The Trump Impeachment Thread

[eran0004]

In response to my (I think rather excellent, correct, balanced and reasonable) prior post, someone asked a reasonable question, "can ours (the US) be a healthy and functioning system?", a system that accepts impeachment, trial and acquittal as reality and then moves on instead of dwelling morosely on the what-ifs and might-have-beens.

A long-term poll of the American people seems to suggest we really might have a healthy and functioning system, despite the fact some foreign nationals and domestic subgroups might be a bit less than satisfied or very satisfied.

How is personal satisfaction linked to system design qualities? And how can you tell what the baseline value of a healthy and functioning system is?

 

[Joey D]

It makes me sick that elected officials will act out of fear instead of doing what's right by the oaths they swore in on. I want to yell so much at how awful this is.

Do the right thing. Let history judge you, not your constituents. So what if you lose your seat next year. You did the right thing. That should mean more.

Congresspeople rarely care what the constituents think. They're typically swayed by money and they feared losing that. If there were term limits, you'd probably see less of that, but you also have to remember most politicians at any level are immoral, unethical, and all-around asshats.

 

[DesertPenguin]

And it's 🤬 sickening

 

[Rallywagon]

I posted it here before, apparently you didn't see it. Here's Senator Marco Rubio:

"Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office. ...


"... I will not vote to remove the President because doing so would inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage to our already divided nation."

Not to mention this.
"During an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, the Kentucky Republican (McConnell) said that "everything" he does "during this, I'm coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this, to the extent that we can."

"We don't have the kind of ball control on this that a typical issue, for example, comes over from the House, if I don't like it, we don't take it up," McConnell stated about an impeachment trial. "We have no choice but to take it up, but we'll be working through this process, hopefully in a fairly short period of time, in total coordination with White House counsel's office and the people who are representing the president in the well of the Senate."
I mean, that is literally admitting they had no intentions of upholding their end of process and are just doing what their supreme leader wants them too. That, I'd say, even goes beyond just partisan politics.

 

[DesertPenguin]

Not to mention this.
"During an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, the Kentucky Republican (McConnell) said that "everything" he does "during this, I'm coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president's position and our position as to how to handle this, to the extent that we can."

"We don't have the kind of ball control on this that a typical issue, for example, comes over from the House, if I don't like it, we don't take it up," McConnell stated about an impeachment trial. "We have no choice but to take it up, but we'll be working through this process, hopefully in a fairly short period of time, in total coordination with White House counsel's office and the people who are representing the president in the well of the Senate."
I mean, that is literally admitting they had no intentions of upholding their end of process and are just doing what their supreme leader wants them too. That, I'd say, even goes beyond just partisan politics.

How long until the turtle man drops dead and someone takes his place? It won't stop...

 

[Danoff]

If there were term limits, you'd probably see less of that

I'd like to see that.

 

[Scaff]

They also noted the House failed to make a convincing case, lacking evidence, witnesses and even a crime.

Seriously!

They also made sure that no witnesses or evidence could be heard during the trail!

As one who likes to bang on about precedent, you seem to have forgotten that little fact breaks with precedent.

 

[Dotini]

Seriously!

They also made sure that no witnesses or evidence could be heard during the trail!

As one who lies to bang on about precedent, you seem to have forgotten that little fact breaks with precedent.

Yes, seriously.
During the "trail", as you say, it was the Senate's job to consider the impeachment evidence provided by the House. It fell short, end of story.

The biggest problem was the House rushed its part of the process, failing to take the slightest effort to get sound witnesses and evidence. They know what they were doing with open eyes - eyes blinded by rage, fury and ******re impatience. Now they get to live with it. But wait! They can do it all over again and do it the right way - if they want to.

 

[Scaff]

Yes, seriously.
During the "trail", as you say, it was the Senate's job to consider the impeachment evidence provided by the House. It fell short, end of story.

The biggest problem was the House rushed its part of the process, failing to take the slightest effort to get sound witnesses and evidence. They know what they were doing with open eyes - eyes blinded by rage, fury and ******re impatience. Now they get to live with it. But wait! They can do it all over again and do it the right way - if they want to.

And during a trial its perfectly normal for new evidence and the associated witnesses to be questioned by both sides, and it's not as if at least one witness and his evidence weren't rather well known!

The biggest problem was quite clear that those who cleared him did so it quite clear and public contempt of the law and constitution in collusion with the accused. When the accused admits to the crime on television, and his staff corroborate that on television, to not be able to see that simply sees your confirmation bias rear its head once again.

 

[Dotini]

And during a trial its perfectly normal for new evidence and the associated witnesses to be questioned by both sides, and it's not as if at least one witness and his evidence weren't rather well known!

The biggest problem was quite clear that those who cleared him did so it quite clear and public contempt of the law and constitution in collusion with the accused. When the accused admits to the crime on television, and his staff corroborate that on television, to not be able to see that simply sees your confirmation bias rear its head once again.

Do you understand the House failed to do its job?

 

[Danoff]

During the "trail", as you say, it was the Senate's job to consider the impeachment evidence provided by the House. It fell short, end of story.

No, no matter how many times you say it, this is wrong. The evidence did not fall short. Senators made up their minds to acquit regardless of knowing that he was guilty of an impeachable offense. This is literally what they're saying. They're not trying to hide it, they're telling you that this is what they did. There was nothing that the House presented that fell short of anything. The Senate made up their minds not to carry out their oaths of office.

I don't know how this can be made any clearer to you.

Do you understand the House failed to do its job?

The Senate failed to do its job. And they're actually stating that as clearly as you'll ever see.

Edit:

House: Here, take a look at this clear cut case with an admission of guilt.
Senate: No thanks, we're not going to do our jobs.
Dotini: The house failed to do its job.
Senate: No, seriously Dotini, we're not going to do our jobs. Like... just not going to do it.
Dotini: Right, the house failed to do its job.
Senate: Amazing! How do we have such willfully blind loyalty? We should do some more corrupt stuff.

 

[Dotini]

No, no matter how many times you say it, this is wrong. The evidence did not fall short. Senators made up their minds to acquit regardless of knowing that he was guilty of an impeachable offense. This is literally what they're saying. They're not trying to hide it, they're telling you that this is what they did. There was nothing that the House presented that fell short of anything. The Senate made up their minds not to carry out their oaths of office.

I don't know how this can be made any clearer to you.



The Senate failed to do its job. And they're actually stating that as clearly as you'll ever see.

I reiterate. Article #1 was technically impeachable. But the House failed woefully in presenting sound evidence and witnesses when it was perfectly clear they could have done so. When they could have had Bolton by going to court (per precedent), they chose not to. Ship of fools.

The Senate agreed the President's conduct was not ideal, but did not rise to the level of removal from office for a variety of reasons.

Article #2 was not even impeachable.

I don't know how I can make this any clearer to you.

Edit:
Of all sad words of tongue and pen, the saddest are these, "It might have been".

John Greenleaf Whittier​

The happiest words are, "I told you so".

Gore Vidal​

 

[Danoff]

I reiterate. Article #1 was technically impeachable. But the House failed woefully in presenting sound evidence and witnesses when it was perfectly clear they could have done so. When they could have had Bolton by going to court (per precedent), they chose not to. Ship of fools.

The Senate agreed the President's conduct was not ideal, but did not rise to the level of removal from office for a variety of reasons.

Article #2 was not even impeachable.

I don't know how I can make this any clearer to you.

By not ignoring what I just said and instead parroting this stuff right back at me.

What good would Bolton have done? They refused to hear witnesses not because they thought Trump was innocent (and they actually came out and said this too), they refused to hear witnesses because they knew he was guilty. They're saying this to you. Why can't you hear them? I posted it here in this thread.

They didn't need to hear Bolton because they had already made up their minds. Trump was guilty. They knew it. Guilty as charged. They also knew they were not going to do their jobs.

On Thursday night, Republican Lamar Alexander, a retiring senator, said he would vote against witnesses, while fellow GOP senator Susan Collins, who is up for re-election this year, said she would vote in favor.

Alexander’s announcement effectively closed the door on the possibility Democrats would be able to force the Senate to bring on witnesses to testify in the trial.

Trump’s conduct was inappropriate but did “not meet the US constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense,” Alexander said.

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did.”

Alexander is literally telling you this. Why are you not listening?

So what good would Bolton have done?

 

[Dotini]

By not ignoring what I just said and instead parroting this stuff right back at me.

What good would Bolton have done? They refused to hear witnesses not because they thought Trump was innocent (and they actually came out and said this too), they refused to hear witnesses because they knew he was guilty. They're saying this to you. Why can't you hear them? I posted it here in this thread.

They didn't need to hear Bolton because they had already made up their minds. Trump was guilty. They knew it. Guilty as charged. They also knew they were not going to do their jobs.



Alexander is literally telling you this. Why are you not listening?

So what good would Bolton have done?

Read your own posted words. Let me hold your beer.

Trump’s conduct was inappropriate but did “not meet the US constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense,” Alexander said.

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did.”

 

[Danoff]

Read your own posted words:


On Thursday night, Republican Lamar Alexander, a retiring senator, said he would vote against witnesses, while fellow GOP senator Susan Collins, who is up for re-election this year, said she would vote in favor.

Alexander’s announcement effectively closed the door on the possibility Democrats would be able to force the Senate to bring on witnesses to testify in the trial.

Trump’s conduct was inappropriate but did “not meet the US constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense,” Alexander said.

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did.”

I did. You apparently did not read the part you bolded.

“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did.”

Alexander is admitting outright that the president did it, and that he is voting against witnesses because he is not going to do anything about it.

Rubio: "Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office. ... ... I will not vote to remove the President because doing so would inflict extraordinary and potentially irreparable damage to our already divided nation."

Rubio is admitting to you outright that it does rise to the level of impeachment and he still doesn't care.

This is not the democrats telling you this, this is the republicans. Take them at their word, they're admitting corruption to you, and you're refusing to hear it.


Edit:

Also, answer my question. What good would bolton have done?

 

[Dotini]

Rubio is admitting to you outright that it does rise to the level of impeachment and he still doesn't care.

My poor, dear confused young friend, you are confusing impeachment with removal.

Edit: What Bolton could have provided: Sworn, cross-examined testimony from an eye witness.

 

[Danoff]

My poor, dear deluded and confused young friend, you are confusing impeachment with removal.

No, I am not. I see why you're saying that, and you're mistaken. I can't even fathom the mental gymnastics you're going through right now. You are running so hard from the truth it's mind-boggling. I can only imagine how bad it would be in the Republicans were less honest about what they're doing. Imagine if for a moment instead of Alexander admitting that he doesn't care what witnesses have to say because Trump is guilty, he instead told you what you wanted to hear and said something ridiculous and totally at odds with procedure like "the House should have called the witnesses". You'd eat that nonsense up, but he didn't. I don't know why he didn't, because they don't mind spreading nonsense when it suits them, but he didn't. Instead he told you the truth, that he doesn't care what they have to say because he's guilty. And you still don't believe it.

Imagine if Rubio had said that the case was not strong enough to convict the president. He could have said that, it wouldn't be true, but he could have said it. And you'd lap that up as fast as you could. But no, he was more honest than that, and said the yes, Trump did what he admitted to doing, and yes it is an impeachable offense (because of course it is), and no, he's not going to do anything about it. And you still don't believe it.

They're openly admitting their corruption and you refuse to take them at their word.


Edit:

Answer my question. What good would bolton have done?

Edit: What Bolton could have provided: Sworn, cross-examined testimony from an eye witness.

And how would that have done any good? The Senate Republicans know he did it, they admit it. How would that have changed anything at all?

Either way you answer, it is a failure of the Senate. If you say "well they could have been persuaded", well then their rationale for refusing witnesses is flawed and corrupt. Because they turned a blind-eye to their obligations to hear the case. If you say "well no, it wouldn't have changed anything because they already made up their minds", then you admit, as they have, that they corruptly ignore their oaths of office.

 

[Dotini]

And how would that have done any good? The Senate Republicans know he did it, they admit it. How would that have changed anything at all?

If it would not have done any good, why then are House Democrats even at this hour seeking Bolton's deposition? A 2nd impeachment attempt would be entirely justified, in my view.

Look. I know you are a deeply unhappy man. Perhaps the best remedy for you would be to campaign and vote for Democratic Senatorial and Presidential candidates. A good question is, what is the fallout of this impeachment process on this fall's elections?

 

[Danoff]

If it would not have done any good, why then are House Democrats even at this hour seeking Bolton's deposition? A 2nd impeachment attempt would be entirely justified, in my view.

Because they want the public to know. This is not hard. Because some members of the public still have their fingers buried so far in their ears that they're touching grey matter.

Look. I know you are a deeply unhappy man.

What are you trying to accomplish with this? I'm quite happy. Thanks for your fake concern.

Perhaps the best remedy for you would be to campaign and vote for Democratic Senatorial and Presidential candidates.

The best remedy for the United States as a whole would be for the Senate Republicans, and Trump, to be voted out.

A good question is, what is the fallout of this impeachment process on this fall's elections?

Deflection.

 

[baldgye]

My poor, dear confused young friend, you are confusing impeachment with removal.

You mean “Impeachment?”

 

[Famine]

Look. I know you are a deeply unhappy man.

I think you have been told more than enough times about playing the man rather than the ball.

 

[Dotini]

I think you have been told more than enough times about playing the man rather than the ball.

My apologies. Perhaps I mistook anger and insistence as unhappiness.

 

[Famine]

My apologies. Perhaps I mistook anger and insistence as unhappiness.

And neither is relevant to any discussion. Again, more than enough times.

 

[Dotini]

And neither is relevant to any discussion. Again, more than enough times.

Again, I apologize and will not let it happen again. I try my utmost to be polite and stoically endure quite a lot of personal criticism, I feel. I know that is not an excuse.

 

[Liquid]

They also noted the House failed to make a convincing case, lacking evidence, witnesses and even a crime.

Rich given that the Senate refused to hear new evidence or accept new testimony.

 

[Scaff]

Do you understand the House failed to do its job?

I think you've got that the wrong way around, but great job in avoiding every point raised.

 

[Dotini]

the Senate refused to hear new evidence or accept new testimony.

That is 100% correct.

However, it was the position of the majority that, very strictly constitutionally speaking, it was the responsibility of the House to develop the case, replete with witnesses and evidence, for the Senate to hear. They also took the position that the Senate had no constitutional requirement to provide new or additional evidences and witnesses. So they cynically and successfully took advantage of what they took to be explicit provisions of the constitution in order to prevail and squelch new evidence and witnesses. With me so far? Now what to do? This does not need to be the final result. We can impeach again and next make a much better case. Today Trump got up and bragged "Yes, I have made mistakes, and this is the result". He then held up a newspaper with the one word headline, "Acquittal". And then he gloated.

 

[Danoff]

That is 100% correct.

However, it was the position of the majority that, very strictly constitutionally speaking, it was the responsibility of the House to develop the case, replete with witnesses and evidence, for the Senate to hear. They also took the position that the Senate had no constitutional requirement to provide new or additional evidences and witnesses. So they cynically and successfully took advantage of explicit provisions of the constitution in order to prevail and squelch new evidence and witnesses. With me so far? Now what to do? This does not need to be the final result. We can impeach again and next make a much better case. Today Trump got up and bragged "Yes, I have made mistakes, and this is the result". He then held up a newspaper with the one word headline, "Acquittal". And then he gloated.

Please cite the constitutional provisions that allow the Senate to "squelch new evidence and witnesses". The House indicts (impeaches), the Senate tries and convicts or acquits. The senate has heard new evidence in every previous impeachment that reached it.

They also point out that the Senate has called witnesses in every previous impeachment trial, including those of Presidents Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. In refusing new witnesses, they say, Senate Republicans are shirking their duty and aiding in a cover-up instigated by Mr. Trump.

The senate didn't take a single position on the subject of witnesses and evidence. They took a variety of them. However a key Senator that effectively killed the vote for witnesses, Alexander, explained his decision in much the same way that Senator Marco Rubio explained his - that witnesses weren't needed because they knew they would not convict even if you just accepted everything the House put forth as true.

This was actually one of the rules for the Senate floor, that anything which would not result in a conviction on its own could be tossed out and not effectively heard. I'm still looking for a citation for that. Anyway the previous paragraph here should be sufficient to make my point.

 

[Dotini]

Please cite the constitutional provisions that allow the Senate to "squelch new evidence and witnesses". The House indicts (impeaches), the Senate tries and convicts or acquits. The senate has heard new evidence in every previous impeachment that reached it.



The senate didn't take a single position on the subject of witnesses and evidence. They took a variety of them. However a key Senator that effectively killed the vote for witnesses, Alexander, explained his decision in much the same way that Senator Marco Rubio explained his - that witnesses weren't needed because they knew they would not convict even if you just accepted everything the House put forth as true.

This was actually one of the rules for the Senate floor, that anything which would not result in a conviction on its own could be tossed out and not effectively heard. I'm still looking for a citation for that. Anyway the previous paragraph here should be sufficient to make my point.

I can't defend any position. I'm a dead player, a bystander with limited eyesight. What should happen in an ideal world did not happen, I agree. In our real and corrupt world, something else happened. I'm still trying to understand it. My problem is that I try to describe what I see (badly) and think I understand. I should stop doing that.

 

[Biggles]

I think we are in uncharted territory here. Faced with evidence of his complicity in wrong-doing Nixon lost the support of key allies in the GOP caucus & resigned. Faced with evidence that he had lied under oath, Clinton (eventually) admitted to it & apologized. Trump, faced with evidence of wrong-doing insists that his actions were "perfect" &, backed by (almost) the entire GOP caucus, considers himself blameless. This is going to be further encouragement for Trump to behave without any regard for constitutional norms.