“Most of the facts, upon which we proceed, are confessed; some of them are boasted of. The labour will be on the criminality of the facts, where proof, as I apprehend, will not be contested. Guilt resides in the intention. But as we are before a tribunal, which having conceived a favourable opinion of Hastings (or what is of more moment, very favourable wishes for him) they will not judge of his intentions by the acts, but they will qualify his Acts by his presumed intentions.

It is on this preposterous mode of judging that he had built all the Apologies for his conduct, which I have seen. Excuses, which in any criminal court would be considered with pity as the Straws, at which poor wretches drowning will catch, and which are such as no prosecutor thinks is worth his while to reply to, will be admitted in such a House of Commons as ours as a solid defence …

We know that we bring before a bribed tribunal a prejudged cause. In that situation all that we have to do is make a case strong in proof and in importance, and to draw inferences from it justifiable in logick, policy and criminal justice. As to all the rest, it is vain and idle.”   Trial of Governor General Hastings cited by Jonathan Turley .

Their game plan was set.    After their fiasco in the 2016 election when the powers that be, represented by the Democrat Party and most of the media, thought that even with a weak candidate in Hillary Clinton they would easily beat a neophyte, and one flawed to boot, like Donald Trump, they had to act and with haste.    It started by an immediate attack on the legitimacy of his victory, which developed into the Muller investigation of collusion with Russia.   

That effort failed as also other potential accusations of malfeasant did.    There was a silver lining; they were able to turn the House in their favor.    Since all investigation routes were exhausted, the new master plan was two pronged.    They will make up impeachment charges and weaken Trump’s reelection chances by giving, to mostly independents, a better alternative.    

They though faced a country that had peace and respect abroad and a much better economy.    They did have one thing going for them, mainly Trump himself.    Our president continued his immature and inappropriate behavior with constant twits, exaggerations and untruths not worthy of the office he held.    They only needed an attractive candidate that could be, like Obama, presented as moderate and able to continue the past president’s move to the left.    To the leaders surprise right of the bat the front runners spoke of establishing socialism, a system that even disguised only sells in a few States in the east and west, but rejected by most of the voters.   

It was the Democrat leader’s worse nightmare, the ultraliberal candidates faded but made the party and media’s darlings like Pamela Harris abandon their candidacies.     No way could Trump be defeated regardless of his personality, with a booming economy by the likes of Biden, et.al.    The game lost, a Hail Mary pass as in football was the only option.    Today Nancy Pelosi threw it!    They will go ahead with impeaching the president even if their chances to win are slim and none.    After a failed attempt in the Intelligence Committee led by known liar Schiff, they presented four law scholars in the Judiciary.   

All four were democrat supporters, none voting for Trump.    Even all the efforts by the media pundits to disguise what happened, the only one that behaved as a true academic was Jonathan Turley.    The other 3 acted as the partisan hacks they were disregarding their scholastic reputation.    I saw this farce from beginning to end.    It came to a simple dispute, are the accusations that will lead to Articles of Impeachment proven or pure speculation?  

The democrat representatives continued to repeat lies and/or allegations as facts, premises repeated by the 3 “scholars” to conclude that they indeed were impeachable acts.    Turley insisted that judgment of an unproven action is not impeachable and more time was needed to prove or not the presented contentions.     As an independent voter, anxiously hoping to find a candidate who can continue Trump’s policies without his personality flaws, the Democrat behavior, barring unexpected news, makes me more prone to vote for him.    Again quoting Turley;

I would like to start, perhaps incongruously, with a statement of three irrelevant facts. First, I am not a supporter of President Trump. I voted against him in 2016 and I have previously voted for Presidents Clinton and Obama. Second, I have been highly critical of President Trump, his policies, and his rhetoric, in dozens of columns.

Third, I have repeatedly criticized his raising of the investigation of the Hunter Biden matter with the Ukrainian president. These points are not meant to curry favor or approval. Rather they are meant to drive home a simple point: one can oppose President Trump’s policies or actions but still conclude that the current legal case for impeachment is not just woefully inadequate, but in some respects, dangerous, as the basis for the impeachment of an American president.

To put it simply, I hold no brief for President Trump. My personal and political views of President Trump, however, are irrelevant to my impeachment testimony, as they should be to your impeachment vote. Today, my only concern is the integrity and coherence of the constitutional standard and process of impeachment. President Trump will not be our last president and what we leave in the wake of this scandal will shape our democracy for generations to come.

I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. If the House proceeds solely on the Ukrainian allegations, this impeachment would stand out among modern impeachments as the shortest proceeding, with the

thinnest evidentiary record, and the narrowest grounds ever used to impeach a president.7 That does not bode well for future presidents who are working in a country often sharply and, at times, bitterly divided.

Fernando J. Milanes, MD