Over the last two weeks, we have heard a lot of hearsay and opinion but little fact.
One of the most damning pieces of testimony was an overheard phone call, which was more or less debunked by the person actually on the call, Ambassador Sondland.
When Ken Starr was asked how close Dems are to actually impeaching Trump, he stated, “My assessment of the evidence [thus] far? Nowhere close. The evidence is conflicting and ambiguous.”
Starr Should Know
Ken Starr has plenty of experience in this field, as he is the man that was tasked with the special counsel investigation that led to Bill Clinton’s impeachment.
That impeachment, however, never made it through the Senate.
Even though there was hard evidence against Bill Clinton for lying under oath about his affair with Monica Lewinsky, the Democrat-controlled Senate refused to carry through the impeachment from the House.
The difference here, though, is Dems have yet to provide a single hard link to demands for investigations in exchange for a White House meeting and investigations into the Bidens directly to Trump.
Conflicting Evidence
The testimony by Ambassador Gordon Sondland is a perfect example of the type of “evidence” Democrats have been able to present thus far.
Starr, regarding Sondland, stated, “Clearly in his opening statement, a quid pro quo.
“And then, he says later, ‘Well, the president said, ‘I don’t want anything. Right? President Zelensky should just do the right thing.’ [Those are] the words from the president himself.
“So, the record at the end of the day is likely to be ambiguous at best, conflicting at best … and you shouldn’t charge and you cannot convict a sitting president on the basis of conflicting and ambiguous evidence and destabilize the American government.”
He later added, “During the Clinton years and during the Clinton impeachment, voices such as Dianne Feinstein — she’s still in the Senate — said, ‘This is serious…misconduct, but do we really want to remove a sitting president from office? Let’s censure him.’
“So, at least, I hope the Democrats will have that conversation about we don’t like the way foreign policy was conducted here, the delay [in providing aid] and so forth. That’s debatable, but it is not the stuff of impeachment.”
This is quickly moving from an impeachment issue to a policy issue and the way those policies were addressed.
Honestly, it may be difficult for Democrats to get this through the House, especially in an election year.
Any Democrat that has a moderate base may think twice about voting for impeachment knowing full well this is going to get stopped in the Senate, which is going to have Americans asking why so much time and money was wasted on this.
If the House votes for impeachment, it could very well be what costs them the House and the chance of taking over the Senate.
We also have to look forward here.
If the House does vote for impeachment, they have set a new standard as to what is an impeachable offense and what is not.
I would be willing to bet that if and when a Democrat president is elected and if the Republicans control the House and Senate, that president would have a hard time getting through his or her term because Republicans will want revenge.
There is little doubt among experts that Republicans would turn that person’s life upside down until they found something they could use to remove that president from office (and we all know EVERY politician has ample skeletons in their closet).
Source: Fox News
We depend on our readers to help us get the word out. So, if you agree with this article, please like and share the article on your favorite social media outlet. You are also encouraged to sign up for our newsletter to ensure you can stay informed. To sign up for our newsletter, click here.