U.S. Democrats to press for impeachment witnesses throughout trial

[Chomper Higgot]

51 minutes ago, ThaiBunny said:

The impeachment is over - that's what the House did. It's the equivalent of the UK Crown Prosecution Service or a US Grand Jury deciding there's enough evidence to send the matter to trial. Trump's already impeached. Now he's standing trial in the Senate

Correct, he’s impeached.

 

Its still not a criminal trial, he will face criminal prosecution but only after he hasn’t left office.

[Chomper Higgot]

40 minutes ago, WalkingOrders said:

An attempted case is being made here that Donald J Trump is GUILTY or NOT GUILTY of Abuse of Power and Obstructon of Congress. IF no case is made, he is found to be NOT GUILTY, which by the Senate. Now a person can play with words all day long but there wil be an outcome of this Senate trial. The entire United States law is built around the concept of innocent until proven guilty, even if this is not a courtroom. You are correct that this is a political trial, but never the less, evidence is being examined as presented to the Senate by the House. Evidence of what? Abuse of Power by the President and Obstruction of Congress. Why the word play? One could say in two weeks "cleared of all charges" I suppose, as that is what is going to happen.

I suggest you hesitate to predict the outcome, especially based on such misunderstandings of what an impeachment trial is.

[Jingthing]

4 minutes ago, Chomper Higgot said:

Correct, he’s impeached.

 

Its still not a criminal trial, he will face criminal prosecution but only after he hasn’t left office.

Assumed the complicit senate won't convict him, yes he's subject to criminal charges if he isn't reelected but if he is if he can keep himself from committing fresh crimes, the statutes of limitations will be up by then. So our impeached president is very very motivated to be reelected to a scary degree that he will do anything for that. Also there is no double jeopardy impact to the senate not convicting as it's not a criminal trial. 

[Jingthing]

Also yes he already bears the stain of impeachment going forward for all of history.  Of course the complicit senate is doing all it can do to continue to suppress needed witnesses and documents but sooner or later it will all come out and it's pretty obvious that will add to his well deserved disgrace.

Bill Clinton on the other hand only lied about consensual sex which Americans overwhelmingly feel was not really a huge deal. So he is burdened with the stain but how severe the stain is dependent on the facts of the case. Facts are not this current impeached president's friend!

[bristolboy]

1 hour ago, WalkingOrders said:

I had a whole lot of links but decided to pull them just to get right down to it: The sample size vs population vs confidence level is simply a statistic agreed? Now this sample must be a random sample. Perfectly random. But how do I know if Bias is in this sample of the respondants? For example, a sample of something scientific for example uses the same numbers right? A measure of a population in nature, a sample taken and a statistic is then used. But how can I apply the same numbers across a human population, that lies about feelings (purposefully or via self deception), does not hear correctly, does not understand, changes mind 10 minutes later, etc?  Because that is exactly what is happening. Hence the need for multiple samples, and even then they come out wrong. So yeah, I don't trust a 1,995 sample size for all the reasons I just mentioned. You can search on why Trump polls were wrong in 2016 and find all kinds of potential reasons more or less all related to reasons I gave. So to answer you on statistical grounds alone, which is the math only, of say a sample to determine mushroom density in North American forests, I can answer on statistical grounds alone, but a sample of human beings, uses more then statistics. It has to account for bias of human beings. How is that mathematically guesstimated? It isn't very well is it? or there would not need to be so many pollsters.

Actually the reason the Trump polls were "wrong" was because there wasn't adequate polling on the state level. Keep in mind that for the popular vote the polls were wrong by 1%. And the margin of error accounts for these biases. The margin of error means that 95% of the time the poll will be right within 2 percent. 5 percent of the time it will be more.  And do you really think that the objections you raised haven't been exhaustively addressed by statisticians? 

Anyway. fivethirtyeight.com does a poll of polls, It keeps track of all the polls (at least the it rates at least acceptable)  and amalgamates them in various ways:

https://projects.fivethirtyeight.com/impeachment-polls/?ex_cid=rrpromo

 

[simple1]

2 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

As a student of politics I would be greatly interested in quotations from the American Founding Fathers that support your theory, as well as perhaps expounding on what specifically it is that shows this relationship between length of time, and your conclusion. You can respond privately. I promise not to respond to you with argument. I will just read what you have to say.

It is my opinion that I'm articulating; a rather long winded response which does not directly answer your questions, but hopefully you get the gist of what I'm trying to articulate.

 

I am not familiar with the detail of US politics and processes, However, trump as he claimed he would be, is a disruptor; not for the national interest, but for his own negative purposes. Since gaining power trump has repeatedly hired people for executive roles without expertise other than being sycophants with the remit to destroy institutions and policies in the manner espoused by Bannon. Naturally I could be incorrect, but I suggest the Founding Fathers would not be supportive of the extremely negative and crass political culture trump promotes. The guy even has white supremacists on his staff e.g. Steve Miller. With regard to the Founding Fathers, IMO, trump insults the Constitution with his deliberate non compliance with Congressional oversight and other awful behaviour. Do you believe the Founding Fathers anticipated a President who insults his own nationals who disagree with him with name calling such as 'scum' false accusations, repeats proven lies, articulates conspiracy theories in the public domain etc etc IMO trump fully deserves to be removed from Office, the downside being pence.

[candide]

3 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

This poll is a survey of less then 2,000 registered voters. That is a pretty small pool. Would anyone out there agree with me on that fact alone?

1,995 respondents, lol. The margin of error is indicated on the figure: +/- 2%. Actually the sample size is bigger than most other polls which sample is usually in the 1000/1500 range.

Additionally, it is not a situation such as 52% for and 48% against. 57% are for witnesses and 24% against. It is beyond any possible margin of error or bias. The same survey has been made in December and the current results are quite coherent with the previous results.

Edited January 17, 2020 by candide

[RideJocky]

30 minutes ago, candide said:

1,995 respondents, lol. The margin of error is indicated on the figure: +/- 2%. Actually the sample size is bigger than most other polls which sample is usually in the 1000/1500 range.

Additionally, it is not a situation such as 52% for and 48% against. 57% are for witnesses and 24% against. It is beyond any possible margin of error or bias. The same survey has been made in December and the current results are quite coherent with the previous results.

Yes, people want a show. It’s a good bet a large percentage of people that want witnesses want Schiff and Pelosi called...

[candide]

5 minutes ago, RideJocky said:

Yes, people want a show. It’s a good bet a large percentage of people that want witnesses want Schiff and Pelosi called...

A large number of people have seen or heard that the Republicans are quite openly reluctant about new witnesses, while the Democrats openly request them. There is no such ambiguity.

[NaamGin]

On 1/10/2020 at 7:57 AM, Emdog said:

If you're charged with a crime, especially a non violent crime, you want as many witnesses & evidence as possible.

If you did commit a crime, you want no witnesses or evidence.

The most pathetic aspect of this situation is the total abandonment of truth, defense of Constitutional and American values of justice

 

Except for one small factor, this is the first impeachment in the history of the country where no crime has been alleged. 

[Gulfsailor]

1 hour ago, NaamGin said:

 

Except for one small factor, this is the first impeachment in the history of the country where no crime has been alleged. 

Obstruction of justice is not a crime?

[NaamGin]

2 hours ago, Gulfsailor said:

Obstruction of justice is not a crime?

There is no impeachment charge for obstruction of justice.

Article #2 of the impeachment articles states obstruction of CONGRESS. 

This is a spurious charge because Nancy and company did not want to wait for the subpoena process to play out in the courts. The executive branch and the legislative branch are often at loggerheads over providing documents for oversight. The judicial branch is the arbiter of these disagreements. Congress issues a subpoena for documents from the executive branch, the executive branch challenges the request from congress, then the courts decide if the subpoenas are valid and justified. Congress did not want to wait for this process to play out and thus we have article #2 of this charade. This charge will be thrown out, period. Just like the abuse of power charge in article #1. You cannot impeach a POTUS for exercising his article 2 constitutional rights. 

 

On another note, did Obama get impeached for refusing to supply documents to congress related to the Fast & Furious scandal? No, he did not. 

 

Edited January 17, 2020 by NaamGin

[WalkingOrders]

6 hours ago, Sujo said:

Its not even close to what we consider a normal trial.otherwise none of the senators would be allowed to sit on the trial.

Does the US Constitition disappoint? I am sorry. They don't have to do anything but hold a vote, but never the less, if this was a stronger case in the eyes of the public there would be bipsrtisan support. There is not. I wont attempt to try the case, everyone has an opinion, but it is obvious that the case is weak, they didnt even have unanimity from their own party. Then they held on for a month, trying to bully the Senate to no avail. There simply is not enough evidence to bridge the party divide. It is what it is. The Constitution is determining whether or not this President should be removed for a High crime or misdemeanor. It does come down to Yes or No. The Senate WILL look at evidence, but I think they have the same evidence we have all seen. There is no Watergate Hotel Break-in, no revulsion over a President using an intern in the oval office. Zero bipartisan report. If there was some outrage against Trump the GOP would have turned on him long ago, he isn't really one of them anyhow. They are on his side for good reason. The public also knows full well the DEM party has been attempting to remove Trump since day one.

[WalkingOrders]

6 hours ago, Chomper Higgot said:

I suggest you hesitate to predict the outcome, especially based on such misunderstandings of what an impeachment trial is.

I just wish that once I could get a response that does not need to state what is in MY mind. I have no misunderstanding. There really is no reason to say so.

 

Here I will argue the otherside, Executive priviledge should never be used by A President because that's illegal, the President obstructed congress when he challenged Congress to go to the court, Hunter Biden was obviously not being paid simply because his Father was VP and point man on Ukraine, his family obviously was not being enriched and it is a total lie that any DEM operatives were working in Ukraine. Pres. Zelensky is a liar when stating his view,  President Trump was acting from self interest and was in violation of law, as GAO has said.

That is the Dem case. How did I do?

 

...so the Senate will decide soon. Perhaps my 2nd grade education has it all wrong and a gang of GOP Senators are going to have a sudden gasp and decide to remove the POTUS in a Perry Mason moment. Maybe.

[WalkingOrders]

5 hours ago, simple1 said:

It is my opinion that I'm articulating; a rather long winded response which does not directly answer your questions, but hopefully you get the gist of what I'm trying to articulate.

 

I am not familiar with the detail of US politics and processes, However, trump as he claimed he would be, is a disruptor; not for the national interest, but for his own negative purposes. Since gaining power trump has repeatedly hired people for executive roles without expertise other than being sycophants with the remit to destroy institutions and policies in the manner espoused by Bannon. Naturally I could be incorrect, but I suggest the Founding Fathers would not be supportive of the extremely negative and crass political culture trump promotes. The guy even has white supremacists on his staff e.g. Steve Miller. With regard to the Founding Fathers, IMO, trump insults the Constitution with his deliberate non compliance with Congressional oversight and other awful behaviour. Do you believe the Founding Fathers anticipated a President who insults his own nationals who disagree with him with name calling such as 'scum' false accusations, repeats proven lies, articulates conspiracy theories in the public domain etc etc IMO trump fully deserves to be removed from Office, the downside being pence.

With gentle respect, it is rather difficult to comment on what the founding Fathers of the United States would think of the Presidency of Donald Trump without any knowledge of anything they ever wrote, or even who they are.  By the way, the history of the United States is filled with scoundrals or half scoundrals or people called Scoundrals by their Political enemies, from the very begining of the Republic. Many Secretaries, Generals, and Ambassadors have been fired long before Trump fired anyone. I disagree with your characterization of the President, but far worse things have been said by Presidents.

Edited January 17, 2020 by WalkingOrders
Sentence completion

[candide]

“I don’t know him at all. Don’t know what he’s about. Don’t know where he comes from — know nothing about him,” Trump continued. “This is the current hoax.”

????????????

https://nypost.com/2020/01/16/trump-on-rudy-giuliani-pal-lev-parnas-i-know-nothing-about-him/

Edited January 17, 2020 by candide

[candide]

1 hour ago, candide said:

“I don’t know him at all. Don’t know what he’s about. Don’t know where he comes from — know nothing about him,” Trump continued. “This is the current hoax.”

????????????

https://nypost.com/2020/01/16/trump-on-rudy-giuliani-pal-lev-parnas-i-know-nothing-about-him/

Obviously, he knows nothing about anything...

https://www.axios.com/trump-giuliani-letter-zelensky-ukraine-parnas-405ba89d-8538-4d8a-902d-a6ad0c228522.html

"Trump claims he didn't know about Giuliani letter to Zelensky"

????????????????????????

 

[simple1]

7 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

With gentle respect, it is rather difficult to comment on what the founding Fathers of the United States would think of the Presidency of Donald Trump without any knowledge of anything they ever wrote, or even who they are.  By the way, the history of the United States is filled with scoundrals or half scoundrals or people called Scoundrals by their Political enemies, from the very begining of the Republic. Many Secretaries, Generals, and Ambassadors have been fired long before Trump fired anyone. I disagree with your characterization of the President, but far worse things have been said by Presidents.

Thanks for the courteous reply. i do know who the Founding Fathers were and their core messaging. IMO trump should take note of the quote below.. Disagree with my characterisation of trump - so be it.

 

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

- George Washington

[HuskerDo]

3 hours ago, candide said:

“I don’t know him at all. Don’t know what he’s about. Don’t know where he comes from — know nothing about him,” Trump continued. “This is the current hoax.”

????????????

https://nypost.com/2020/01/16/trump-on-rudy-giuliani-pal-lev-parnas-i-know-nothing-about-him/

All sorts of celebrities take photos with fans and have no idea who they are and never see them again. If they were called out to explain the photo I'm quite sure they'd respond just like Trump's statement of not knowing the person. Some of you Trump critics will never stop no matter how silly your argument is.

[Sujo]

21 minutes ago, HuskerDo said:

All sorts of celebrities take photos with fans and have no idea who they are and never see them again. If they were called out to explain the photo I'm quite sure they'd respond just like Trump's statement of not knowing the person. Some of you Trump critics will never stop no matter how silly your argument is.

Its not one photo.

[WalkingOrders]

On 1/12/2020 at 8:54 AM, Nyezhov said:

See dude thats the problem. Im willing to debate anyone anytime on any policy or sociopolitical matter as long as they are willing to listen, because thats what debate is and thats what life is too, a competing soup of ideas that is only tasty when its well blended and the flavours meld.

 

But dont hand me dishwater and tell me its Vichyssoise. Dont tell me that you have the "truth" when all you are doing is offering the same old same old.  Truth is when folks take opposite positions and blend them into a reality that works for both of them, without hyperbole and putting their own ego needs aside. Truth means a balanced and nuanced view of reality, not a screech of endless media driven innuendo without the ability to ascertain subtlety and alternative explanations. Truth means asking yourself the questions that naturally flow from your perception of what the truth is. And if you ask yourselves the questions, honestly, and answer them honestly, then you are on a search for truth and ready to debate like an adult

 

With all due repect, your folks chanting the same old Trump mantras have to get over it already. And with this entire impeachment, ask yourself, how does that help your country? Is their ONE argument you could make that it hurts the country?

 

 

 

 

 

Age 61 Ret. USN, mostly liberal voting in my younger years, not an early Trump supporter, but as I am a Paleo conservative I find I cannot argue the successes of the Trump Presidency despite his crassness. Likewise, please allow me to list what it is in the Democrat party that frighten me and I mean this sincerely. In my life I have never witnessed ANY of the following:

1. As a result of losing an election Democrats have called for ALL of the following: a. Abolishing the Electoral college b. Lowering voting age to 16. c. Changing the makeup of the Supreme Court, or rotating consevative justices off of the court. 

2. In a confirmation hearing of an honorable man for the Supreme Court, the Democrats paraded women who evaporated under questioning, to accuse this man of repeatedly taking part in gang rapes. They did this in front of wife and Children.

3. The DEM Speaker of the house accused the President in writing in official memo of being a man Compromised by the Russians, and therefore potentially under their direct control. She did the exact same thing less then one week ago and included the Senate Majority leader as well in her accusations.

4. For over 3 years the DEM party accused the President of being a Russian asset.

5. The Democrat party PAID for a created story, that claimed the President hired Russian Prostitutes to urinate on a hotel bed used by the previous President and first Lady, for his sadistic pleasure. The story was then pushed to the Press and the inelligence agencies of the USA, where intrinched partisans used the story in an attempt to take down the President. 

The Democrats have yet to apologize. The IG report found zero truth to any of this. The Mueller report found insufficient evidence of any conspiracy between Trump and Russia. Democrats attempted to use this to impeach Trump and failed. 

6. The Democrats made their desire to Impeach Trump since before he took office

7. Democrats have pushed for Decriminalization of US border, and are obviously changing the voting Demographic of the USA, through 20 million illegal aliens in the USA.

8. They accuse all who disagree as being part of an insane army of Trump supporters who are all racists.

9. The Democrats have tied the issue of climate change to a socialst style takeover of the US Economy. If you disagree see Green New Deal, see front runner Bernie Sanders comments re Nationalizinf the fossil fuels industry in the USA, while throwing oil executives in jail. This is EXACTLY what Hugo Chavez said he would do. Yes, I am fearful of avowed socialist taking control of the most prosperous economy in 50 years.

10. The push for free medical, even to 20 million illegals, and anyone who can step into the country, at costs unfathomable even to the Democrats pushing these programs.

 

Trump, has nothing to do with my reasons for moving as far away from this far left mob as I can get. I fear them taking power. By any reasonable measure Donald J. Trump has been an outstanding President. No matter how rude his speech is. He does not shy from attacking those who attack him. He has been a strong President, and a good one, surely not deserving of impeachment. I do not see any impeachable offense from my point of view, and view this as an extension of what is an illegal attempt to remove a President, and regain the Senate. found your comments rational, I hope you find mine the same.

[WalkingOrders]

4 hours ago, simple1 said:

Thanks for the courteous reply. i do know who the Founding Fathers were and their core messaging. IMO trump should take note of the quote below.. Disagree with my characterisation of trump - so be it.

 

"Truth will ultimately prevail where there is pains to bring it to light."

- George Washington

Agreed.

[mogandave]

2 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

Age 61 Ret. USN, mostly liberal voting in my younger years, not an early Trump supporter, but as I am a Paleo conservative I find I cannot argue the successes of the Trump Presidency despite his crassness. Likewise, please allow me to list what it is in the Democrat party that frighten me and I mean this sincerely. In my life I have never witnessed ANY of the following:

1. As a result of losing an election Democrats have called for ALL of the following: a. Abolishing the Electoral college b. Lowering voting age to 16. c. Changing the makeup of the Supreme Court, or rotating consevative justices off of the court. 

2. In a confirmation hearing of an honorable man for the Supreme Court, the Democrats paraded women who evaporated under questioning, to accuse this man of repeatedly taking part in gang rapes. They did this in front of wife and Children.

3. The DEM Speaker of the house accused the President in writing in official memo of being a man Compromised by the Russians, and therefore potentially under their direct control. She did the exact same thing less then one week ago and included the Senate Majority leader as well in her accusations.

4. For over 3 years the DEM party accused the President of being a Russian asset.

5. The Democrat party PAID for a created story, that claimed the President hired Russian Prostitutes to urinate on a hotel bed used by the previous President and first Lady, for his sadistic pleasure. The story was then pushed to the Press and the inelligence agencies of the USA, where intrinched partisans used the story in an attempt to take down the President. 

The Democrats have yet to apologize. The IG report found zero truth to any of this. The Mueller report found insufficient evidence of any conspiracy between Trump and Russia. Democrats attempted to use this to impeach Trump and failed. 

6. The Democrats made their desire to Impeach Trump since before he took office

7. Democrats have pushed for Decriminalization of US border, and are obviously changing the voting Demographic of the USA, through 20 million illegal aliens in the USA.

8. They accuse all who disagree as being part of an insane army of Trump supporters who are all racists.

9. The Democrats have tied the issue of climate change to a socialst style takeover of the US Economy. If you disagree see Green New Deal, see front runner Bernie Sanders comments re Nationalizinf the fossil fuels industry in the USA, while throwing oil executives in jail. This is EXACTLY what Hugo Chavez said he would do. Yes, I am fearful of avowed socialist taking control of the most prosperous economy in 50 years.

10. The push for free medical, even to 20 million illegals, and anyone who can step into the country, at costs unfathomable even to the Democrats pushing these programs.

 

Trump, has nothing to do with my reasons for moving as far away from this far left mob as I can get. I fear them taking power. By any reasonable measure Donald J. Trump has been an outstanding President. No matter how rude his speech is. He does not shy from attacking those who attack him. He has been a strong President, and a good one, surely not deserving of impeachment. I do not see any impeachable offense from my point of view, and view this as an extension of what is an illegal attempt to remove a President, and regain the Senate. found your comments rational, I hope you find mine the same.

Great post, thanks. The only thing I would change is:

 

”He does not shy from attacking those who attack him.

 

To:

 

He does not shy from attacking those who attack us.

 

 

 

 

[candide]

9 hours ago, HuskerDo said:

All sorts of celebrities take photos with fans and have no idea who they are and never see them again. If they were called out to explain the photo I'm quite sure they'd respond just like Trump's statement of not knowing the person. Some of you Trump critics will never stop no matter how silly your argument is.

I put the photo for fun, but actually I was refering to Parnas' recent interview, which is the reason why Trump claims he does not know him.

https://edition.cnn.com/2020/01/16/politics/lev-parnas-cnn-interview/index.html

[Monomial]

On 1/11/2020 at 8:35 PM, Sujo said:

Which doesnt mean he will be cleared by the voting public. Do you want to know the truth?

 

It is interesting what people admit to unintentionally. This sentence above basically tacitly agrees that Trump won't be convicted, and then proceeds to justify the whole endeavor by saying that its real purpose is to influence the voting public. Of course, it is clear that is exactly what the Democrats intend this to do, but that is not the purpose the Constitution intended for impeachment.

 

It is exactly analogous to the filibustering in the Senate. In the beginning, the thought to use this very important procedure as a political stunt to derail legislation was unthinkable. Right up until it wasn't, and today filibustering is just a common tactic applied against any legislation you don't like.

 

Impeachments are following this same trajectory. Because of the obvious political division inherent in this impeachment proceeding, only the Democrats are trying to frame this as "let's get to the truth." The Republican mantra is "let's get this farce over with".  Both sides have already written off a conviction. It is a political stunt designed to influence voters. That is not the intent of an impeachment.  If Trump can be accused of abuse of power for his actions to use the powers of the presidency to dig up dirt on Biden, can the Democrats not also be accused of abuse of power for using the powers of impeachment to benefit their own campaign?

 

(And yes, this question is absolutely intended to spawn a very interesting tangent, because there are some obvious answers to this, and some obvious rebuttals to those obvious answers.)

 

Both sides are guilty of using their powers in a questionable way to dig up dirt on a political opponent to influence voters.  I don't think "truth" or what is best for the country has anything to do with this.

 

The fact that some posters on here can't even use Trump's name shows that the voting public probably isn't interested in "truth".  One poster can only refer to him as "45".  Another writes his name in subscript.  Those aren't signs of people interested in truth. Then, there is the other side that glorifies the Trump the Demagogue as a hero, oblivious to how destructive this guy really is. Both positions are equally dangerous, and this forum is a microcosm of what is happening in the USA. This impeachment is not about "truth". It is about politics.

 

Someone asked if there was any genuine negative to this impeachment. Yes. This is a genuine negative. The misuse of impeachment as a political tool is a very huge negative. But after the Clinton fiasco, it is to be expected.

 

 

 

 

 

 

Edited January 18, 2020 by Monomial

[Sujo]

7 hours ago, WalkingOrders said:

Age 61 Ret. USN, mostly liberal voting in my younger years, not an early Trump supporter, but as I am a Paleo conservative I find I cannot argue the successes of the Trump Presidency despite his crassness. Likewise, please allow me to list what it is in the Democrat party that frighten me and I mean this sincerely. In my life I have never witnessed ANY of the following:

1. As a result of losing an election Democrats have called for ALL of the following: a. Abolishing the Electoral college b. Lowering voting age to 16. c. Changing the makeup of the Supreme Court, or rotating consevative justices off of the court. 

2. In a confirmation hearing of an honorable man for the Supreme Court, the Democrats paraded women who evaporated under questioning, to accuse this man of repeatedly taking part in gang rapes. They did this in front of wife and Children.

3. The DEM Speaker of the house accused the President in writing in official memo of being a man Compromised by the Russians, and therefore potentially under their direct control. She did the exact same thing less then one week ago and included the Senate Majority leader as well in her accusations.

4. For over 3 years the DEM party accused the President of being a Russian asset.

5. The Democrat party PAID for a created story, that claimed the President hired Russian Prostitutes to urinate on a hotel bed used by the previous President and first Lady, for his sadistic pleasure. The story was then pushed to the Press and the inelligence agencies of the USA, where intrinched partisans used the story in an attempt to take down the President. 

The Democrats have yet to apologize. The IG report found zero truth to any of this. The Mueller report found insufficient evidence of any conspiracy between Trump and Russia. Democrats attempted to use this to impeach Trump and failed. 

6. The Democrats made their desire to Impeach Trump since before he took office

7. Democrats have pushed for Decriminalization of US border, and are obviously changing the voting Demographic of the USA, through 20 million illegal aliens in the USA.

8. They accuse all who disagree as being part of an insane army of Trump supporters who are all racists.

9. The Democrats have tied the issue of climate change to a socialst style takeover of the US Economy. If you disagree see Green New Deal, see front runner Bernie Sanders comments re Nationalizinf the fossil fuels industry in the USA, while throwing oil executives in jail. This is EXACTLY what Hugo Chavez said he would do. Yes, I am fearful of avowed socialist taking control of the most prosperous economy in 50 years.

10. The push for free medical, even to 20 million illegals, and anyone who can step into the country, at costs unfathomable even to the Democrats pushing these programs.

 

Trump, has nothing to do with my reasons for moving as far away from this far left mob as I can get. I fear them taking power. By any reasonable measure Donald J. Trump has been an outstanding President. No matter how rude his speech is. He does not shy from attacking those who attack him. He has been a strong President, and a good one, surely not deserving of impeachment. I do not see any impeachable offense from my point of view, and view this as an extension of what is an illegal attempt to remove a President, and regain the Senate. found your comments rational, I hope you find mine the same.

1.  Trump has also called for the abolition of thevelectoral college. Many have.

 

2. Its a lifetime supreme court decision. Should the committee refuse to hear evidence before deciding? Do you recall trump parading bill clintons accusers in front of hilary?

 

3. She accused, and rightly so. Mueller did find collusion but considered Don Jnr and friends too dumb to know it was bad. Trump also refuses to acknowledge russia interfered despite every agency and even putin himself saying he did.

 

4. No, some accused him of being a russian asset. Considering his love for vlad it seems a reasonable assertion.

 

5. Wrong. Ted cruz hired fusion gps. When he dropped out hilarys campaign took it on. They didnt pay for a story, the paid for an investigation, like everyone does. Nothing in the dossier has proven false. In fact most has been verified. The pee pee is not verified, yet.

 

6. If he did nothing wrong they couldnt impeach him. Remind me of moscow mitchs comments about the obama presidency.

 

7. Crossing the border is merely a misdemeanor, its like getting a parking ticket. There are not 20 million illegals in the US. Its between 10 and 12 million. Enough with the alternative facts.

 

8. Not all trump supporters are racist. But all racists support trump.

 

9. You already have socialism, who pays for police, fire etc. Climate change is real, thats a fact, get over it. So it stands to reason the govt should try to find ways not so harmful.

 

10. Its not frer medical, everyone pays. Like the rest of the developed world that sees health care as a right for all, not just those that can afford it.

 

What has trump done thats good?

 

How is the congress doing its constitutional duty illegal?

[Sujo]

42 minutes ago, Monomial said:

 

It is interesting what people admit to unintentionally. This sentence above basically tacitly agrees that Trump won't be convicted, and then proceeds to justify the whole endeavor by saying that its real purpose is to influence the voting public. Of course, it is clear that is exactly what the Democrats intend this to do, but that is not the purpose the Constitution intended for impeachment.

 

It is exactly analogous to the filibustering in the Senate. In the beginning, the thought to use this very important procedure as a political stunt to derail legislation was unthinkable. Right up until it wasn't, and today filibustering is just a common tactic applied against any legislation you don't like.

 

Impeachments are following this same trajectory. Because of the obvious political division inherent in this impeachment proceeding, only the Democrats are trying to frame this as "let's get to the truth." The Republican mantra is "let's get this farce over with".  Both sides have already written off a conviction. It is a political stunt designed to influence voters. That is not the intent of an impeachment.  If Trump can be accused of abuse of power for his actions to use the powers of the presidency to dig up dirt on Biden, can the Democrats not also be accused of abuse of power for using the powers of impeachment to benefit their own campaign?

 

(And yes, this question is absolutely intended to spawn a very interesting tangent, because there are some obvious answers to this, and some obvious rebuttals to those obvious answers.)

 

Both sides are guilty of using their powers in a questionable way to dig up dirt on a political opponent to influence voters.  I don't think "truth" or what is best for the country has anything to do with this.

 

The fact that some posters on here can't even use Trump's name shows that the voting public probably isn't interested in "truth".  One poster can only refer to him as "45".  Another writes his name in subscript.  Those aren't signs of people interested in truth. Then, there is the other side that glorifies the Trump the Demagogue as a hero, oblivious to how destructive this guy really is. Both positions are equally dangerous, and this forum is a microcosm of what is happening in the USA. This impeachment is not about "truth". It is about politics.

 

Someone asked if there was any genuine negative to this impeachment. Yes. This is a genuine negative. The misuse of impeachment as a political tool is a very huge negative. But after the Clinton fiasco, it is to be expected.

 

 

 

 

 

 

No. He should be removed but the senate will not do its duty.

 

That doesnt mean congress shouldnt do theirs. And if the senate refuses to fo their duty the public should ser them for what they are and vote accordingly.

[mogandave]

5 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No. He should be removed but the senate will not do its duty.

 

That doesnt mean congress shouldnt do theirs. And if the senate refuses to fo their duty the public should ser them for what they are and vote accordingly.

So if he’s guilty why bother with the trial? 
 

 

[Sujo]

3 minutes ago, mogandave said:

So if he’s guilty why bother with the trial? 
 

 

To show the voting public how corrupt senate republucans are.

 

Oh its also their sworn duty to do so.

Edited January 18, 2020 by Sujo

[rabas]

15 minutes ago, Sujo said:

No. He should be removed but the senate will not do its duty.

The Senate's duty is to decide. It is not their duty to remove him based on your or other's opinions or dislikes.