Political

8 February 2020

For 20 years I have spent my life evaluating evidence. I have utilized two standards, clear and convincing evidence and a preponderance of the evidence.  A person offering evidence as proof of assertions of fact had to, depending on the case I heard, show credible and believable evidence meeting one or the other standard. 

For the lay person a preponderance of the evidence means credible and material evidence that makes it more likely than not, the facts propounded are the accurate depiction of the disputed reality.  Let us call that standard of evidence 50% plus any number that moves facts to a point above 50%.  It could be 50.0001 %. Clear and convincing evidence is evidence that is sufficient to leave you with a firm and definite belief that the facts asserted are the true and accurate facts.

From what was presented in the House of Representatives, I feel the clear and convincing standard was met relative to finding the President acted in an antidemocratic manner.  The President clearly sought the assistance of another country in commencing acts that would be damaging to a political rival.  As part of seeking this favor, the executive branch withheld needed military funding, military aid needed to counter the acts of one of our two main rivals on the world stage. 

Presidents have often engaged in behaviors that have dual purposes.  To provide military aid toppling a dictator during a period just before a presidential election, and to thus burnish the reputation of the sitting president, is one thing.  Choosing the moment to take such an action may be very political, but there is a key difference between that and what President Trump did.  The facts are clear that military aid to the Ukraine was held up with the stick being the Ukraine’s instigation of an investigation into Joe Biden’s son.  The aid was held up until the public became aware that of these facts. Only then were these funds released.

Funding delays or grants that have dual purposes of achieving a legitimate foreign policy aim and given a President a PR talking point are one thing.  Asking the leadership of another country to investigate a political rival is another. No matter how you parse it, President Trump was seeking aid in his reelection bid from a foreign government.  The act of seeking a foreign involvement in an ongoing election is repugnant to the concept of our self-determination by representational democracy and also of both the integrity and the independence of our democracy.

The fact that the President was asking for a “favor” when needed military was being held up to move Ukraine in the direction of granting the favor, has been established by the clear and convincing standard. This is true given the testimony of a Ukrainian analyst the White House and the testimony of various ambassadors. The facts established rise to the level of clear and convincing evidence of an antidemocratic act by the supposed leader of the free world. 

Fuck whether it was an impeachable offense, i.e., it wasn’t a high crime or misdemeanor. What occurred is an abrogation of the Presidential oath, to wit, “I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the Office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my Ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States.” The critical word here to my understanding is preserve.  The Constitution arose from a war fought over the thirteen colonies desire for the right to self-determination outside the influence of other governments. For a President ask a foreign leader to investigate a political rival, so as to damage that person’s electability is not acting to the best of the President’s ability to preserve the underlying intention of the Constitution.

He was not convicted by the Senate.  Therefore, save this post I will speak no more of this.  However, if you consider the anti-democratic behavior his action represents, it is clear President Trump is not worthy of the prestigious office he holds.