Reality testing is a concept initially devised by Sigmund Freud which is used by some therapists to assist clients in distinguishing their internal thoughts, feelings and ideas from the events, which are based within reality. In other words, it is the ability to see a situation for what it really is, rather than what one hopes or fears it might be. However the need for reality testing extends beyond a therapeutic setting and the need to appropriately distinguish our inner world from reality is something, which occurs in everyday life. Below are some examples of this.  Example; “I just said good morning to Jane in the hall this morning, but she didn’t answer. She must be mad at me for something I have done.”  Reality; There may be many other explanations for this. She didn’t see you, she was deep in thought or she is grumpy today and has a lot on her mind.  Example; “I just failed my first exam of the year. This must mean that I am now bound to fail the rest of my exams as well.”  Reality;  Failing at something initially, does not equate to a pattern of failure, and does not mean that things cannot improve or change in the future.

Wellbeing.org

On a mostly party line the US House passed the Articles of Impeachment accusing the elected president Donald Trump of Obstruction of Congress and Abuse of Power.    Not only did the accusations are not even close to what is required in our Constitution of Treason, Bribery and High Crimes and Misdemeanors or the forefathers intent, but the explanations given by the proponents are so out of touch with reality that a dose of reality testing is necessary.    How can you obstruct Congress when the Executive Branch is equal as the Legislature?   

In the Constitutional check and balances it is true that a subpoena can be sent by Congress and the response is mandatory.    Saying that, the Executive has the absolute right to not comply and if this act is against the existing law or not, the recourse is a decision by the Judicial Branch that can in our check and balances force compliance.   Lack of compliance then becomes obstruction of Justice an impeachable offense.   

The only reasonable explanation for the lack of action by the Congress was that the process never meant to be removing a president that has, as Hamilton wrote, been proven guilty of such egregious and terrible actions that two thirds of the Senate would convict.    In fact the framers acknowledged that the House could impeach based on politics, but their action would be stopped in the Senate.   

In the only two impeachments sent to the Senate in our 230 years of a Constitutional Republic this is the only time (I am not counting Andrew Johnson’s for obvious reasons) that pure, unadulterated politics has guided the House, and with a total unrealistic argument to boot.    The second Article of Abuse of Power is not only ridiculous legally, but the expressed explanations defy logic.    All branches of government have powers, albeit different ones.    Any action that is proven to be an abuse by definition is a crime.   

It is impossible to justify an abuse without a crime as it is adduced in this Article.    The pundits allege, sometimes falsely and others factual but not criminal, that the President told Ukraine’s just elected president to “get dirt on the Biden’s” while at the same time holding needed finances for their defense vs. Russia from them.   

Joe Biden a potential rival in the oncoming elections has expressed that there is no basis for the implied accusation, so it is unreal that asking for an investigation (not dirt) is equal to a conviction.    But there is another caveat, the money held was given before the deadline, and the announcement of, or the investigation never happened.    The argument, that defies reality, is that the crime was the intention that even if not proven was logically implied.   Forget the fact that Ukraine’s president and all the officials deny being threatened and many did not even knew about the money allocated for them.   Just asking is akin to placing a gun on their heads, said Rep. Nader justifying their statements.    Another dose of reality, it made them lie to the public but not act.   

How scared of the “gun” were they?     Again let us explain the logic of assuming that because two events if they happened at the same time are thus related?    When I studied Logic in Bachillerato (Cuban HS), an example was given of the laws of logic.    If there is a corner with no traffic lights and many accidents and other similar corners with lights have fewer, is it logical to assume that lights and accidents are related.    If you answer yes, then is it also logical that the corners with fewer accidents because they happen to have a pharmacy, means that pharmacies reduce accidents?    Obviously no.   

The lesson learned is that one related occurrence is not enough to make blanket assumptions, much less using it to use as a factual reason to accuse of a crime.    There were other reasons, investigate corruption, make other countries pay, that were stopping aid during that period.    As they repeated, 2 plus 2 is four, but also 3 plus 1, 4 plus 0!    In summary the scam is over but unfortunately not yet finished as the latest rumor entails not trusting the Senate because McConnell is implying that he could the same rules that the minority leader Schumer used in 1999 during Clintons impeachment, to wit;

During the 1999 impeachment of Bill Clinton, Schumer said there was no need for new evidence in a Senate trial and voted against allowing new evidence to be revealed. Now, when Schumer is in the minority and wants new evidence against Trump, it appears his standards have flipped. For Schumer, there was no need for new evidence for a Democrat, but for a Republican there’s always room for more evidence in an impeachment trial.    “Any fair process would be consulting the White House, because it’s the president who’s the defendant, and due process would guarantee him fairness,” Schumer said in 1999.

Fernando J. Milanes, MD