By
Opinion| Lawrence David| There are times when you need someone to interpret what you’re seeing. This ain’t one of those times.
It takes a sycophant to believe that what we’re watching unfold in the Stalin-like impeachment inquiry is anything close to fair.
While it’s true that the Framers were vague about what the requirements to achieve impeachment charges should be, and they were even more vague about the legal protections afforded the party being impeached, it should be clear that would include the right to mount a vigorous defense.
To that end, Republicans were offered a chance to submit a witness list by no later than yesterday. They did that by way of a letter from the committee’s ranking member Devin Nunes (R-CA).
Republicans made eight requests by name and another one by association. Chairman Schiff denied at least the last two… so far.
Concerns that the whistleblower could be a political operative intent on damaging President Trump stem from his suspected involvement in a 2016 plot, in conjunction with Ukraine to discredit then-candidate Donald Trump .
Why? Fundamental fairness – not to the president but to the 63 million Americans who voted for him – demands that both the anonymous whistleblower whose secondhand complaint initiated the inquiry, and anyone who he or she relied on in drafting the complaint, should be cross examined for the public to decide whether they sound truthful.
It is known that Schiff and/or members of his staff met with the whistleblower prior to his complaint being filed. It is also clear that the complaint was clearly the work of lawyers (Lawfare or Schiff himself?)
Schiff’s involvement, no matter how peripheral makes him a fact witness. That matters. A lot.
What can we learn from the whistleblower who admits only to hearsay? Probably, not a whole lot, I’d guess. But, by questioning whoever put him up to filing the complaint we might learn a whole lot more.
Especially, if the person running the sham impeachment inquiry also served as his adviser. Keep in mind, Schiff is a partisan hack who, for nearly three years told us he had proof of Trump-Russia collusion and that it was overwhelming.
That’s when Schiff made it clear he was willing to lie to take down this president. This raises the question is Schiff refusing Republicans’ short list of witnesses to protect his own sorry ass from being hauled before this or other committees?
The animus Schiff holds for President Trump is palpable. That doesn’t necessarily disqualify him from conducting a legitimate inquiry of the president but denying the president legal counsel and the right to call witnesses in his defense is proof he has no intention of being fair.
Sometimes it’s clear as the nose on your face when the rules ain’t fair.
