Yes . . of course . . . because . . . and "but" . . .
There are two standards for arriving at the Truth. A scientific standard accepts solid inferences about facts as well as the facts themselves, and a scientific standard allows for Truth to exist as a "theory." The theory, even if it seems reliable, must contain elements that would allow a test that can disprove that very theory. Further, the Truth must exist with some degree of uncertainty. If it were a matter of running twenty or thirty "tests" or testing a proposition for which there is a population of similarly defined observations, the uncertainty involves a statistical scatter, and statistical tests can always show anomalies that yield Alpha or Beta errors: the error that the test failed to prove the hypothesis when the hypothesis is actually True, and the error that the test proved True when the hypothesis was actually false.
The second standard -- or another standard -- is a legal standard based on the rules of evidence and the notion of "reasonable doubt." These factors are part of a legal system skewed toward accepting one type of error as True to a greater degree than accepting the other type of error. Better to let a guilty man go free than to punish an innocent.
Here is the objective meaning of the expression "Witch Hunt."
In ordinary criminal investigation, you have usually the situation of a consensus that a crime has been committed and some degree of certainty for it. You don't have the evidence that meets a legal standard yet as to the culpability for the crime -- which is the objective to prove through a criminal investigation. You make some hypotheses; you look for more evidence by which that evidence would prove one of those hypotheses before proceeding with more hypotheses and evidence discovery; you develop a list of suspects based on motive and opportunity; you make hypotheses about those suspects and search for more evidence to prove or disprove.
A "Witch Hunt" is more likely a search for a crime or wrongdoing, given a variety of causes for some unfortunate event. The Hunters already have a Witch in mind -- a person of interest, a suspect. That is, there is a suspect, but no certainty of a crime.
Since an impeachment proceeding is also a trial of sorts, one could meet the legal standards during the proceeding, and you wouldn't need to do so simply for initiating the impeachment. But a scientific standard applied to a likely crime would equally justify the impeachment.
The National Security Apparatus produced evidence of a crime beginning late 2016 -- in that the Kremlin had pursued a psy-war strategy to influence the election. This could include other crimes -- for instance -- the two school terror hoaxes that occurred with perfect timing that preceded major media political debates. One would say "There is definitely a crime." Did it only involve the Russians? Or did it involve other persons of interest?
Trump's behavior and actions since the campaign could almost rise to the standard of impeachable. But why not wait for Mueller to reveal what he already knows, and what he can further develop as evidence to meet the legal standard until his search path runs out -- hoping for an impeachment and conviction?
What about the mere $130,000 -- $420,000, actually -- and the $150,000 in hush-money payments? Gee! It's only a campaign financing violation! Why -- the Obama administration paid fines for campaign financing violations! It's such a relatively small amount of money! He did it for his wife! But that dog don't hunt: he and Cohen admitted that he did it to influence the election. "But you can't prove that it had an impact on the election!" Of course: you'd want a statistical test of "before and after," and it might be difficult or impossible. Doesn't matter: the candidate expressed his intent in committing the campaign finance crime. And of course -- it didn't matter if "it was his money." He was supposed to declare it under FEC law and regs. The crime is what it is -- a felony -- given the intent.
That brings a different way of looking at the size of those payments. The magnitude of payment only proves that Trump has been one of the most efficient Frauds in our history. He only used $550,000 to withhold information from the electorate that would have likely lost him the White House. "Likely" doesn't matter here -- he had the intent. No statistical proof necessary. That's not just a "technical" violation. It would've been massive fraud against the American People even if he'd only bought off Stormy and Karen with a Franklin each.
There are probably several other "issues" that deserve exploration as impeachable. But these represent my views.
Some Democrats are aflutter about using Impeachment as a campaign issue. Some Republicans think the Dems SHOULD use it as a campaign issue. Whether midterm or presidential campaign, it IS a campaign issue, whether it is used in campaign promotions or not.
But it is no hypocrisy to avoid speaking to Impeachment as a goal or objective, while speaking about "Good government."
And the country might as well wait for Mueller's result, unless he's fired. Firing Mueller would be grounds for impeachment.
We might put him in for a third term just too piss all you scatterbrains off
Facebook
Twitter