I used to work for a boss who said he hated facts that interfered with his opinion. Don’t we all?
House Democrats are gearing up for the next phase of the impeachment inquiry—public hearings. They believe that facts will show that Trump tried to shake down Ukraine by withholding arms in exchange for dirt on Biden and the 2016 election. A quid pro quo, or, in English, this for that. Witnesses will show it was not just in a July phone call, but a coordinated pattern where the prez was doing a shadow foreign policy gambit through his private attorney—Rudy Giuliani. Already public information document these facts. However, will these facts be enough to sway Senate Republican’s opinions? Doesn’t seem so.
Senator Graham (R-S.C.) says he won’t even read the transcript. In other words, don’t confuse me with the facts, my mind is already made up. Senator Kennedy (R-La.) says there are two kinds of quid pro quo—appropriate and inappropriate. The implication is that even if there was a quid pro quo it could have been justified. It’s what I call the “so what?” defense, or a “quid pro—so?” In the meantime, public opinion is moving towards impeachment and removal. I really wonder if facts will sway public opinion.
Trump has a base that thinks he can do no wrong. I’ve heard that some of those are willing to overlook his flaws because he was made president by God. I thought it was the Electoral College, but never mind. To those hard-core supporters, and apparently most of the Senate Republicans, no matter what facts come out, their support of him, and their opinions will not change. If he is acquitted after a Senate trial, he will crow vindication and move on to running for a second term. If God, or the Electoral College, put him back in office, then, in my opinion, kiss the Constitution goodbye.