The First Day for the President

We are now on Day 1 of the President’s defense case. And it is an easy day for me to make comments because … this first day of the Defense confirms three matters that I have already mentioned earlier.

1) My prior observations from the Democrats’ first day of “repackaging” their impeachment hearings. I described how they cherry picked material from a dud impeachment hearing, wrapped it into a new narrative and then I asked a logical question: why should that make any of this material any less of a dud? Thus, the first thing that the Defense did was a great strategy: they re-introduced the rest of the material that had been cherry picked from. And, thereby, reestablished the dud nature of the evidence using a 2-hour presentation to rebut the 23 hour one of the Democrat floor managers.

2) My prior observations about the Southern District of New York were reaffirmed. The Defense reopened the original cross examination of the Democrat’s one and only source for any type of a “scheme” to pressure the Ukrainians. He is the one who admitted (during the impeachment hearings) that he had no basis for his “assumptions” – and that his only direct, admissible evidence was the one where Trump exonerated himself –  by saying that he wanted nothing from the Ukrainians. And that there was to be no quid pro quo; he just wanted the Ukrainians to do the right thing.

But, next, this same witness also testified irrationally in other ways. For example: “I don’t remember anything like that – but if a Trump opponent is saying it then it must be true.” How this reaffirms my statements about the SDNY experience (Southern District of New York) is simple. He is one of the two people (that I am familiar with) who went through the time line I mentioned earlier: was a central character in the impeachment matter, talked favorably of Trump – then got brought in by the SDNY on a totally unrelated matter – and then became the bowl of mush that his testimony ultimately wound up being later on.

3) My argument in one of my full length articles from the Pelosi Vendetta materials was reaffirmed. I stated, in a strictly analytical mode, how you cannot, legally, have a case if there is no proof that any one has ever been a victim of any type of a crime. The only people, who are alleged to have been victimized, have always denied that anything occurred, and they continue to deny it. On the other hand, I then mentioned that no one has ever submitted any firsthand admissible evidence to contradict their denial. Thus, a real court case, with real legal rights, would have been an automatic dismissal. Clearly, you first must prove that a crime (or some other type of misbehavior) has been committed. Before can charge (or in some other way act out against) someone for doing some type of an infraction.

But now it is time to speak on a more emotional level. The Democrats have never even established that a crime (or any other type of misbehavior) occurred. We cannot live in a society where both an accused person, and the person who is supposed to be their victim, both are telling the prosecutor that they don’t know what they are talking about. And that still does not limit them from prosecuting away for some type of an infraction anyway. Speaking literally, if that does not even limit their right to act out against you, then how in God’s name are they ever going to be stopped from being allowed to do so? If this type of behavior is going to become normalized: then why couldn’t it become true that anyone can be picked up at any time, prosecuted and, say, “off with your head” at any time and for any reason and on any whim that someone who hates you might want to do it?

Really now: I have heard of cases prosecuted where they could not find a plausible motive, couldn’t find the murder weapon or good eye witnesses. But I have never seen a prosecutor even be allowed to start a case – without first proving there was, at least, an actual crime victim. What total garbage!



Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *