Impeachment: He said she said, you said who said?

The impeachment inquiries are based on hearsay evidence, and just like in a regular court room, this should not be admissible. Basing allegations of power abuse on overheard conversations and opinions of exchanges is shocking. Not only is this hearsay evidence unreliable, but it can be as inaccurate as children playing the telephone game.

To characterize the July 25 phone call a case of quid pro quo would be misinformed. The millions of dollars in aid to Ukraine was not being withheld due to political motivations or because of Hunter Biden’s involvement with a corrupt Ukrainian company, but as a precaution towards the shifting of power in Ukraine. Not only are the allegations of the president abusing power to try and gain dirt on political opponents shocking, but they are also entirely based on hearsay that is just barely recognized by the court as admissible evidence in criminal cases, so why should it be allowed here?

The reasoning behind withholding aid was one of the major points of the impeachment inquiry. Ambassador William Taylor stated in his testimony that he believed Trump felt as if he were “owed something” since the United States has been so good to Ukraine.

Taylor did not hear this from the president himself. He based this on Ambassador Gordon Sondland’s opinion of a conversation had with the president. According to the Federal Rules of Evidence, Article VIII, this is hearsay. Hearsay that contradicts the word of both President Trump and President Zelensky. Again, since this is not a criminal court case, the Federal Rules do not apply, but they should be noted.

The fact that all of this, “he said she said that he felt” is being taken as evidence is troubling. President Trump has consistently insisted that there was no quid pro quo, and President Zelensky has said many times that he did not feel threated or pushed by the phone call. The transcript has been released to the public so everyone can see the facts for themselves.

Next, the aid was not withheld because of Biden but because of suspicion that the new Ukrainian President may not adhere to his anti-corruption campaign. The hesitation behind releasing aid was not malicious or for personal gain but for national security.

Counsel Steve Castor began his questioning on Nov. 14 by asking about the corruption in Ukraine. After having established the “endemic” that is the Ukrainian government, the counsel proved that the withholding of aid had nothing to do with Biden, but in fact, was an attempt to be sure the aid was going towards an honorable platform.

Rep. Elise Stefanik said it best with her two points: “Ukraine received the aid and there was no investigation into Biden.” The reason for President Trump’s phone call with President Zelensky was concern about the head of Burisma Holdings who is seen “by many U.S. and international officials as corrupt.” It is important to note that this questioning of Burisma was not a part of the aid withholding, in fact, President Zelensky was unaware of the withholding of aid when the phone call took place.

The call was for national security interests. Wanting to understand a U.S. lobbyist’s involvement in a corrupt company in a corrupt country when he has no qualifications for the position whatsoever is in the best interest of the United States, not just President Trump’s presidency, as verified by Mr. Kent’s testimony on Nov. 14.

Lastly, the allegation of Trump recalling an ambassador as an abuse of constitutional power is false. According to Article II of the Constitution, the president has the right to recall ambassadors at his pleasure.

He removed Yovanovitch for inadequate performance, and that caused her to have ill-will towards the president--so much so she would lie about the Biden/Burisma situation. She may not like the outcome, under the law it is not an abuse of power, and her actions constitute perjury as the testimony on Nov. 15 suggests.

It would be wrong to ignore all the facts behind Sondland’s testimony. Even though the President said there was no quid pro quo and said he did not desire one, it would be wrong to discredit what the ambassador heard. Chairman Schiff rebutted the Republican congress members when they tried to establish that Sondland’s testimony showed no evidence whatsoever. He explained that just because the words did not come from the president’s mouth in the phone call, it would be wrong to discard this evidence that raises suspicions.

In all reality, working from an assumption would be a miscarriage of justice. This impeachment inquiry is a personal vendetta of the Democratic Party from the outcome of the election back in 2016, and the lack of evidence proves that claim.