In any lawsuit or trial to determine the fault of a respondent brought before either jurors or judges the use of the term defense and prosecution in the same breath would have been utterly ludicrous. It is absurd especially when we realize that these terms refer to the same entity in a celebrated case now before a global audience.
One is either on the defense, or on the offense, and in a trial, the latter comprising the prosecutorial panel. One can’t be in both. But then in the case of the impeachment brought against Donald Trump gleefully and in grandiose fashion and hype sponsored by the Democratic Party, what else isn’t totally ridiculous and bizarre?
Already, there’s Nancy Pelosi the Democrat Speaker of the House. And behind her, there’s an amateur screenwriter Adam Schiff, the articulate and eloquent albeit lying chairman of the Committee on Investigations. And then there’s Jerrold Nadler, the 72-years-old chairman of the House Committee on Justice.
Among Moe, Larry and Curly, jokers will be jokers.
Almost like a scene out of “Saturday Night Live” or “Comedy Central,” Pelosi distributed souvenir pens used to sign the Articles of Impeachment that the House finally decided to transmit to the Senate after nearly a month of hiatus as colleagues scrambled for incriminating evidence to fill in the Grand Canyon-like gaps in the complaint they filed.
Pelosi was perhaps hoping to hock her signature-engraved pens over at the Gold and Silver Pawn Shop two miles off the Las Vegas Strip. A cameo at the highly rated “Pawn Stars” TV series might do wonders for her political career and earn enough for a new set of dentures.
Schiff is a piece of work himself. Before the White House released the official verbatim transcript of a phone conversation between Trump and the Ukrainian president where Schiff accused the former of bribery, Schiff presented to the public a false narrative of the phone call’s content.
To this day, he has never lived down that lie. Instead, he’s gone on to produce two more. One was his denial he or his staff had anything to do with a still anonymous witness. The other was that he was in possession of evidence of Russian collusion in amounts more than had been investigated in a span of three years. In at least three critical instances, Schiff has struck out.
Nadler, on the other hand, desperate that he had substantially nothing to go on other than supposition, decided to call four academicians as vital hostile witnesses when his committee began its impeachment inquiries. Unfortunately absolutely none of his witnesses had first-hand knowledge much less interaction with Trump and thus the substance of their testimony was either conjecture or hearsay totally unacceptable as evidence in any decent court.
Several times unable to distinguish between resource persons and witnesses, Nadler had proven himself incompetent to chair his own committee. Two critical points were revealed from Nadler’s incompetence. To a man, each of Nadler’s witnesses declared that the impeachment initiative had no real underlying crime. The other was that each of the witnesses were recruited on the basis of hearsay. On those two aspects alone any court of law would have immediately thrown the case out the window.
The biggest failure of Nadler’s committee was to junk the original accusation of bribery based on an alleged quid pro quo offered by Trump to the Ukrainian president. When, based on verbatim transcripts, no quid pro quo was offered and therefore no bribery existed, Nadler, to his misfortune, had to settle for “abuse of power” and “obstruction of Congress” — the first not expressly addressed in the Constitution, the second, not an impeachable offense.
Take a lawyer’s perspective on this. From the foregoing we see behind the disingenuous ploy to appoint Schiff and Nadler among the impeachment managers. It was to protect and defend them from being called as fact witnesses in the Senate impeachment trial. That would have seriously revealed the articles of impeachment as unadulterated shams.