Doug Jones, a Democrat, represents Alabama in the U.S. Senate.
“Verdict,” from the Latin “veredictum,” means “to say the truth.”
Soon, my colleagues in the Senate and I will be called on to fulfill a solemn constitutional duty: to render verdicts — to say the truth — in the impeachment trial of President Donald J. Trump. Our decision will have enormous consequences, not just for President Trump, but for future presidencies and Congresses, and our national security.
For Americans to have confidence in the impeachment process, the Senate must conduct a full, fair and complete trial with all relevant evidence regarding the president’s conduct. I fear, however, that we are headed toward a trial that is not intended to find the whole truth. For the sake of the country, this must change.
Procedures in prior impeachment trials set no precedents because each is unique to its particular set of facts. Unlike the investigation of President Bill Clinton, Trump has blocked both the production of virtually all relevant documents and the testimony of witnesses who have firsthand knowledge of the facts. The evidence we do have may be sufficient to make a judgment, but it is clearly incomplete.
There are four witnesses who could help fill those gaps: the president’s former national security adviser, his acting chief of staff, the senior adviser to his acting chief of staff and a top national security official in the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Each has direct knowledge regarding the charges against the president and should testify under oath at a Senate trial.
Let me be clear: I do not know what their answers would be, but I want to hear from them, and so should every senator and every American. We cannot allow the full truth to evade this trial only to be revealed in some future memoir or committee hearing.
Under other circumstances his words might carry some weight. But since the articles are simply the next chapter of the effort to overturn the election that began on the night of the election, not so much.
-------------------------------- "A mob is a place where people go to get away from their conscience" Atticus Finch
But since the articles are simply the next chapter of the effort to overturn the election that began on the night of the election,
Some people simply think that he's doing damaging (read: impeachable) things that no president should.
Here's a thought experiment.
Substitute "President Hillary Clinton" for any story written about Trump/Ukraine and get back to me with what you'd think about what's been going on.
I'd be very surprised if you would be nearly as generous in your interpretation of whether the president was acting appropriately and in the best interests of the country.
edit: I should add that I understand that the view can be that the Democrats have been trying to find something on Trump for forever. Those on the other side felt that way about the Clintons and the "vast right wing conspiracy".
Neither side does themselves any favors by viewing every single thing as a perceived transgression. But by the same token, it's dangerous to ignore behaviors because you think the other side is suffering from some derangement syndrome.
Sometimes the president *is* a crook.
-------------------------------- When the world wearies and society ceases to satisfy, there is always the garden - Minnie Aumônier
Posts: 38221 | Location: Somewhere in the middle | Registered: 19 January 2010
