DGS49
Diamond Member
In court trials, we have this "thing" called a "Directed Verdict."
After the prosecution has made its case, the Defense will make a motion for a Directed Verdict. This motion is a formal request to the Judge to declare the Defendant "Not Guilty" because the prosecution has not made a credible case for the Defendant being guilty of the crime for which s/he is being prosecuted. In other words, they have presented their evidence, and it may indicate that the Defendant might have done what he is accused of, but it simply falls short of the standard of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," which is required for a criminal prosecution.
In the case against President Trump, the "prosecution" has failed in several ways.
(1) They have failed to identify a real crime, except if one PRESUMES that President Trump's request for an investigation of the Biden's is PURELY a political demand for an exclusively political purpose. But this presumption is obviously flawed. There is EVERY reason to investigate the Bidens' activities, as they give the appearance of payment for access, which is definitional corruption. If Hunter Biden's name were "Hunter Schmidlap," there would be no question here, and it makes NO SENSE whatsoever to give the Bidens' a pass because Sleepy Joe is running for President.
(2) The "crime," questionable as it is, comes nowhere near the Constitutional standard of Bribery, Treason, or other High Crimes & Misdemeanors.
(3) While the President's activities and intentions were extraordinary, the whole thing reeks of a mere difference of opinion on foreign policy, and the President "trumps" Congress in this regard.
(4) It is unknown and unknowable whether President Trump intended to permanently withhold the aid from Ukraine, or simply delay it, and what the reasons were for the delay. And the fact remains that the funds were timely released (i.e., before the end of the fiscal year).
(5) Every relevant Ukrainian official has publicly declared that they were not told or aware of any connection between the release of aid and the Biden investigation/announcement, or any pressure to accede to the President's requests.
(6) The claim of "obstruction of Congress" is based on a very liberal and almost unprecedented "right" of Congress to explore the inner workings of the President's cabinet - a right that is found nowhere in the Constitution or in any law. Indeed, there is no legal or Constitutional principle that gives Congress' assertion of its rights any more weight than Trump's.
Hence, the first real activity of the Impeachment-Trial of this President MUST BE a motion for directed verdict, a motion that will very likely be granted.
After the prosecution has made its case, the Defense will make a motion for a Directed Verdict. This motion is a formal request to the Judge to declare the Defendant "Not Guilty" because the prosecution has not made a credible case for the Defendant being guilty of the crime for which s/he is being prosecuted. In other words, they have presented their evidence, and it may indicate that the Defendant might have done what he is accused of, but it simply falls short of the standard of "guilty beyond a reasonable doubt," which is required for a criminal prosecution.
In the case against President Trump, the "prosecution" has failed in several ways.
(1) They have failed to identify a real crime, except if one PRESUMES that President Trump's request for an investigation of the Biden's is PURELY a political demand for an exclusively political purpose. But this presumption is obviously flawed. There is EVERY reason to investigate the Bidens' activities, as they give the appearance of payment for access, which is definitional corruption. If Hunter Biden's name were "Hunter Schmidlap," there would be no question here, and it makes NO SENSE whatsoever to give the Bidens' a pass because Sleepy Joe is running for President.
(2) The "crime," questionable as it is, comes nowhere near the Constitutional standard of Bribery, Treason, or other High Crimes & Misdemeanors.
(3) While the President's activities and intentions were extraordinary, the whole thing reeks of a mere difference of opinion on foreign policy, and the President "trumps" Congress in this regard.
(4) It is unknown and unknowable whether President Trump intended to permanently withhold the aid from Ukraine, or simply delay it, and what the reasons were for the delay. And the fact remains that the funds were timely released (i.e., before the end of the fiscal year).
(5) Every relevant Ukrainian official has publicly declared that they were not told or aware of any connection between the release of aid and the Biden investigation/announcement, or any pressure to accede to the President's requests.
(6) The claim of "obstruction of Congress" is based on a very liberal and almost unprecedented "right" of Congress to explore the inner workings of the President's cabinet - a right that is found nowhere in the Constitution or in any law. Indeed, there is no legal or Constitutional principle that gives Congress' assertion of its rights any more weight than Trump's.
Hence, the first real activity of the Impeachment-Trial of this President MUST BE a motion for directed verdict, a motion that will very likely be granted.
