The good news is that we are close to the end. We are at Day 2 of the President’s defense. As to the case:  an excellent day – but with mild criticisms. Alan Dershowitz was a total blow out for the constitutionality issues (and was even able to keep it interesting to an average person). Thus, he should have been left with that chore.

The other constitutional analysis was not really needed. Especially on a charge that is not taken that seriously anyways – the ‘obstruction of congress’ thing. Respectfully, it was a little bit of a snoozer for the average person and risked getting repetitive.

Plus, one final critique: the one process matter that is still uncovered – even by Dershowitz – is a necessary pushback. Specifically, the contemptuous ridiculing about “process, smocess” by left wingers when Trump claimed it was an unfair one. There is little defense, on process issues, for the Pelosi Democrats in the House.

But this is where we are on very dangerous ground. The Trump haters have not even felt the need to defend it. They seem to honestly think you can do a: “Oh process, smocess. They are just saying that because they are losing on the ‘facts'”.

However, the problem, and an obvious one, is this: there is no way to get to all of the facts – if you skip 3/4 of the process. Say they skip over your fifth amendment right to call your own witnesses – and Pelosi did violate that constitutional right without even batting an eyelash. Then how do you present your facts in the first place?

You shouldn’t need a double law degree to know that the two things are one and the same (following a process and securing all relevant facts). In some ways, this type of a discussion may be one of the greatest damages to our constitutional processes. And it certainly lacks intellectual prowess (which one of the two blades on a pair of sheers is the most important???)

You can’t do a dichotomy between following processes vs. having facts – because that is the entire purpose of the process issues in the first place. Thus, the worst offenders in this matter may not even be the Pelosi type of a Democrat. But, instead, the dismissive left wingers in the media world that peddled this whole notion: that there even is such a thing as a “process, smocess” vs. ‘facts. There is no such a dichotomy and this obnoxious and arrogant concept has not been pushed back against yet.

Thus, I will finish with my mild criticism for the day: Even Dershowitz has not keyed in yet on the necessity of this push back. Thus, I wish the other constitutional analyzers had just done a quick blurb about the need to push back on the “process, smocess”ers. The rest should have been left to Dershowitz because of the danger of getting redundant (and of being somewhat of a snooze fest).

 

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!

ADMIN ONLY:

TESTING EDITING FEB 7 2020

Dear Lord, give us strength! We are on the third and final day of the Prosecution arguments of the Democrat floor managers. The endless repetition (of assuming facts that have never really had any evidence put into the record) goes on and on. But it is still easy to put it into a short blurb for those following the ‘action’.

In a sense, and in a hypocritical manner, the Democrat floor managers have conceded my point about ‘no documentary or testimonial evidence’. They are trying to prove Trump’s motives through a circumstantial case and by asserting that some of it is simply obvious (or prima facie). See my Pelosi Vendetta materials if you are not familiar with what I am saying here. In theory, they could have a point but there are simply too many problems that come from their shaping-a-crime-to-fit-their-suspect type of a mentality.

Example: I stated that – once a crime has definitely been established – it is usually obvious that someone must have had a foul motive for doing the crime. You don’t need documentary or testimonial evidence to establish that. That is, it is prima facie – in such an instance – that the motive is malign in at least some way. But the floor managers are trying to do exactly the opposite: they are trying to first establish that he had malign motives – so that they can then declare his actions to be illegal.

Example: I stated that – in addition to the so-called documentary or testimonial evidence – there is also such a thing as a circumstantial case. The floor managers are now trying to state a circumstantial case, but it is flawed from their reverse engineering tactics. All they started with is that Trump made some very passing reference to Biden in some way, shape or form. Next, that at some point – and for some reason – there was a hold on some type of Ukrainian assistance. So, what does a working backwards case now do in this type of a situation?

It does exactly what the Nadler/Pelosi crowd did. You presume (with no evidence) that the two must be related and then try to find the evidence afterwards – that will then ‘prove’ what you have already assumed.

And all the telltale signs are there to show why this approach never works at getting to the truth.

1) The timings don’t, in fact, match. The hold on the Ukraine was already in place long before any Biden issue could possibly have occurred. And the reason for the hold has firsthand admissible evidence. Trump has always maintained (and, again, long before any Biden matters could have come up) that he has reservations about the Ukraine government. Thus, his hold on the Ukraine ties into his long-held views about Ukraine – that he has repeatedly expressed long before any Biden matters could have occurred.

2) The end of the hold does not match the date of his being somehow caught in something. The date of the end of the hold has already been given previously and, again, through firsthand admissible evidence. Specifically, there was a bipartisan meeting in the White House where the President was given bipartisan heck for not releasing the money.

The heck he was given had nothing to do with schemes to pressure Ukrainians or any other such nonsense. It was about his continued skepticism of the Ukraine that the bipartisan group of Senators had grown impatient with. Trump then released the money after this meeting and because of what the Senators told him – according to those in the meeting speaking through their firsthand experience there.

3) A final matter: the firing of the ambassador under (presumably) shady circumstances. But everything stops at a complete dead end there. Nadler, Pelosi and Co. called no witnesses – and produced no documents – that tied the firing of the ambassador to the start of a scheme that she was supposed to be in the way of.

Every reference they make to “the scheme” stems from simply stating that that is why the ambassador was fired with absolutely no witnesses called to verify it – and with the production of no documentary proof either. It is the textbook case of “assumes facts not in evidence” except that it is the assuming of an entire case not in evidence. And on we could go. I’ll write you more tomorrow when we start hearing from the President.

 

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.

 

The ‘trial’ (such as it is) is even more of a fiasco than I had feared. You may want to go to our “Welcome to the Library” section and look at the Pelosi Vendetta materials. He is being tried, as I suspected he would be, for “thought” crimes,i.e., was he being politically motivated?

They are also trying to criminalize differences of opinion: their own evidence shows that 1) Trump has a sincere conviction about the Bidens being stone, cold crooked and that 2) he has sincerely felt questions about the Ukranian regime – and whether they are really trying to fight corruption. But they are, essentially, arguing that because they feel that his opinions are wrong that that now makes him guilty of acting out of a ‘corrupt’ intent.

And, lastly, Hillary Clinton has already admitted to using foreigners to dig up dirt on own’s opponents – the very thing that they are trying to accuse Trump of. It’s totally hypocritical, totally politically motivated and it’s ludicrous!