Moving along

The defense of the president is to assert:
– The opposition wants to nullify the election; and
– The opposition wants to disqualify the candidate from seeking the office on purely political grounds

Fact: The election has occurred and cannot be nullified – office occupied!
Fact: The alleged acts of the president created the situation (not his omissions)
Fact: Something occurred – he failed to carryout his commission to which he was entrusted by those in authority to grant the privilege, in a timely manner, in the opinion of some of those in Congress granting authority.
Fact: The Constitution grants Congress the authority to sanction the president, specifying disqualification for future privileges of the office for failure to act within the scope of authority and powers granted.

The Question:




As for the defense, rather than demolishing the case for Impeachment, it categorically confirms sanctions prescribed by the allegations of malfeasance and self-serving, pursuant to the terms of the Constitution itself.

The error of the defense is that, conceptually, the defense substitutes “democrats” for the for Constitution, in its personification of the document.

The bet is that most people will “buy” the bridge, and swallow the bait, hook, line and sinker.

My last thoughts on the subject: What does Biden have to do with the appropriation made by the Congress? If he deceived Congress, actions should go against him. If his son broke a law, the prosecution should be against him by the appropriate authorities.

If the president knew his acts were going to be hyper-criticized, a prudent professional would have, and should have, avoided even the appearance of impropriety. Nothing less than full disclosure, before taking action, is required when there is the possible appearance of a conflict of interest. Period. And, that is why the defenses are vacuous (at least at this moment in time). That is especially true with regard to dealing with money to which one is entrusted to disburse.

Upon the presidential petard of truth fails the defense of “Executive Privilege.” Executive Privilege is not the same, in equivalency or relevancy, to the word “discretion” of a person working as an executive.

‘If you don’t know, now you do.’

Moving on: The Republicans, if they are in fact “republicans” may check things out (see evidence), find no cause for removal from office based on lack of conclusive evidence, if found inconclusively and they should sanction the president with censure. He failed to avoid even the appearance of a personal conflict of interest.

IMO: If he doesn’t even agree to that, he’s not the sort of person who should be entrusted with leadership.