OFF TOPIC: 6 “FACTS” Presented by Trump’s Defense – Part 3

OFF TOPIC: 6 “FACTS” Presented by Trump’s Defense – Part 3 February 1, 2020

WHERE WE ARE

In Part 1 I argued that three of the “six key facts” presented by Trump’s defense team are IRRELEVANT, and that another of the “six key facts” is relevant but INSIGNIFICANT, because based on the statements of politicians who had a strong vested interest in NOT telling the truth on this issue.

In Part 2 I argued that one of the two remaining “key facts” is IRRELEVANT, so that at least four of the “six key facts” are IRRELEVANT, and at least one of the other “key facts” is INSIGNIFICANT.

Thus, I have shown that FIVE of the “six key facts” FAIL to provide any significant defense of Donald Trump against the articles of impeachment and the case made by the House managers for Impeachment and Removal of Trump from office.

In this third (and final) off-topic post, I will discuss the FOURTH of the “six key facts” presented by Trump’s defense team, which is the only one of the six points that I have not previously examined.

 

THE FOURTH “KEY FACT”

Here is the fourth “key fact” presented by Trump’s defense team:

The fourth key fact Purpura claimed was that “not a single witness testified that the President himself said that there was any connection between any investigations and security assistance, a presidential meeting or anything else.”

Articles by reporters and pundits who have critically analyzed the arguments presented by Trump’s defense team all appear to concede that this point is correct; it is TRUE.  Furthermore, this point, unlike four of the other “six key facts” is clearly RELEVANT.  Finally, this point, at least initially, seems to be SIGNIFICANT.  So, this is the ONLY ONE of the “six key facts” that passes the sniff test.  The five other points are simply five steaming piles of dog crap.

Because this fourth “key fact” is true, relevant, and seems to be significant, it deserves to be given serious consideration, unlike the other “key facts” presented by Trump’s defense team.

One point ought to be admitted up front:

IF there were a “witness” who “testified that the President himself said that” the provision of security assistance to Ukraine was conditioned on the announcement of investigations into the Bidens, THEN that would be very damning evidence against Trump and in favor of the case for Impeachment and Removal of Trump from office.

Furthermore, the case made by the House managers before the Senate would have been stronger and more definitive if it had included such testimony by a witness.

However, the absence of such powerful evidence  DOES NOT MEAN that the case presented by the House managers was weak or inconclusive.  The case was still very STRONG and COMPELLING, despite lacking testimony of this powerful sort.

For example, we have the words of Trump himself, not from a “witness” or “testimony” but (a) from the notes of the phone call with the president of Ukraine (“I would like you to do us a favor though…”), and (b) from Trump’s televised response to a reporter, admitting that he wanted Ukraine to investigate the Bidens.  We also have the words of Mulvaney at a press conference (not as a witness testifying before Congress) in which he admits that there was a quid pro quo, and that critics of Trump should “Just get over it”.

We also have multiple witnesses who engaged with Ukrainian government officials as official representatives of the the US, who all agree that Trump was conditioning security assistance to Ukraine on the announcement of investigations into the Bidens.  The House managers presented a powerful case, in spite of the fact that they did not have witnesses who testified that Trump clearly and directly stated that security assistance to Ukraine was conditioned on the announcement of investigations into the Bidens.

Furthermore, we have good reason to believe that IF the Senate had demanded that John Bolton appear as a witness in the trial, THEN Bolton would have “testified that the President himself said that” the provision of security assistance to Ukraine was conditioned on the announcement of investigations into the Bidens.

But the Republicans in the Senate did not want to have a FAIR TRIAL, and did not want to hear relevant testimony by Donald Trump’s national security advisor.  We don’t have the testimony of John Bolton as a witness BECAUSE Donald Trump and his co-conspirators in the GOP have fought against having John Bolton testify as a witness in the House impeachment proceedings, and in the Senate trial of Trump.

Although Mick Mulvaney refused to appear before the House to testify, and although the GOP refused to demand that ANY witnesses testify in Trump’s trial, we have good reason to believe that IF Mulvaney had appeared as a witness, and he testified honestly and truthfully, THEN he would have “testified that the President himself said that” the provision of security assistance to Ukraine was conditioned on the announcement of investigations into the Bidens.

Although Rudy Giuliani did not appear before the House to testify, and although the GOP refused to allow ANY witnesses to testify in Trump’s trial, we have good reason to believe that IF Giuliani had appeared as a witness, and he testified honestly and truthfully, THEN he would have “testified that the President himself said that” the provision of security assistance to Ukraine was conditioned on the announcement of investigations into the Bidens.

So, there are AT LEAST three people who worked closely with Donald Trump on decisions made about the provision of security assistance to Ukraine, who we have good reason to believe would, if they testified honestly and truthfully, have “testified that the President himself said that” the provision of security assistance to Ukraine was conditioned on the announcement of investigations into the Bidens.

The reason we don’t have any sworn testimony from John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, and Rudy Giuliani, is that Trump resisted and opposed having ANYONE testify in the House Impeachment proceedings, and because Trump’s co-conspirators in the GOP have resisted and opposed having ANYONE testify in the Senate trial of Trump.

Nothing prevents the House from continuing its job of oversight on the Executive Branch of our government by issuing subpoenas to John Bolton, Mick Mulvaney, and Rudy Giuliani.  Also, it now appears that the White House counsel Pat Cipollone also heard the President himself say that the provision of security assistance to Ukraine was conditioned on the announcement of investigations into the Bidens.  So, we now have a fourth potential witness to question under oath before an oversight committee in the House.

As the House Managers have stated, the facts about what Trump specifically said about providing or withholding security assistance to Ukraine to his inner circle of advisors will come out, probably sooner rather than later.

Trump and his co-conspirators in the GOP may have prevented Trump from being the first president to be removed from office through impeachment, but they will FAIL to prevent the truth from coming out, and given the powerful case made by the House managers, the truth that comes out will probably be that Trump himself said to his inner circle of advisers that security assistance to Ukraine was conditional upon the announcement of bogus investigations against the Bidens.

 

CONCLUSION:

Out of the “six key facts” presented by Trump’s defense team, five of those “key facts” are WORTHLESS CRAP.

Only the fourth “key fact” is worthy of consideration.  It makes a true claim that is relevant, but it is NOT highly significant, because a STRONG CASE can be made even without the clear and definitive sort of evidence that was missing from the case made against Trump by the House Managers.

Furthermore, we have good reason to believe that there are members of Trump’s inner circle of advisers who would (or might well) provide the very sort of clear and decisive testimony against Trump that is missing from the case of the House Managers, except that Trump and his GOP co-conspirators have resisted and opposed having those advisers testify under oath before Congress.

The fox is guarding the hen house.

"Why is it more important to answer the question "does god exist' than 'does the ..."

Does God Exist? Part 2: Believe ..."
""“Is there such a thing as OBJECTIVE TRUTH in matters of religion . . . ..."

Does God Exist? Part 3: Believe ..."
"I'll note, it might help your argument to be careful to distinguish "empirical" versus "physical".Also, ..."

Does God Exist? Part 3: Believe ..."
"God is NOT an animal, nor is God a physical object.Both of which are irrelevant.The ..."

Does God Exist? Part 3: Believe ..."

Browse Our Archives

Follow Us!


TRENDING AT PATHEOS Nonreligious
What Are Your Thoughts?leave a comment