The Second Day for the Democrats

We are on day two of the impeachment trial and I will demonstrate a simple exercise that will help every reader. What is a reverse engineered criminal case? One that comes from a process called “working backwards”?

It is when you, as I have demonstrated in the Pelosi Vendetta materials, start with a desire to prosecute, have the person in mind that you want to prosecute and are just looking for something to bootstrap it onto. Professional prosecutors who work with this in mind can get many a false conviction – but not if the people listening understand what is going on.

So here are two simple thought exercises for the reader:

1) The case for impeachment has consisted of hours and hours long arguments that then revolve around their clips of people testifying and making statements. It is being said how incredible a case it makes, how strong the arguments, etc. BUT, with few exceptions, every one of these items is just something that was extracted out of the impeachment hearings – that were a total dud.

In other words, when all these clips were being presented in their full context, they fell totally flat – and with good reason. All the evidence in the prior hearing (minus some clips that they did NOT show in their impeachment presentation) would be inadmissible in any court of law. All of it was statements of opinion, asserting of facts not actually in evidence, second-third-and-fourth hand hearsay, etc.

And the prior hearing was a well-deserved, complete and total bomb for Schiff and company. So …. how does cherry picking from this same material suddenly make the evidence become any better than it was before? This is simply what reverse engineering a case does – it effectively makes something out of a near nothing – by just doing a repackaging effort.

2) Consider that everything always has at least two possible interpretations. It is true that there is something of a clash going on being Trump and Biden – but doesn’t that make for two possible people who could be at fault for it? Rather than just one? Example: Did Trump focus on Biden simply because he is Biden? Or was it because of what Joe Biden said about what he did – and Trump found it to be corrupt and inappropriate?

Where has it been proven that, if someone else had said the same thing, that he would not have taken an interest in them also? The Trump case is that he only took an interest in Biden after he said what he said about what he did – and not before that. That is, if Biden had never made his publicly quoted statements then Trump would never have taken any interest in him.

Ergo, it is Biden who caused this row to happen by what he said (about what he did) – it is not Trump who caused it to happen simply because he responded to it. A Trump ad makes a fair point says the ad “Biden makes a public statement about doing illegal behavior and I get impeached because I asked just one question about it’.

Similarly, there is the same one-sided bias about the fact that he asked a foreign person about it. But that is who Biden said he did the illegal behavior to! Specifically, that he did it with a Ukrainian person.

So why would you ask a Norwegian, a Lithuanian or someone in the US about a crime done to someone in the Ukraine? Where has it been proven that if Biden had said he did it to, say, a Norwegian – that Trump would have still gone after the Ukrainians anyway? He only talked to the Ukrainians because that is where the activity happened – and on we could go.

Concluding, in any ‘working backwards’ building of a (non)case it is always the same thing. Deflect people to only one possible interpretation of the events – and then hope that they will follow only what you want them to hear.


Leave a Reply

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