Defense Rests in Impeachment

The Defense Rests

Wednesday, January 29 2020, 1:00 PM (EST)

Watched as much of the Senate “trial” defense as an old man can.  Mostly watched FOX because they have best update chyrons and I could keep most of the talking stuff on mute.

The basic facts did not appear to be in dispute:  A call was made, for which we have a partial transcript; funds appropriated by Congress were “held”, etc.

The defense offered seemed a bit disjointed.  Someone listed 29 different arguments put forth.  Some of these conflicted with others, and a few were fatuous.  For the most part all the well-worn talking points trump wanted to hear got TV time.

Mercifully, they took about half of their allotted time.  This was at least in part because they had no actual contra-arguments to make.  Some of time used was wasted on chasing down “Red Herrings” and saying some “Straw Man” did worse.

Overall it would have gone more quickly, and been more bearable, if they had stuck to the real legal arguments:  The Articles of Impeachment presented do not reach the level of removal from office.  In this they were most effective.

As this is being written questions of witnesses, evidence, and an actual trial have not been settled.  These questions, as with the final outcome, are purely political in nature. 



My lingering questions and current opinions:

QUESTION:  If true Democrats moved too fast for truth to come out, is it not also true Republicans moving too fast to ‘get over it’?  Oddly, both can be true.

QUESTION: The majority Party is doing everything they can to protect trump; it that supposed to be their job?

QUESTION:  Given known facts and circumstances, and given nature of trump, is this an offence against the Constitution rising to the level of removal from office?  Turns out that is the only question.

OPINION: I remain convinced that lacking secret ballots we, and history, will never know if we got an honest outcome.  Believing they cannot win, how many Democrats see no need to vote their true belief and vote to acquit?  Believing they cannot lose, how many Republicans see no need to vote their true belief and vote to remove?   There will be no secret ballot.

OPINION: As written in my letter to Senator Mike Brawn –

Frankly, my original assumption had been there might be some kind of bi-partisan “censure” motion passed and that would be the end of it.  Unfortunately, trump continues to be his own and the Republican Party’s worst enemy.  Thus, as Dr. Fiona Hill testified, “And here we are”.

I’ll be glad when important things take back the news – things like fires, earthquakes, terrorists, war mongering, torture of immigrants, and good old political in-fighting!

Ltr to my Senators re: Impeach

Letter sent to Senators Young and Braun of Indiana

January 6 2020

Dear Senator,

Our son, a fourth grade teacher, tells us he hears three answers to every issue – your side, my side, and the truth.  My some seventy years observation of politicians has led to presumption that politicians are mostly like fourth graders:  Having chosen their side, they have no interest whatsoever in the other side -- or the truth.  If the reader finds this harsh, all which can be here suggested is that mine is the worldview reaped from the prevarications sown.

As of this date American will soon be asked to endure what will be called a “trial” before a “jury” of duly elected Senators.  No responsible person attempting to follow events of the past three years should assume anything like a fair, honest, truth-seeking event is forthcoming.  It the most basic of terms, America must surely recognize “The Fix Is In”.

As things now stand we cannot expect to get the whole story of the actions and events which have brought us to this moment in history.  As with many who have been or ought to have been Impeached, truth will probably remain unknown until after the passing from the scene of all involved, all who care, all who may benefit from the truth.

As to the immediate events we face, the truth will never be known by ours or any future generation unless:

·        The Supreme Court Chief Justice pro-actively presides over the procedures:  Commanding his court, overruling purely partisan procedures, and disqualifying jurors who have publicly pre-judged the outcome.

·        Relevant fact witnesses are compelled to testify under threat of enforcement by court controlled U.S. Marshall Service.

·        Leaders of the two Parties release the Jurors to vote their conscience and by secret ballot.

To get the truth, to even hope we had been told most of the truth, would require all three of the above conditions.  But, no responsible observer ought to hope this will happen, because we are at the mercy of politicians.  In this observation politicians willingly sacrifice “duty, honor, country” to the corruption of political power.  And we ought not to dare hope for fairness, honesty, truth-seeking, nor certainty.  If the reader finds all this to be harsh, all which can be here suggested is that mine is the worldview reaped from the prevarications sown.

Sincerely,

David L Lewis



Following is my reply to letter received in response from office of Sen. Braun:

January 22, 2020

Dear Senator Braun,

Thank you for your apparently pro-forma letter of January 10, 2020 in response to my earlier correspondence.  As expected, your reply addresses none of the concerns of my letter.  It is probably safe to assume my concerns were unread.  Given you are trapped for a while doing constitutionally required work, there is no reason to believe you will read my reply.  In the tenuous hope some minion might be tasked to read this, I write now for the record.

Although it is irrelative, I would want it known that the first time I voted it was for Senator Barry Goldwater.  As I once told his son, am glad I did and have always been proud of my vote.  Since 1964 I have thought of myself as a Goldwater conservative, and was supportive of the local Republican Party when I had still been able.

Your letter clearly indicates obedience to the current trump party line.  But, we are well beyond whining about a government employee who did what was seen as their duty and passed on to the Inspector General volunteered information.  We are even passed whether Impeachment Articles will be adopted by the House of Representatives.  Such matters I leave the uninformed to argue.

Frankly, my original assumption had been there might be some kind of bi-partisan “censure” motion passed and that would be the end of it.  Unfortunately, trump continues to be his own and the Republican Party’s worst enemy.  Thus, as Dr. Fiona Hill testified, “And here we are”.

What I want now is honesty by both Parties.  I’ve gotten too old to believe it will happen.

What I want now is the full truth about the entire Ukraine conspiracy.  I’ve gotten too old to believe it will be had; certainly not from those subservient to trump, cowering before his tweets.

As I write this letter the second day of the Senate trial is set to begin.  It’s early in the game, but nothing I’ve seen done or said changes my assessment the “fix” is in.  I’ve gotten too old to believe you politicians will have the courage to make all of this a fair and open procedure.

If, as you say, you were elected to support trump, the State of Indiana has itself a devil’s bargain.

Sincerely,

David L Lewis

Prosecution Rests in Impeachment

The Prosecution Rests

Saturday, January 25 2020, 10:00 AM (EST)

The Senate trail of Impeachment has reached its natural turning point.  After three days of presentation of their case the House Managers rested.  Now begins the presentation by White House lawyers.  This seemed like good time to ‘take stock’ of my observations. 

No, I have not bothered to watch every minute.  Mostly I have bounced around the three cable networks, plus PBS.  CNN and MSN provide “running” coverage but their commentary, to be polite, is less than unbiased.  FOX is not continually broadcasting the trial and tends to overdub with standing talking points.  PBS gives the most neutral commentary.  What follows is one feeble attempt at being neutral.

What Are The Agreed Facts?

As of this writing I have not seen either side disagree on the basics issues at hand:

·        A partial transcript was released of July 25 2019 incriminating phone call.  Time stamps indicate a longer time span than required to read partial transcript; one person in on call stated under oath transcript is ‘incomplete’.

·        Immediately following the call financial aid was withheld from Ukraine on direct order by trump in violation of The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 and contrary to Staff and Cabinet level advices.

·        There had been an on-going Ukraine conspiracy specifically involving Rudy Giuliani including multiple persons and extending over a year.

·        White House has deliberately and methodically blocked release of all legally subpoenaed documents, material evidence, and witnesses.

·        White House has not publicly indicated possession of or released any exculpatory evidence or witnesses.

What Are Merely Conjectures?

In essence, the various conjectures observed from both sides include:

·        Fault blamed on ‘Process’ caused by following rules written and imposed on Congress by Republican majorities.

·        Fault blamed on ‘Political’ origins and would not exist if political positions were reversed.

·        To experienced, uninvolved former prosecutors actions by White House of concealing evidence, threatening witnesses, etc. all indicate a ‘consciousness of guilt’.

·        Situation motivated by re-election concerns, thereby validating any crime which may be implicated.

·        Situation motivated by “corruptions” concerns (nowhere else expressed), thereby validating any crime which may be implicated.

·        Demand for investigations into Biden(s) goes to motive and is not exculpatory.  If it were exculpatory Republican controlled Senate Judiciary Committee could subpoena one or both parties.

·        Attacks on ‘Impeachment Managers’ were increased due to lack of factual defense.

What Have I Missed?

Conceding that in the avalanche of the known and unknown much may have been missed; these are my own outstanding issues:

·        No one has argued any of trump’s actions interpreted as ‘unprofessional’ are uncharacteristic of him, and not something he would do.  No one on either side has proposed he is a trustworthy person.

·        Who is following the money?  From 1 to 3 million-dollars is known to have been exchanged; at least $1-million traced directly as being from Russia.  Giuliani, who received $500M retainer, was to be paid $1-2 million annually plus "single digit equity participation" (lawyer-speak for "a piece of the action").  Where in the Ukraine caper does all this money fit?

The Defense may now present its case.

Today's Demon

Please Note: This blog was first published on the Brazil Times website on June 10 2010.  Some editing has been done to remove outdated references.

TODAY’S DEMON

Demonization: To represent as diabolically evil; "the demonization of our enemies". wordnetweb.princeton.edu/perl/webwn

According to a recent article in The Brazil Times [June 2010] a Colorado man went on “Rambo style solo mission to hunt down and kill Osama bin Laden”.  When located and detained by Pakistan authorities he was suitably armed with sword and pistol, which presumably were to be used to penetrate bin Laden’s thousands of fanatical protectors. 

We wish him well, but his self-ordained quest was perhaps a bit ill advised. 

This is what people do, though, believe that removing one high profile individual will somehow eliminate the evil they represent.  In short, we “demonize” a person in the hopes that all evil is embodied in him.  It doesn’t quite work that way.

In the year I was born the demons to kill were Hitler and Mussolini, and a lot of people tried to kill them.  To do that required first penetrating those thousands who made such evil possible – the Nazis and Fascist.  Absolute world peace did not absolutely follow removing those two particular demons.

It wasn’t that long ago that the guy to get was Saddam Hussein.   If only we could capture him and, say, hang him, then all would be right with the world.  Turns out it wasn’t that easy.

Demonizing is, simply, how Americans approach things.  Whatever the problems, whatever the catastrophe, find some one person we can blame for it all, take him out, and maybe the problem will go away.

Truth is every leader, for good ends or other, is totally dependent on supporters spread across large panoramas of national identities, personalities, and motivations.  In the end the only real way to solve the “demon” problem is deal with the minutia of all the small parts of the vast whole.

The course of human events indicates evils are never removed from the earth with swords or pistols, or resignations.  And, the end of news cycles rarely indicates resolution of problems.

Wars are won, problems solved, evils removed by fighting the battle in the particulars – defeating each foe and solving each issue one at a time.  When that is done the “demon” comes to its natural end.  It is too bad we never seem capable of fighting righteous battle until some one high profile individual becomes today’s demon. 

This is part of complying of Blogs posted from May 17 2008 to May 10 2015 on the Brazil Times website under the by-line MY VIEW FROM THE BACK PEW.  Not all Blogs can or should be included -- that's well over 150,000 words which nobody much read the first time around.  And, some will be edited for timeliness, relevance, or just plain keeping short enough to be read.  These Blogs can no longer be found on the Times site and are reproduced here from original document files; my understanding is they remain “property” of the paper, so acknowledgement is given.

As the world ends?

AS THE WORLD ENDS?

The first I learned about the Second Coming of Jesus Christ was about 1950.  I remember it mostly because I was hoping He’d come before my next test.

Roughly 10 years later my big brother had a LP record (Google it kid) which played a dissertation by Billy James Hargis.  I remember it mostly because I loved by big brother and it was important to him.

As I recall Billy had discovered scripture told of how there would be some “trigger” event, then the Bear (Russia) would unite with the king of Persia (now Iran) and attack Israel in the valley of Armageddon. All of this leading to the final gathering of all nations to begin World War III. As I recall all that was to happen no later than 1980.

Over the centuries many different doctrines regarding the “end times” have come and gone in popularity (do wish I’d kept that “88 reasons Jesus will return in 1988” booklet). 

As I understand it something called post-millennial dispensation was quite popular in America prior to World War I. But, when the war did not immediately lead to whatever that teaching required, the doctrine was replaced as most popular by pre-millennialism.  My theology professor said he was a “pan-millennialist – it will all pan-out in the end”.

Back in the day when teaching Bible survey I somewhat antagonized my diehard pre-millennial students with how I approached end-time prophecy.  Basically I had four guidelines:

1.  The only way to know a prophecy has been fulfilled is when the New Testament says, “this in fulfillment of.…”. 

2.  The Clergy will get it wrong. As far back as the first coming of Jesus the professional Bible scholars have always got it wrong.

3.  Skating on thin ice are doctrines proposing that before the end comes a specific real world event must occur.

4.  When the dust settles and we know the full story, everybody will be surprised as to how it was all worked out.

Given yet another round of crises in the Middle East, I remain reasonably assured God does have some overall plan to which he has not made me privy.  I depend on: “But about that day or hour no one knows, not even the angels in heaven, nor the Son, but only the Father. “ (Matthew 24.36)