Unethical Quote Of The Month: Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) [CORRECTED!]

“It was a fact-free summation of a case bereft of evidencewe need the evidence. We need the witnesses and documents.”

—-Democratic Senator Richard Blumenthal, commenting on C-Span regarding the Trump defense lawyers’ presentation.

I suppose this isn’t so much of an unethical quote as a quote that reveals one’s own unethical conduct by accurately stating the facts. Yet Blumenthal doesn’t seem to realize that what he just admitted proves that this benighted impeachment sham is as I and others described it to be from the start: a case bereft of evidence.

Other points:

  • Senator Blumenthal is near the bottom of my “Senators who I wouldn’t trust to mail my water bill” barrel. You may recall that Connecticut voters (who would vote for a can of Tomato Soup if it was a Democrat) chose to elect him despite unrefutable proof that he had been fabricating a military combat record for years.

Now he’s arguing, like the rest of his party, that evidence of bad character is enough to justify impeachment.

  • There has never been sufficient evidence to impeach the President, much less convict him. In no previous impeachment did the House take the position that they could just impeach on generalities and supposition, then count on the Senate trial to retroactively justify their actions.

What the House has done this time is the very essence of a fishing expedition.

  • I am I the first to notice that Pelosi’s minions impeachment mirrors her infamous statement regarding the Affordable Care Act, that Congress needed to pass it in order to see what’s in it? This impeachment had to be voted through in order to find out what the President did that was worthy of impeachment, apparently.

That’s not how it works, but the obviously backwards process effectively embodies the  AUC’s (That’s Democratic Party/”resistance”/ mainstream media, the Axis of Unethical Conduct) position since 2016, post election: “we know the President should be impeached, all we have to do is find a way to do it.”

  • To those who argue that the Democrats should not be foiled because the White House refused to cooperate by making its witnesses available, the correct retort is “Baloney.”  The hearings began based on the hearsay claims of a partisan mole who had coordinated with Democratic impeachment-mongers, like Rep. Schiff. The Democrats never called him as a witness, and none of their own witnesses could state any solid evidence that the President was trying to “influence the election” by pressuring the Ukraine to investigate the suspicious activities of the Bidens.

What was being attempted was an abuse of the impeachment process, as Prof. Turley and others made very clear. The White House had an obligation not to abet it. Since the democrats didn’t have enough evidence to impeach, they should have waited until the next concocted outrage in which the President did what other Presidents have done that was suddenly intolerable because Donald Trump, Nazi Monster, did it.

Correction notice: I originally said that the Senator represented Iliinois, heaven knows why. Thanks to Jeff Westlake for the quick call; Jim Rogers was a close second..

19 thoughts on “Unethical Quote Of The Month: Senator Richard Blumenthal (D-Conn) [CORRECTED!]

  1. Jack, help this non lawyer understand something.
    If the charge is that Trump had corrupt intent to enlist Ukraine’s assistance to investigate the Bidens would it not be reasonable to require that evidence be provided that only corrupt intent could be inferred?

    Obviously if there is a rationale for an investigation even if relatively small vis a vis a corrupt rationale it is perfectly reasonable to seek assistance. Further, it seems to me we are Constitutionally required to impute that the legitimate rationale is the overiding issue barring direct incontrovertable evidence to the contrary. Bolton’s testimony is countered by Trump and others which at best is a wash. Bolton could also be considered a disgruntled employee in which his credibility is no better than Trumps.

    I would suggest that Bolton’s manuscript be treated as evidence making it a public document – rendering its copyright void. Bolton could the sue the paper for losses if he wishes. That would effectively prevent firms like the NYT’s from publishing uncorroberated reports from unnamed sources within the NSC or other governmental agencies. Trump’s Nat Sec. Director needs to rotate people out of the White House.

  2. I think it’s pretty clear that the Democrats thought they were laying a trap for Trump, and to be fair, Trump’s innate Trumpiness should have had him fall for it easily. The linchpin of this whole thing was supposed to be that Trump would dig in and refuse to release the transcript of the call, at which point they’d impeach him for obstruction. That got cut off at the knees when they released the transcript almost immediately, and it wasn’t as damning as their “whistleblower” (who is definitely not Eric Ciaramella) told them it would be. But by then it was too late to back off, so they plunged headfirst over the cliff.

    All they’ve managed to accomplish is to fire up Trump’s base, increase his fundraising hauls, and push fair-minded moderates and fence-sitters closer to voting for him in the fall. Pelosi appears to have made a massive mistake here, pushed into it by the small fraction of real radicals in her party. This is a very expensive way for you to learn that Twitter ain’t real life, Nancy.

    • Interesting. So who’s the “whistleblower,” Jeff. I’ve not seen anything other than the various reports about the Ciaramella guy. Thanks.

        • Amazing how holdovers from prior administrations don’t resign if they have a problem with the new administration’s policies. Talk about unethical. Sheesh. Careerists.

          • At what point does inventing a whistleblower constitute perversion of justice? Or is that just a Brit thing? Why is no one asking where this person is and why they have never testified? These seditious little jerks need to be held accountable. I’m so effing tired of these liars.

  3. The House Managers are demanding more evidence to prove their case. In what jurisdiction has the prosecution ever suggested that they are entitled to a fair trial. Nowhere in the Constitution or in case law to my knowledge is the right to a fair and speedy trial for the prosecution.

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.