Dear Lord, give us strength! We are on the third and final day of the Prosecution arguments of the Democrat floor managers. The endless repetition (of assuming facts that have never really had any evidence put into the record) goes on and on. But it is still easy to put it into a short blurb for those following the ‘action’.
In a sense, and in a hypocritical manner, the Democrat floor managers have conceded my point about ‘no documentary or testimonial evidence’. They are trying to prove Trump’s motives through a circumstantial case and by asserting that some of it is simply obvious (or prima facie). See my Pelosi Vendetta materials if you are not familiar with what I am saying here. In theory, they could have a point but there are simply too many problems that come from their shaping-a-crime-to-fit-their-suspect type of a mentality.
Example: I stated that – once a crime has definitely been established – it is usually obvious that someone must have had a foul motive for doing the crime. You don’t need documentary or testimonial evidence to establish that. That is, it is prima facie – in such an instance – that the motive is malign in at least some way. But the floor managers are trying to do exactly the opposite: they are trying to first establish that he had malign motives – so that they can then declare his actions to be illegal.
Example: I stated that – in addition to the so-called documentary or testimonial evidence – there is also such a thing as a circumstantial case. The floor managers are now trying to state a circumstantial case, but it is flawed from their reverse engineering tactics. All they started with is that Trump made some very passing reference to Biden in some way, shape or form. Next, that at some point – and for some reason – there was a hold on some type of Ukrainian assistance. So, what does a working backwards case now do in this type of a situation?
It does exactly what the Nadler/Pelosi crowd did. You presume (with no evidence) that the two must be related and then try to find the evidence afterwards – that will then ‘prove’ what you have already assumed.
And all the telltale signs are there to show why this approach never works at getting to the truth.
1) The timings don’t, in fact, match. The hold on the Ukraine was already in place long before any Biden issue could possibly have occurred. And the reason for the hold has firsthand admissible evidence. Trump has always maintained (and, again, long before any Biden matters could have come up) that he has reservations about the Ukraine government. Thus, his hold on the Ukraine ties into his long-held views about Ukraine – that he has repeatedly expressed long before any Biden matters could have occurred.
2) The end of the hold does not match the date of his being somehow caught in something. The date of the end of the hold has already been given previously and, again, through firsthand admissible evidence. Specifically, there was a bipartisan meeting in the White House where the President was given bipartisan heck for not releasing the money.
The heck he was given had nothing to do with schemes to pressure Ukrainians or any other such nonsense. It was about his continued skepticism of the Ukraine that the bipartisan group of Senators had grown impatient with. Trump then released the money after this meeting and because of what the Senators told him – according to those in the meeting speaking through their firsthand experience there.
3) A final matter: the firing of the ambassador under (presumably) shady circumstances. But everything stops at a complete dead end there. Nadler, Pelosi and Co. called no witnesses – and produced no documents – that tied the firing of the ambassador to the start of a scheme that she was supposed to be in the way of.
Every reference they make to “the scheme” stems from simply stating that that is why the ambassador was fired with absolutely no witnesses called to verify it – and with the production of no documentary proof either. It is the textbook case of “assumes facts not in evidence” except that it is the assuming of an entire case not in evidence. And on we could go. I’ll write you more tomorrow when we start hearing from the President.