“It was a fact-free summation of a case bereft of evidence – we 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.
- 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..