I am not a lawyer, but I’ve been listening to commentary on T.V. on what’s involved in an impeachment proceeding and trial, so if there are any
inaccuracies here, please feel free to chime in and point them out.
I have come to believe that the standard of proof for conviction in an impeachment trial in the Senate is not proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but it
is whatever the Senate wants it to be.
So, if that is true, then there is no need for a lengthy, ironclad investigation in order to get on with the impeachment and trial.
If you want to convict on the basis of obstruction of justice, then all that you need do is to present to the Senate the President’s past own words
1.) to Lester Holt when he said that he had the Russia “thing” on his mind when sacking James Comey the Director of the F.B.I. and 2.) to the
Russian ambassador when he said, right in the oval office, that the termination of Comey’s employment eased the pressure of the Russia “thing”
Just that alone seems to be adequate for conviction, but if the Senate wants more, then all that they need do is to have Comey and Trump testify under
oath at the impeachment trial and weigh the relative credibility of Comey versus the credibility of Trump while keeping the following in mind: did
Comey ever get caught in 31 perjurious lies during just ONE deposition in the past? Did Donald Trump? Did Comey ever have 417 lies attributed to him
during a 100 day period? Did the great Donald Trump during his first one hundred days in office?
Right there, admittedly, you do not have proof beyond a reasonable doubt, but you do have more than satisfactory proof under the legal theory that, in
an impeachment trial, the standard of proof is whatever the Senate wants it to be.
Currently, the legal term, “misdemeanor,” means a crime that carries a penalty of a term of incarceration of less than one year. However, at the
time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, the word “misdemeanor” simply meant “bad behavior.”
Very, very recently, you had pretty much universal pooh-poohing of the Commander-in-Chief’s bad behavior aimed at a couple of morning cable T.V.
hosts calling them “crazy” and “psycho” followed by a few other choice words. This, in and of itself, to me can justify an impeachment
conviction under the broad, past meaning of “misdemeanor.”
But there is more. Supposedly and allegedly, three flying monkeys of the Commander-in-Chief called those T.V. hosts and subjected them to an
Oh, you may say that nothing was alleged to be attributable to the President in that little episode, BUT...
The President attempted to turn the whole story around by what was most definitely a contradictory tweet stating that the T.V. hosts had contacted
So, now things go to the credibility of the T.V. hosts versus the credibility of the President. Did the T.V. hosts ever get caught in 31 lies during
one deposition; did they ever have 417 lies in a 100 day period get attributed to them?
If the President fails in his credibility, the Senate can view the President’s tweet about the T.V. hosts’ having called him as a LIE intended to
cover up the alleged extortion carried out by his flying monkeys. RULING: GROUNDS FOR AN IMPEACHMENT CONVICTION.
Now, to be complete: the President had issued a tweet which could most definitely be taken, “as is” at face value, as a threat against a law
enforcement agent, witness intimidation and witness tampering, that tweet being the one wherein Trump said that Comey had better hope that there were
no tapes of his conversations with the President. Because of the very loose standard of proof necessary for an impeachment conviction, the VERDICT IS
GUILTY with no further investigative effort being necessary.
So... why hasn’t an impeachment action moved forward as of yet?
edit on 2-7-2017 by theworldisnotenough because: Corrected misspelling.