Just this morning I was reading a post on the Microsoft News that quoted Hillary Clinton as saying that if ex-President Trump is not convicted it would be because the “Jury” was made up of a large number of his co-conspirators.
This brings to mind another article I read years ago about crazy stuff that takes place in court. One of them had to do with a conversation between the defendant and the English judge. The Judge, after learning that that Defendant was an ex-serviceman, says that “we service men must stick together” and gives that defendant a light sentence. Then he ask what branch the defendant had been in and the response was “I was in the Luftwaffe.” Cute, but the particular one that came to mind had to do with another Judge who told the defendant that he was guaranteed the right to a trial by his peers.
The defendant asked, clearly confused by the word asked “what is a peer?”
The Judge replied that a peer was people like himself.
The man looked at the Judge for a brief time and then said “you think I want to be judged by a bunch of CROOKS?”
In recent years the Republican party has shown that they were willing to ignore their oaths of office, i.e. protect the constitution, in order to curry favor with the President.
Maybe the Republican charge that this Impeachment is politically driven is at least partially correct but, then again, if you look at the videos where he exhorted them to march on the Capital building you can see that the House Impeachment managers have a very valid point.
To me it was obvious what he intended for them to do, and if the Senate does not convict him then Hillary would be correct.
If that is true, then we do not need lawmakers who think that trying to subvert the will of the people, especially when they can’t even prove one of their cases without having to resort to hearsay such as “I heard,” or “I have been told.”
Maybe we should remember which of these people voted against conviction.
Thank you,
ThatJoeGuy.
That Joe Guy 