On Wednesday, the Senate Impeachment Trial concluded after votes on both Articles of Impeachment. Both articles failed to reach the two-thirds majority required to remove a President from office, with 48-52 and 47-53 votes respectively.
When I took the oath at the beginning of this trial, I vowed to deliver impartial justice according to the Constitution and the law. I took this oath and responsibility seriously and chose not to comment until I heard arguments from both the House managers and President Trump’s lawyers. After hearing from both sides and asking multiple questions, I voted no on conviction and removal of the president.
I came to this conclusion after three major considerations.
I came to this conclusion after three major considerations.
First, in order to avoid a system of government where the president serves at the political pleasure of Congress, the Framers intended impeachment and removal to be reserved for extreme and rare situations. The alleged facts contained in the articles and presented by the impeachment managers do not rise to this level.
Second, the House failed in its prosecutorial role by not presenting specific statutory charges against the president. Our Constitution demands of the justice system that prosecutors bring specific charges and prove each element of those charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
Second, the House failed in its prosecutorial role by not presenting specific statutory charges against the president. Our Constitution demands of the justice system that prosecutors bring specific charges and prove each element of those charges beyond a reasonable doubt.
In this case, neither of the articles passed by the House contain statutory allegations to which the Senate could determine whether the elements for conviction were met. On the floor, the House managers argued that the statutory crime of bribery was contained in the first Article of Impeachment related to abuse of power.
In addition to the fact that there is no evidence in the record that satisfies the statutory elements of bribery, the Senate cannot substitute its own charges or charges made by House managers on the floor for those contained within the House-passed Articles of Impeachment.
Third, the House failed to meet its evidentiary burden and attempted to shift that burden to the Senate. Unwilling to give the judicial system the time to answer important questions of executive privilege in regards to specific witnesses that the House managers claimed were key to the case, the House moved forward with impeachment.
The House managers argued at the beginning of the trial that they had overwhelming evidence supporting impeachment. It was surprising then that the House managers attempted to burden the Senate with issuing subpoenas and taking testimony from those witnesses that the House failed to pursue.
Regardless, additional evidence or witnesses would not change the material underlying facts describing the president’s actions. These actions are not ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ as described by the Constitution, and therefore, I voted no on conviction and removal of the president.
4 comments:
It's an embarassment to be represented by this person.
This is just cut-and-paste White House talking points. Not a glimmer of independent thought or moral sense.
You voted not to convict a known liar, thief, and worthless being because you do not have any scruples or strength to test whether the orange one will turn against you like he did Romney. It is too bad that only one of your GOP spineless cohorts let this sleeze go on his merry way destroying the country. I hope that your voters show you the error of your way and it does show you value the lack of morals.
Senator Moron for the defense:
IOKIYAR!
The end.
I’m 65 and voted republican my whole life. After all the senate republicans have spewed their nonsense, defending the indefensible, I find it an insult to my intelligence. I will even hold my nose and vote for Bernie if he wins the nomination.
Post a Comment