The House prosecutors have presented a good case for the removal of President Donald Trump founded on a wealth of evidence and even his own words. Because the evidence is so strong, it’s futile for the defense to refute, although I am sure they’ll call it all “fake.”
Since it is hard to deny facts, they will focus on process. The aid money to Ukraine eventually got released anyway, so “there was no crime.” It’s the president’s prerogative to negotiate diplomacy. The president was concerned about corruption. Democrats are trying to overturn the 2016 election.
If you’re being mugged in an alley and a policeman interrupts the mugging, has no crime been committed? Do they set the mugger free?
If an ambassador is doing a highly effective job but is suddenly fired without cause and all official relations are now to be done via the president’s personal attorney, is that a valid prerogative? Or is that putting the president’s personal agenda ahead of that of our country?
If a president has no track record of fighting corruption (but rather encourages it) and even ignores mentioning it despite advisers having it as a point he should address, should we believe him? Does fabricating corruption in a political opponent count as legitimate concern?
The last election saw a blue wave in response to this president and his policies. The GOP controlled Senate may acquit but the people will convict.