Can't Have it Both Ways: Part 2

As I've read the papers and heard the commentaries, it's becoming clear to me.  There's no need for witnesses because they don't add anything to what's already been said.  Actually, I agree with this.  If you take all of the existing testimony and accept it as truthful, then adding witnesses will only serve to repeat what's already been said. Or, depending on where you stand on believing what the House witnesses said, other witnesses could serve to corroborate their testimony.  Remarkably, I would concur with those who say that there's no need for witnesses, if we accept the existing testimony.

On the other hand, if the White House attempts to make the case that the House witnesses aren't telling the truth, then they MUST accept the testimony of witnesses who could either corroborate or deny that testimony.  The White House counsel yesterday seemed to be heading down this path, apparently calling into question the very premise that the Impeachment Managers put forth based on the testimony of witnesses.  Honestly, I was confused, because all I've heard previously was that the president was just conducting foreign policy his own way, and that way is supposed to be perfectly fine.

However, if you listened to the republican pundits and many of trumps supporters prior to the Impeachment proceedings, you would have thought that what the president had been accused of is a 'nothing burger."  Why shouldn't trump be able to strong arm the head of state of a foreign country?  Many presidents before him have done so.  Besides, he was just trying to fight Ukrainian corruption.  What he did and said was ok.  There was nothing wrong with it.  If the White House counsel took this approach, they would seem to have no choice but to call witnesses who were in direct contact with trump, in order to corroborate this analysis.

Speaking of analysis, a number of the House witnesses were essentially analysts.  They analyzed what the president did, and they freaked out.  Could their analysis have been wrong? Possibly, but the only people who can explain why would be the folks that the White House counsel doesn't seem to want to have testify.  Are you sensing a circular argument?  I thought so.  That is certainly one approach to defending someone when there is no actual defense.  They can't have it both ways.  Unfortunately, however, it seems that they can.  The republicans will see to that.

Ironically, this whole situation will ultimately be litigated in the place that the republicans seem to think is the most appropriate place, the ballot box.  In this, I agree.  For those republicans who say that the Democrats are subverting the electoral process, I say baloney.  They will acquit trump and there will be another election in less than 10 months.  The people will ultimately be the jury.  I'll hold my nose for 12 more months (especially during the last 2 months, when trump will hopefully be a lame duck president), and hope that our system of checks and balances will hold together just enough to prevent anything catastrophic from happening.

For my Republican friends who worry about the Democrats taking back power, I understand your angst.  I have my own concerns.  However, I look back at the last two Democratic Presidents and discover that the economy improved under both.  I'll look forward to civil discussions about the policies that the next administration puts forward, and I'll continue to try to be objective.  I always have been, and I always will be that person.