Thoughts on the First Week of Impeachment Hearings

With the first week of public impeachment hearings in the books and three very credible witnesses having testified, it’s time for a few thoughts.

In no particular order, here are my current thoughts on the impeachment proceedings.

  • If witnesses in the White House with first hand knowledge, like Mick Mulvaney, could testify in support of Trump they would be testifying.
  • The argument that Trump did nothing wrong because Ukraine got the money ignores the reality that the money was released two days after Congress got the report detailing the whistleblower’s complaint.
  • Efforts to discredit people who have given their careers to the service of our country are shameful.
  • Jim Jordan was assigned to the House Intelligence Committee to act as Trump’s chief defender. Jim Jordan has been accused by multiple people of ignoring the molestation of student athletes.
  • Gordon Sondland, who donated a million dollars to Trump’s inauguration and was appointed ambassador to the European Union, could take the Fifth. He has already changed his story twice.
  • David Holmes testimony that he overheard Sondland and Trump talking about an investigation of the Bidens is huge. Even bigger if the other two people Holmes says were at the lunch where Sondland called Trump support Holmes’s statement.
  • Mike Pompeo has been shown to be a pathetic individual who is actually a worse secretary of state than was Rex Tillerson.
  • Adam Schiff, who is leading the proceedings for Democrats, is not nearly as effective as Democrats want us to believe.
  • Republican efforts to raise points of order they know are unjust is embarrassing.
  • Elise Stefanik, who wants people to believe she’s bipartisan, has become a Republican showpiece; they needed one woman. I say that because she has only asked questions in two of the 11 depositions. Now, she’s deeply concerned.
  • Trump’s attacking Ambassador Yovanovitch during her testimony was witness tampering. It was also witness intimidation because of the impact it could have on future witnesses.
  • The argument that the witnesses to date are not providing valid evidence because they lack firsthand knowledge is foolish. Under the federal rules of evidence, there are exceptions allowing what would normally be hearsay. In this case, statements of coconspirators made during and in furtherance of the conspiracy are not considered hearsay. Neither are a person’s own previous incriminating statements.

I'd love to hear from you.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

%d bloggers like this: