News Missed Out on This Significant Story on the Impeachment

  I thought I saw this story early today (now yesterday) on MSN, but searched high and low using maybe a half-dozen different search engines. Couldn't find it. Must have been mistaken. There was no such story.
  Then, thought to call up all the president's latest tweets, and found it.

It’s my opinion as a lawyer that the Articles of Impeachment are defective on their face, which means I would like to see a Motion to Dismiss and have this disbursed without the necessity of a trial. I don’t think there should be a trial. I think it should be dismissed....

   The tweet: It is not as severe as I thought. I thought he called for the impeachment to be dropped. There is a difference between saying you think it should be dropped and saying, "Drop it." In one, you are normally within your rights as a defendant. In the other, your position as president comes into play. If you use your office as President of the United States to call for a dismissal of the trial, that would be wrong. Obstruction of justice -- in no small way.
   Still, we cannot let go of the significance of this tweet. Mitch McConnell has said he will do whatever the president wants him to do. If the president is here saying he thinks the trial should be dropped, how does McConnell respond? Newscasters should have been scurrying to ask him. They should have asked if this will affect him in any way as he draws up plans on what should be done.
   So, the significance of this tweet remains pretty large, maybe even huge. It deserves more attention than what the news sources and search engines have given it. For it to be lost from the news feeds by the end of the day? They all erred in removing this story from their news feeds or not carrying it in the first place.
  Not to mention, what about his calling himself a lawyer? That is -- should be -- a significant story, itself.

Truth is not afraid to use its own name. 

It will call a spade a spade.

 If you can't face your fires, 

they'll burn you down.

For the honor of its own name, 

truth never calls others names.

An asterisk on this one. It will call a fraud and fraud, and cite the incidents where this is true. But, it never stoops to such expressions that are typically used in name-calling, such as "idiot," "slime," etc. Usually, it will refer to the event, not the person, saying, "You were dishonest on that occasion," instead of, "You are a liar," but there are times when a liar should be called a liar. 

 The honor of its own name 

prevents truth from calling others names.

If a person is a murderer, truth will call him that. But, it does not stoop to slurs such as "slimebag" and dumb***"

 To protect the honor of its own name, 

truth avoids calling others names.

A clarification on this one. Truth will call a liar a liar, but it does not stoop to demeaning labels that do not apply. 

Truth's own name will often not allow it to call others names.