Impeachment day two

For those who do not recognize the picture above, it is Oliver Cromwell. Two years after his death his body was dug up and he was put on trial and beheaded.

As we move on to Impeachment day two, we should review day one. Since the last shall be first, the argument was made that the entire trial is unconstitutional because it is intended to remove a seating President who is already out of office. This motion was defeated by a 56-44 vote. The argument was made that Congress is not the body to decide constitutionality, that is the Supreme Court. In this instance under the rules of this trial they are in fact the body to make that decision. I remember a charge to a jury where the judge told them they are deciders of the facts; the judge is the decider of law. This indicates that this is not a “Trial” that is a reflection of US jurisprudence. The jury decides facts and law, the presiding officer is not a judge but in this case is also a member of the jury. One of the things they get to decide as well is rules of evidence. This brings us to the first presentation, the video.  

For those of you who did not have the pleasure of seeing the video, it was a compilation of what transpired on January 6th in Washington. The problem with it was it was chopped together, out of order and censored to give the impression that the riot occurred while Trump was standing on a platform extolling his followers to take over the Capitol building.  This video “evidence” would never have been allowed in a court of law in this country. This would-be tantamount reworking a police officers body cameras footage to reflect a series of events that did not happen. This is falsifying evidence. This was not intended to show facts but to elicit an emotional reaction. Then there is some pre-trial activity that must be addressed. The chief House impeachment manager, Rep Jamie B. Raskin (D-Md) in a letter to Trump stated that if he did not testify it would be seen as an admission of guilt. Raskin, a graduate of Harvard Law school, apparently never read the Constitution or understands the 5th amendment. I am sure that if any prosecutor made this statement elsewhere, they would face some disciplinary hearing.  

I am not passing judgement on Trump who must bear some personnel responsibility for what took place, but not criminal liability for other people actions. Those who attacked the seat of government must be tried and convicted for their own actions.

I am asking my readers to PLEASEThink about how this trial is taking place. Detach yourselves from your emotions and judge this in the light of American culture and fairness. Trump is his own worst enemy, much of what he says is emotional rhetoric, but it is protected under the 1st amendment. We cannot become a country that puts people on trial for what they said that we disagree.  

Leave a Reply

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

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

Facebook photo

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

Connecting to %s