Materiality is a key concept in disciplines of Accounting or Law. In Accounting, if credits amount to US$1,000,400 and debits amount to US$1,000,000, relative to US$1,000,000, the discrepancy of US$400.00 is immaterial, with outcome the US$400.00 can be classified as a discrepancy. In presence of immateriality of the US$400.00, the books are assumed balanced, and a book entry that reclassifies US$400.00 from the credit ledger to a discrepancy account cleans things up.
When it comes to the accounting books for the entire country, unless drug dealers in the great ole USA do not spend any of their incomes in the country, all of the monies they spend, which naturally they are unable to disclose on tax returns, is accounted for as a discrepancy.
Consider then discipline of Law. In Law, relative to, “I killed him”, the declaration, “I thought of killing him” lacks materiality. If a prosecutor builds a murder case in entirety on “I thought of killing him” he or she is bound to lose the case.
In Law, “I thought of killing him” or “I considered killing him”, fails the test of materiality.
So then the case for impeachment of Donald Trump. The Consensus? Donald Trump attempted to do things a President ought not to do, but the checks and balances in the system worked, with outcome he did not in actuality achieve anything that was illegal.
A wise counsel for the President — which he can afford — would argue that Trump, being an outsider to the political establishment, and not being intellectually inclined in so far as any desire for arrival at an understanding of limits of his powers are concerned, reasonably could have attempted the sorts of outcomes of which he is accused. The wise counsel would go on to argue that it was up to the system to work as expected, to prevent any abuses that were intentioned by the President.
In closing, the wise counsel would emphasize that the system having worked as expected, that his client only can be accused of lack of interest in arrival at an understanding of limits of his powers. For concreteness, he would conclude that his client had made billions of dollars by projecting and selling a 'can do' image, meaning it was up to the system to recognize his outsider status and background, and ensure he stay within limits of legality. The system having worked to prevent achievement of any illegalities pursued in context of the 'can do' image, in reality, no crime or exceeding of powers had in reality transpired.
Suppose the prosecution raises specter of that age old adage, which is, ‘under the law, ignorance is not an excuse?’
In absence of any illegal outcomes that can be directly attributed to the President’s actions, there is nothing to be excused, and the age old adage lacks any relevance or application.
A person who had intention to murder, but who was prevented by his girlfriend from embarking on his intention cannot be found guilty of murder, or intention to murder. Absent an actual attempt on the other person’s life, there is not any intention to murder.
Regardless of all of Donald Trump’s brashness, and lies, and insults, taken together, given he was prevented from any actual violations by checks and balances that are entrenched within the political system, all of his actions have yet to actually generate any illegal outcomes.
The sum total of Donald Trump’s outcomes fail the test of materiality.
If, regardless of absence of materiality, Democrats insist on attempting to impeach Trump, it is guaranteed that they lose more than they gain.
If the Democrats seek to get rid of Trump, they either pray for combinations of actions by the President and outcomes that pass the test of materiality of illegality, or they plan to win the next election.
If Trump desires to stay in office for a second term, one of those two options is unlikely to materialize.
It is time for Democrats to place unseating of Donald Trump ahead of their internal ideological squabbles. The next election can be won only by the party that is most pragmatic about solutions to America’s economic, wealth distribution, educational, education loans, job creation, minimum wage, and health care concerns. All it is going to take for the Democrats to win is:
Identification of the Democratic Candidate most likely to unseat Trump.
Within-party deals that ensure the most important concerns of society and the party are guaranteed to be addressed by the Democratic Candidate.
The next election is not about ideology, it is about what is most likely to work.
Given we all agree racism and demagoguery will not work, what exactly do the Democrats have to fear?
Surely, Democrats must be able to come up with a pragmatic candidate, and pragmatic solutions that do not revolve around racism, demagoguery, or a society rooted in class warfare.
Or does America need a credible third party candidate?