Denial of Witnesses Trump Trial

Today at the very top of the United States’ justice system, there was a vote taken to admit or deny relevant witnesses to Trump’s impeachment trial. Those witnesses would have been central to the case presented by the prosecution and in what can only be viewed as a partisan decision, the witnesses were denied. Procedural law is supposed to be constructed in such a way that it deploys facilitative protocol in an effort to prevent bias by either side. This high court at the pinnacle of the U.S. justice system today failed in its duty. Its jurors (senators) acted with bias and with motive to prevent evidence fearing that such evidence would work in opposition to their desired partisan position.

Lawyers and politicians are supposed to be smart, right? Then wouldn’t the admission of evidence assist a cerebral mind come to more calculated decision with respect to guilt or innocence? If evidence is denied in lieu of the prospect that better decision making is congruent with additional evidence, then might one perceive that undue pressure may have been elicited upon jurors to behave in such a way the is contrary to an oath of unbiased deliberation?  If jurors at the highest level of a justice system cannot be relied upon to behave impartially, then what confidence can one bestow at the lower levels?

This issue at stake is whether the President of the United States abused his power in withholding military aid from Ukraine in the context of a request for a Ukrainian sponsored investigation of a political rival. If a direct link is made between the withholding of aid and the denial of an investigation request, then an absolute abuse of power would have occurred. The abuse of power would be impeachable because the behavior would be contrary to the oath of office. 

Logic follows that the act of repressing evidence restricts a body’s ability to formulate strong decisions in lieu of facts. Furthermore, such an act has the supplemental effect of marginalizing the ideal of a robust civil democracy unencumbered by prejudice and / or an autocratic influence.          

Modest Keith Corrigan

There was this accounting office where I spent a tax season in approximately 2004 here in Calgary. I showed up as a contractor and weaved my way into the inner fabric of a well established firm for this finite period. There was this guy on staff named Keith Corrigan. He struck me as kind of quirky but pleasant. I enjoyed his laid back approach to accounting and tax. He had an admirable confidence and he possessed supreme interpersonal skills. I didn’t have much to do with him since he was deployed on corporate work and I was tasked with personal returns. However; we had an unspoken agreement between us as we worked away in the office sharing the occasional witticisms. On April 30, while slaving away on the last couple of returns, in walks Keith looking for my invoice to get me settled up in anticipation of the wind up tax party. We took care of business, headed to the party, and subsequently lost contact with each other.

Fast forward to 2015, and I’m driving into the parking lot of the Smart Executive Centre and I see this slender fellow having a smoke and I’m thinking – “I know him”. We get reacquainted and I discover that he’s also taken up office residence here where I work. Our rapport is quickly reestablished and I begin to marvel at his experience and knack for story telling . We’ve had much in common with respect to tax and investing and together we would on occasion satirize unsavory positions taken by the CRA. Keith was a man fully blessed with common sense and deployed the trait eloquently with his subtle humor. 

He recently died suddenly at the age of 59. I attended his Celebration of Life today and the event was informal and modest akin to the way he carried himself every day.

His obituary: