Meme ripped from an HP posting:
Set forth earlier this week, National Review’s take on what the Trump defense strategy ought to be is naive to say the least. A number of that publications offerings have been pathetic in recent years. John Daniel Davidson writing at The Federalist ably brings forth that “naivety” (excerpt below). A readers comment to his commentary serves as a useful litany of what Trump’s defense team ought to do. But first the destruction of the National Review nonsense:
National Review’s Impeachment Advice To GOP Senators Is Deeply Naïve
Admitting that Trump was wrong but he shouldn’t be impeached is a terrible idea that assumes too much goodwill from Democrats.
In an editorial published Wednesday at National Review, the editors argue that an “unspoken consensus” has emerged among Republican senators that what President Trump did was wrong but it doesn’t warrant his removal from office. The editors think this a “reasonable” position and that Republicans should make the case for it publicly, but they can’t because of the president’s “obstinacy” in defending his actions vis-à-vis Ukraine.
Instead of insisting that Trump “cannot be impeached for any abuse of power unless that abuse took the form of a criminal violation of a statute,” they write, “Republicans would be better off arguing that in this case the president’s behavior, while objectionable, should be left, as scheduled, to the judgment of the voters directly.”
My colleague David Marcus yesterday pointed out some serious problems with this argument, not least of which is that there is no evidence of an emerging unspoken consensus among GOP senators that what Trump did was objectionable—just the opposite, in fact, as the impeachment trial drags on.
But one aspect of Marcus’ argument deserves more fleshing out because it gets to the heart of the divisions on the right over Trump generally and impeachment specifically. He writes:
The notion that a Trump apology over his call, accompanied by grave-faced GOP officials decrying the act but begging that Trump be given a second chance, would have led to Democrats backing down on their impeachment push is pure fantasy. Just as Rep. Adam Schiff tried to do in his arguments yesterday, the Democrats would have seized on Trump’s admission of any flaw in his approach as just one in a chain of illegal acts they believe the president has committed. . . .
Cleetus , commenting in response produces an excellent litany:
Trump’s defense is simple and obvious. Tell the truth.
- Show how money sent to Ukraine from the US was laundered through Latvia, then Malta, and finally paid out to Burisma and Hunter Biden in a corruption pay back scheme. This will prove the corruption.
- Cite the treaty with Ukraine that speaks to both countries working together to stop corruption, how Trump ran on stopping corruption, and how our laws demand we fight against it.
- Cite the phone call where Trump clearly refers to difficulties America had and how we (not Trump) need Ukraine’s help. Cite the numerous newspaper accounts of Ukraine being involved in the Trump Dossier and other actions that were performed in an effort to promote Hillary Clinton thus interfering in our election.
- Cite the blatant absence of due process during the House portion of the impeachment efforts.
- Show how the IG changed the whistle blower requirements to allow hearsay evidence immediately before this impeachment effort started.
- Demand to have the whistle blower identified and cite how the Democrats declared how his anonymity was guaranteed according to laws that do not exist anywhere except the minds of Democrats.
- Cite how the whistle blower never testified as to what he heard, his interactions with Adam Schiff and his staff in putting the complaint together, and cite reports of how coworkers reported on the whistle blower and allies planning of this impeachment effort started several years ago (https://www.realclearinvest… /articles/2020/01/22/whistleblower_was_overheard_in_17_discussing_with_ally_how_to_remove_trump_121701.html)
- Cite how there was no quid pro quo, how the Ukrainians never knew aid was being held up and that no actions in the alleged quid pro quo deal ever occurred.
- Cite other cases of aid being held up by Trump during this same time period for similar corruption reasons.
- Cite the corruption of Joe Biden and how his entire family has become fantastically rich off of it.
- Clearly demonstrate how not one witness for the Democrats could testify to anything they saw first hand and how everything they stated was either opinion of hearsay evidence.
- This is just a start for the list would go on and on. If this is what Trump’s team does, and likely will be, then the country will be shocked at how flimsy, even fabricated, this impeachment effort really is.
“Nicky” adds to Cleetus littany
Excellent!
And also cite how Obama held up payments to several countries during his tenure, including UKRAINE. I suspect Trump’s defense team will use your exact comments in In an their case, which I think will blow the Dem’s doors off.
