What About This? By Wayne William Cipriano

By Wayne William Cipriano

If your political predispositions prevent you from agreeing with the following, I don’t much care.

In the case of the Impeachment of the President of the United States, it is true that the House of Representatives went too fast, did not prepare their case “properly,’” and in our system of Federal jurisprudence that may be depository. Does this allow the Senate to fail likewise? And recall that a trial of Impeachment of the President of the United States of America does not operate under the rules of Federal jurisprudence, because it is so important that the Senate get its decision RIGHT. Not right according to a system of ironclad rules that seem to speak to efficiency as much as justice, but RIGHT.

This reminds me of the situation where a person sentenced to die for a crime that person did not commit is executed because exculpatory evidence was presented one day after the closing date where such evidence could be presented.

In that case, “established law” might prevent the consideration of that exculpatory evidence. However, in the case of an Impeachment trial, the rules are always flexible  depending simply on the majority vote of the Senate each and every time. A Senate that has now shown itself to be without integrity, without character, without honor: even the Senators on all sides who resisted their party’s pressure did so for their own personal, political gain.

What this does to our Constitutional Republic is incalculable for years to come. But, for sure, it ain’t good.

The vote to hear all witnesses, to see all documents that materially impact the case of the Impeachment of the President of the United States should have been 100 in favor, 0 against, regardless of how “botched” the Impeachment was by the House of Representatives. The fact that such a vote was not unanimous reflects poorly on every Senator who did not vote in the affirmative and did not publicly chastise those Senators who voted against. It is that important.

As many, if not all of these…”persons” declared, this case might be the most important of their career. Every one of these Senators failed to preform correctly.

My previous position on this question has not changed. The President of the United States of America certainly did what was charged, in the First Article, and that is not of sufficient gravity to justify his removal from office. His reluctance to provide witnesses and documents (or withhold them) before the courts had a chance to speak to the propriety of such requests, the charge of the Second Article,  was correct. The President should be censured by the Congress on the basis of the First Article, there should be no action on the basis of the Second. 

These…Senators cannot feel the shame they should.

As an American citizen I feel the shame for all of them.