However much Pelosi, Schiff, & Co try to convince us that they’ve got Trump on the ropes, there is one glaring hole in their argument. Even THEY can’t agree on what his ‘violation’ was.
When Nixon read the writing on the wall, seeing both parties had turned on him, there was no head-scratching or debate about what set of specific actions had turned the nation against him.
The break-in. The cover-up. The missing tapes.
Bill Clinton was not impeached over being a disgusting horn-dog and unethical employer in getting busy with his staff and using her as a human humidor.
He was accused of committing purgery and obstructed justice. Specific acts at specific times, whose behavior fits neatly within the existing scope of criminal law without needing any elaborate explanation or special pleading for why, in this instance, his behavior counts as ‘x’ when someone else’s would not in a similar situation.
Simply stated, Wright wrote, “the President’s deposition testimony regarding whether he had ever been alone with Ms. Lewinsky was intentionally false, and his statements regarding whether he had ever engaged in sexual relations with Ms. Lewinsky likewise were intentionally false ….”
Screen Shot 2015-11-13 at 10.43.38 AMThe penalty the judge imposed was unprecedented: No court had held a sitting president in contempt, as I note in 1995, adding that Wright also ordered the president to pay nearly $90,000 to cover legal fees and other expenses that Jones’s lawyers incurred as a result of the falsehoods he told under oath.” The lawyers had sought nearly $500,000.
Source: 1995 Blog
With Trump, not only have they failed to make such a clear cut case as the previous impeachment scenarios had, but Democrats themselves seem conflicted about what this is ‘really’ about, and have been moving the goalposts — sometimes even on consecutive days of questioning.
The fact that Dems have been busted and called out for focus-group testing various different allegations against him isn’t helping any.
They were hoping for a Republican open to these impeachment hearings would support their side. But they were unable to convince him.
But Hurd said he did not believe the president had committed either a crime or an impeachable infraction. “An impeachable offense should be compelling, overwhelming, clear, and unambiguous,” Hurd said. “And it’s not something to be rushed or taken lightly. I’ve not heard evidence proving the president committed bribery or extortion.”
A special blow to Democrats was Hurd’s point about the lack of evidence of bribery by Trump. The notion that the president sought to bribe Zelensky to investigate Hunter Biden by threatening to cut off aid — that’s the centerpiece of the Democratic case. Bribery is cited by name in the Constitution as an impeachable offense.
…Carissa Byrne Hessick, a law professor at the University of North Carolina, wrote in the Atlantic: “The law generally defines bribery as the ‘corrupt payment, receipt, or solicitation of a private favor for official action.’ That definition appears in one form or another in criminal laws across the country.” In other words, the offense of “bribery” cited in the Constitution is consistent with actual crimes.
Source: Washington Examiner
Democrats find themselves painted into a corner.
They have come too far down this road and invested too much to just abort the impeachment process. But they stand a real chance of hurting their own prospects as a result of having over-promised and under-delivered.
And with Durham’s criminal investigation into the origins of ‘Spygate’ there is a very dangerous wildcard yet to be played that could quite possibly be catastrophic for team Pelosi.
At this point, there’s nowhere really left to turn. She’s damned if she does and she’s damned if she doesn’t.