, um, extracurricular activities. Maybe it was famed constitutional law professor attorney Alan Dershowitz arguing that that the president should not be removed from office because he did not commit a crime. In 1998, Mr. Dershowitz said in an interview that there only needs to be an appearance of a crime in order for the president to be removed and President Clinton's actions were not criminal. Or perhaps it was defense attorney Michael Purpura arguing that there were no eye witnesses to that infamous July 25th phone call, neglecting to mention that key witnesses, like Mr. Bolton were blocked from testifying and requests for documents and other witnesses ignored. Ironic. No matter, the defense's case rests on six points.
 |
| Former NSC Adviser John Bolton cnn,com |
Mr. Trump's attorneys argues that the president never admitted to quid pro quo. Mr. Purpura argued on Saturday (washingtonpost.com; Jan. 25, 2020; date accessed Jan. 28, 2020),
Not a single witness testified that the president himself said that there was any connection between any any investigations and security assistance, or anything else (nbcnews.com; Jan. 28, 2020).
The careful wording in this statement, make it true because the president personally prevented Mr. Bolton (thehill.com; Jan. 28, 2020) and other witnesses from giving testimony. If Mr. Bolton were to provide a truthful account of events, he would verify the president's efforts. If this were a real trial, a lawyer would be sanctioned for deliberately misleading the finder of the facts. According to Mr. Bolton's book "...in August, Trump said that he wanted to withhold military aid to Ukraine unless it help with investigations into former Vice President Joe Biden and his son Hunter..." (nbcnews.com; Jan. 28, 2020). This stunning revelation highlights the need to for first-hand witness testimony from Mr. Bolton and acting (like a) chief of staff Mick Mulvaney. Mr. Bolton's testimony would support both articles of impeachment, suggesting that the president's motivations to fight the subpoenas was motivated by suppressing the truth from the American public (Ibid).
White House counsel Pat Cipollone argued that the so-called transcript from that infamous phone call to Ukrainian President Volodymr Zelensky demonstrated that the president did nothing wrong. Typical defense move: focus on one piece of evidence to draw attention away from the more damaging exhibits. The "transcripts" is more like a summary of the call, omitting the word "Burisma," the energy company whose board Hunter Biden served. Focusing on this one element ignores the months long wrangling between the United States and Ukraine, spearheaded by the president's personal attorney Rudy Giuliani, over investigations of the Biden and the 2016 elections. Further, by focusing on just the transcripts, it detracts from the fact that when President Zelensky inquired about the approved aid, Mr. Trump asked for a "favor." The House managers believe that he could use said aid as leverage to illicit real or imagined "dirt" on his rivals to smear them politically
 |
| Defense attorney Michael Purpura nbcnews.com |
Second, Mr. Purpura argued that the Ukrainians were not pressured by the White House. This argument focuses on the impact of the president's word on the recipient. Irrelevant, better would be to focus on the intent. Even if Ukraine did not believe it was pressured by Mr. Trump, he is still not exonerated. There are moments when a a third party is quite happy to pay bribe if it means getting what they want. The Blogger Candidate Forum slip its hairstylist an extra generous tip and gets highlights with its hair. Both are happy to the detriment of those who actually pay for the highlights. In short, Ukraine was not willing to bite the hand that feeds.
Third, Mr. Purpura argued that Ukraine was not aware of any hold on military aid until late August, thus aid could be used as leverage to induce investigations. This is inconsistent with testimony given by Defense Department official Laura Cooper (Ibid; Nov. 11, 2019) that the Ukrainians became aware of the hold on July 25, the same day as that call. Regardless of when Ukraine first learned of the hold, the hold continued after the president's request for investigation. Aid was finally released on September 11, 2019 (Ibid; Nov. 14, 2019), once the president became aware of the whistleblower's complaint.
 |
| Defense attorney Jay Sekulow time.com |
Next, attorney Jay Sekulow argued that eventually military aid did flow, thus no harm, no foul (Ibid; Jan. 28, 2020). Be that as it may, "bribery and extortion are what are known as 'inchoate' crimes. They are complete upon the demand, regardless of whether the threat is carried out" (Ibid). The harm took place when the president ordered the earmarked and approved military aid delayed, by months, to help fight a common enemy. At war with Russia, Ukrainians could have died (Ibid; Dec. 30, 2020) because of the delay. Prosecutors call Mr. Sekulow's argument a red herring, after the technique used by fox hunters to "enhance the challenge by drawing their dogs off the scent of their actual pursuit" (Ibid; Jan. 28, 2020).
Finally, the defense argued that Mr. Donald Trump as been a better friend to Ukraine than his predecessor. There is nothing to indicate that President Barack Obama attempted to strong arm Ukraine into providing any personal or political benefit. However, hypothetically speaking, even if Pres. Obama was not a "good friend" (Ibid) to Ukraine, this point is completely irrelevant to the question whether the current president abused his own power to extort an ally for personal political gain. Thus, part of presiding judge Chief Justice John Roberts' instructions to the senators is consider "whether others are potentially guilty of this or other crimes is irrelevant to their determination of guilt for the defendant who is on trial" (Ibid). So, what comes next?
The senators begin two days of questions. The senators will be able to ask questions about the arguments. This will be followed by what is sure to be a contentious debate over calling witnesses and requesting documents. These matters are scheduled to take up the remainder of the week and Saturday. Monday February 3 is the Iowa Caucus and the State of the Union address is the next day, which means we will not have a verdict until mid-February. The Blogger Candidate Forum will be with you.
No comments:
Post a Comment