The impeachment defense team wrapped up its presentation to the Senate today, without really contesting any of the evidence presented but focusing more on the process, claiming it did not meet the standard of an impeachable offense.
And as they have in previous presentations, they used the term "impeached" in a way that suggests the president cannot be considered impeached until and unless he is convicted of the charges against him.
That's curious, because they do not plan on calling any witnesses to rebut the testimony. Strategically, that means that if they do call a witness, then those who brought the charges will have the same right to call witnesses.
Meanwhile, the flap over the new book by John Bolton continues to dominate the news cycle, and the Senate now faces a decision on whether to accept Bolton's comments as part of the trial proceedings.
He has expressed a willingness to testify if he is subpoenaed. But if the Senate does issue a subpoena, the White House is likely to challenge it in court, which would drag out the process well into the election season.
There is also the question of whether the presiding chief justice can or will overrule the subpoena. In turn, that could be overturned by a majority vote of the Republican-dominated Senate.
So the bottom line question remains this: If he is innocent, as he claims, why hide the evidence that would prove it? Instead, it appears that the defense team blocks every move to obtain any documentation from the White House, claiming "executive privilege."
That, however, brings up a legal point: Does executive privilege apply to hiding criminal behavior?
No comments:
Post a Comment