Trump’s Impeachment: “Democracy” without Costumes

Trump’s Impeachment: “Democracy” without Costumes
Fecha de publicación: 
2 February 2020
Imagen principal: 

Three journalists working for AP news agency, when referring to the political trail faced by President Donald Trump, proved me right.

And they are: Lisa Mascaro, Eric Tucker, and Seke Miller.

Everything happened the last day of the question-and-answer phase and before the critical vote on witnesses.

Prior to this phase, scheduled for Friday, which would certainly lead to an unexpected end to the impeachment process with the already expected acquittal.

Or at least, likely, to extending the debating process a few more weeks as Democrats are lobbying hard to listen to former National Security adviser John Bolton’s statements.

Mitch McConnell, Senate Majority Leader, opened Thursday meeting anticipating Senator Rand Paul’s attempt to reveal the whistleblower’s name at the political trial.

“The presiding officer refuses to read the question as submitted,” stated John Roberts, Chief Justice of the U.S. Supreme Court.

Roberts, who is playing a very unusual role by sorting questions during the impeachment process, had reported through his personnel to the McConnell’s office that he did not want to reveal the whistleblower’s name out loud, according to Republic Senate who requested anonymity.

According to AP, Senators would spend about eight hours considering the final questions.

Alan Dershowitz, one of Trump's lawyers, complained in a tweet about the way they described his testimony on Wednesday.

What did he say? If a president believes that his re-election is "in the national interest", he is practically immune to a political trial.

That argument from former Harvard Law professor made some of Trump's main allies to "keep a distance."

“They, he stressed, described my argument as if I had said that if a president believes that his re-election is for the good of the nation, he can do whatever he wants.”

Could something else be understood? However, despite everything, the illustrious academician at the service of Trump insisted:

"I didn't say anything like that. Anyone who was nearby by the time can confirm it.”

When questioned about it in one of the first questions of Thursday's session, Congressman Adam Schiff, the top Democrat prosecutor of the House of Representatives, said:

"Have we not learned anything in the last half century?"

Schiff turned to the lessons of President Richard Nixon's era by warning of a "normalization of illegality" in Trump's presidency.

"That argument, if the president says it is not illegal, failed when Richard Nixon was forced to resign."

And then he sentenced, "but that argument could succeed here and now."

Dershowitz testified before the senators on Wednesday that the accusation of "quid pro quo" is the essence of political trial. That is, military aid in return for political favors.

Although the aforementioned statement does not constitute a basis for dismissal for the magnificent lawyer of the head of the White House, it could be certainly proven. Amen.

Translated by Sergio A. Paneque Díaz / CubaSí Translation Staff

Add new comment

This question is for testing whether or not you are a human visitor and to prevent automated spam submissions.
Enter the characters shown in the image.