I Refuse to Bet

I was impressed by the article in Uncle Ken's link.  Although it's mostly opinion, it's very well informed opinion. That guy certainly did his homework.  As I understand it, somebody from the House will act as prosecutor.  Trump will be the defendant and will be represented by a team of lawyers.  They are not now in the prosecution phase, they are still in the investigation phase.  Before prosecution can begin somebody has to draw up the articles of impeachment, and they will have to be approved by a majority of the House members.  I agree that the investigation does not need to be open to the public at this time, but they have decided to make it so, probably in an attempt to drum up public support.

I don't know a lot about that Epstein case.  Didn't he commit suicide before he could be brought to trial?  If so, he is now beyond the reach of the law, although I heard that some of the alleged victims are planning to sue his estate.  I suppose they can do that, but I'm not sure how it will work.  I seem to remember that O.J. was acquitted of murder, but was convicted of "wrongful death" in a subsequent civil case. Although I understand that most people thought he was guilty, I never did form an opinion about O.J.  I was not that interested in the case because I have no interest in sports.

I refuse to bet, even hypothetically, about the Trump-Ukraine case because all the evidence is not in yet.  I probably won't have the patience to wade through it even after it is all in, and I don't have to.  That's what the Senate is for, let them earn their money.  As I understand it, the case will turn on whether or not there was an actual "quid pro quo".  If there was, it would seem to constitute attempted bribery, which certainly is an impeachable offense.  I don't know what the Republicans think about it.

The Whistleblower's identity was bound to be revealed sooner or later.  I don't follow Fox News, but I have heard bad things about them.  I seem to remember that the Dems said something about the Whistleblower's testimony being no longer needed, and I understand that it was all hear-say anyway.  The function of the Whistleblower was to blow the whistle, which he did.  Of course he should be protected from reprisal, and I expect that he will be.

New subject:  Did you know that, at the end of World War I, a substantial Allied force was sent to Russia to guard certain supplies that had been shipped there before the Czar was overthrown and Russia dropped out of the war?  By the time our guys got there, the supplies had already fallen into the wrong hands and there was nothing left to guard.  Then the mission was somehow changed, first to rescue a bunch of Czechs who were stranded in Siberia, and then to help the White Russians fight against the Red Russians.  I don't know what happened to the Czechs, but the Whites were getting their asses kicked, and our guys weren't having much luck bailing them out.  They were eventually evacuated, some nine months after World War I had ended.  They might have been there yet if their friends and relatives back in the States hadn't complained to their congressmen about it.  

I learned this from an article in a small magazine that comes with our local paper, and I found this on Wiki to confirm the story:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/American_Expeditionary_Force,_North_Russia