Republican Senator Says Trump Is Guilty, But "So What?"
Statement of Lamar Alexander
“I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense.
“There is no need for more evidence to prove that the president asked Ukraine to investigate Joe Biden and his son, Hunter; he said this on television on October 3, 2019, and during his July 25, 2019, telephone call with the president of Ukraine.
There is no need for more evidence to conclude that the president withheld United States aid, at least in part, to pressure Ukraine to investigate the Bidens; the House managers have proved this with what they call a ‘mountain of overwhelming evidence.’
There is no need to consider further the frivolous second article of impeachment that would remove the president for asserting his constitutional prerogative to protect confidential conversations with his close advisers.
“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.
“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 believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday.
Tags
Who is online
73 visitors
So, Trump is guilty as hell, but there is no punishment.
Alexander could have gone down in history as a hero, but he choked.
There could very well be punishment. It just won't come in the form of the Senate removing him from office. However, you don't have to rely on that because we have regular elections. There could also be more subtle political consequences.
You are on record as saying he has done nothing wrong.
I guess Lamar Alexander doesnt agree with you.
We need to rid this nation of Trumpism, asap.
Only in your limited,slanted, and narrow minded opinion. You will get your chance to vote; just like everyone else.
Just look to all of your polls to comfort you between now and the election. They worked out so well in 2016.
It’s simple really.
If the trial is rigged to keep hidden the most damming, most important, most relevant evidence, then it’s not a trial.
Nor is it an acquittal.
It’s a coverup.
If this is what happens tomorrow, the Senate will be disgraced.
Ask the ever helpful Biden:
“In a number of previous impeachment trials, the Senate has reached the judgment that its constitutional role as a sole trier of impeachments does not require it to take new evidence or hear live witness testimony.”
That's what the lefties will be proclaiming from now until election day, to no avail.
Bolton and the rest would not provided any new or relevant "evidence".
But hey, the Dems can try again to impeach him again in his second term, if they manage to hang onto the House.
Where have the House managers demanded that the Senate hear live witnesses? Hint: They haven't. In fact multiple times they've requested a week to depose witnesses and gather documents. NONE of that would be in an open hearing. JUST LIKE Clinton's.
Prove it!
Why wait? Bolton's book comes out in March, early talk indicates it will outline numerous other impeachable offenses.
Who has literally NOTHING to do with trump's impeachment.
Hint listen to the damn Democrats in the Senate. The House Democrats don't get a say in the matter. Unless you count Nancy Pelosi- who thinks she gets a say in everything.
So that blows your argument out of the water.
You mean the shit they should have done during their damn investigation in the House? That is their damn job! It is no one's fault but their own they came to court unprepared.
So how were the Trumps defense council allowed to show the parts of the House witness interviews that were omitted by the prosecution? They already have all of the Democrat's "information" in the Articles of Impeachment. So nothing new is going to get presented. Oh, and the Clinton trial had no new witnesses- they heard taped testimony from the House investigation. That is it.
Try bitching at the Democrats for fucking up their own impeachment efforts for a change.
In case you haven't heard, the Trump defense is that, sure he did it, but he shouldn't be punished for it.
Actually, no, NO it doesn't. The key term here is 'live witness testimony'. The Clinton Impeachment HAD 3 witnesses, it did NOT have 'live witness testimony'.
Really? Then please explain why the Senate Impeachment rules include processes and procedures for subpoenaing witnesses and documents?
Are you unaware that there CLOSED depositions and then there were OPEN hearings on LIVE TV? I mean you couldn't have missed the House morons busting into the SCIF trying to pretend that the GOP was locked out of the depositions.
BTW those deposition transcripts are online and PROVE that the Minority counsel and GOP Congressmen got the same amount of time as the Majority did. In short, Trump's lawyers lied.
Point?
Why not?
That's because there was YEARS of investigations by a Special Counsel. Barr refused to even open an investigation.
False. The 3 witnesses were deposed, in CLOSED session, by a committee chosen by the Senate. Clips of those SENATE depositions were shown during the trial.
Get educated...
In case you haven't heard, the Trump defense doesn't have anything to do with the case put on by the House managers. The case is theirs, and theirs alone.
It is pretty amazing how the Trump defense devolved into technicalities. They totally gave up on trying to show he didnt do what he was accused of, but rather the defense became that the House didnt follow procedures properly (which seems to be a matter of opinion). I wonder how happy Trump will be that he might get off on technicalities.
It seems to me that this is all setting up an extended period of time when much of America is going to be talking about how a guilty defendant got off. Sort of like OJ redux.
Hard to imagine how this will play well for Trump getting re-elected.
Dems have no control over the timing of Bolton's book release. Unless you're suggesting that Bolton is a Dem ?
The ONLY testimony that is NOT online is the Jennifer Williams supplemental that Pence classified.
Trump could release the IG report anytime his corrupt little heart desires.
You're welcome.
That wasn't the question. Why deflect?
try again....
Rep. Adam B. Schiff , California Democrat, and other impeachment managers repeatedly talk about the 17 witnesses interviewed during the House ’s secretive depositions. But they do not mention an 18th witness, Michael Atkinson , the intelligence community’s inspector general who has firsthand knowledge of the origins of the whistleblower complaint that led to the impeachment.
BTW XD, if they were 'interrogated', GOP Congressman were doing it for the same amount of time as the Democrats.
When did they say 'beyond a reasonable doubt' goose? You know that isn't a standard in Impeachment right?
One of the witnesses that refused to testify came forward and is now willing to testify. Bolton is a FACT witness. Trump's lawyers claim that they need evidence that Trump connected the aid with the investigations. Bolton can testify to that fact.
The reason why the Senate should call at LEAST Bolton is that they took an oath to do 'impartial justice'.
You're comparing apples and ardvarks.
Trials subpoena witnesses who then testify and documents which are admitted as evidence. The presiding JUDGE decides what is admissible, NOT the Jury.
The Senate Impeachment rules and the Resolution governs how the trial is conducted.
Give me a fucking break. Save that bullshit conspiracy crap for the more gullible.
Michael Atkinson wasn't deposed, he participated in a closed door hearing. IF the GOP thought that the transcript of that HEARING was so fucking important, they would have encouraged Trump's defense to request it's release or if needed, subpoenaed it. Since that didn't happen, it's pretty clear that it isn't exculpatory.
BTFW, Ratcliff is a dick and he proves it every one of the hearings he participates in.
Oh and BTFW, Trump can release the IG's report on the whistleblower anytime his corrupt little heart desires.
Then he should have been called before the Senate and shown to the world that being true. Instead you have Senate Republicans, and the Whitehouse, in an absolute panic that he "might" have to testify under oath.
Doesn't mean anything in the bookis untrue.
Is Trump going to violate the Constitution and law again?
Nothing in the yet unreleased book has been proven false. It will fail with the Trumpettes, who could witness him shoot someone on 5th Avenue and still vote for him.
Sham of a Presidency? I agree. As for Congress, why don't you ask McConnell about the 300+ bills sitting on his desk, most of which are bipartisan from the House?
Thousands of indictments are filed in the US every day that are derived from incomplete investigations. The investigation doesn't end the day the indictment [Articles of Impeachment] are filed.
The witnesses that were refused were NOT, repeat NOT fact witnesses. The House Intel Committee DID call the fact witnesses that the Republicans asked for.
Yet Senators, Trump's lawyers and YOU are whining about how the House Majority is conducting their proceedings even though they are following the rules passed by a GOP House Majority. I guess those consequences only hold in the Senate right?
It drips with hypocrisy.
Remind me, how many Benghazi investigations were there?
Keep counting....
Yup, those damn Republicans couldn't spot a guilty person if the Democrats shoved all the evidence and witnesses in their face.
See we agree on something...
Nope, only talking about ONE investigation goose but you knew that.
Some day maybe one of you will acknowledge that under American jurisprudence, hearsay testimony is admissible when principle witnesses are prohibited or refuse to testify.
Yes, I was pointing out your hypocritical comment.
I never said they were. Strawman.
What lead you to that ridiculous conclusion?
Would you care to at least put a cap on how many more millions you want to spend?
I wonder if you realize the level of incompetence by the Republican leadership that would require.
There were 8 investigations and over 30 Congressional hearings.
Were we talking about that goose? Hint: NO.
Would you like to ADD that prospective investigation?
How many people did the Republicans get to call to testify in the House? Zero. That's where the witnesses are set up for the Senators, not in the Senate. Bug Eye controlled the impeachment like a Stalinist trial. No witnesses for the accused and no representation for the accused.
Can't you see how a judge would react if the prosecutors came to court and told him even though we have overwhelming evidence for a conviction, we're not prepared for the trial after not even giving the accused a chance to defend himself with his lawyers. The Communists and Fascists are both included in the Totalitarian Pie and they showed us just how they did it in the Soviet Union and Nazi Germany in this case.
Yet Trump and his cult did everything in their power to keep people with first hand knowledge from testifying and we all know why.
Now, Bolton's book will come out and his cult will have to explain why they didn't want the truth to be told when it mattered.
That is false. Volker, Morrison and Hall testified at the GOP's request.
Trump chose not to participate in the Judiciary Committee hearings. Neither he or you can whine since he made that choice.
Again, Trump had a chance, he chose NOT to take it.
Ridiculous hyperbole.
No it's called a cover up.
Hey you were the one whining about Trump facing his accuser. He could have done so, he CHOSE not to. Now he'll face him without the ability to cross examine him. But hey, it's Trump so he'll just sling shit. No worries.
YOU really don't understand that in our legal system the prosecution subpoenas witnesses and documents and that neither the defense or the jury get to decide whether those witnesses testify. The Senate 'trial' isn't and wasn't conducted under our 'legal system', it was conducted by the Trump cult.
In your uninformed comment:
It shouldn't be 'one of the most ridiculous things' you've ever heard since your vast knowledge of our legal system should have lead you to acknowledge that the evidence code includes "adverse inference'.
Note that adverse inference not only covers destroyed evidence, but also covers withholding documents AND witnesses.
"In impeachment proceedings, the House of Representatives charges an official of the federal government by approving, by majority vote, articles of impeachment. A committee of representatives, called “managers,” acts as prosecutors before the Senate. The Senate sits as a High Court of Impeachment in which senators consider evidence, hear witnesses, and vote to acquit or convict the impeached official. "
The "Prosecutors" (House Managers) brought their evidence to the "High Court" (Senate). The High Court" (Senate) made their ruling after hearing the "Prosecutors" (House Managers) EVIDENCE.
Which "High Court Judge " calls their own witness's anyway ?
Just sour grapes and something new to bitch about after the impeachment failed miserably to do what Democrats wanted.
Hell. They're blaming the High Court Senate for not becoming "Prosecutors" instead of remaining Judges (Like they're supposed to remain).
The House shouldn't have been in such a rush to impeach.
They should never have relied on the Senate to put their case on for them.
Or in a rush to only use "Witness's" that Used "I Feel" as proof of a guilt.
Not whining goose. Just correcting your mistaken posit.
Where did I say anything about Bolton? Why deflect?
The Intel Committee requested that he testify, NOT the Judiciary committee.
Why? His book will be released long before any court ruling would happen. The difference is that with the book, Trump's lawyers won't be able to cross examine him. All they'll be able to do now is follow Trump's MO and attack him.
"...but there is no punishment."
Nancy, in her condescending way, said that her purpose wasn't to punish Trump, but to remove him. Not even the queen wants to punish him. She's just another who doesn't trust the voting peon.
There are plenty of idiots in both parties! Lamar just happens to be one that belongs to the GOP.
Just for the time he has been in office, nobody has proved Trump is guilty of anything impeachable, thus what will he be punished for other than just being Trump?
The point of this seed is that a republican senator admitted that the House managers overwhelmingly proved Trump's guilt.
Why should we accept Trump being Trump? He's a fricking slimeball. [deleted]
John - do you even read what you write???? "House managers overwhelmingly proved Trump's guilt."
What he said was "has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense." The House proved that they have no friggin' idea what they were doing other than GET TRUMP!!!!!
No they did not prove anything. If they had, they would not have demanded more witnesses and documents.
Bingo!
Sorry to disappoint you, but hearsay and innuendo are still not admissible evidence in court no matter how much you insist and wish they were.
False. There are dozens of exceptions to the hearsay admissibility rule and one of them it for testimony about prohibited witnesses or witnesses that refuse to testify.
I disagree, and certainly not in the case of the farcical circus being played out by the Democrats in the Senate currently.
Your disagreement doesn't make it less of a fact Ed. I'm not talking about what I feel or believe, I'm talking about documented American jurisprudence.
To each their own.
If you're an American, it's your own too Ed.
So are you implying that if I do not agree with you, that makes me less of a American?
No, I am STATING that as an American you have ownership of the exact same jurisprudence as I.
If you were sincerely interested in the FACTS, you would have used the last 2 days to review the LAW. Since you continue to argue that hearsay is inadmissible, it's obvious to me that you couldn't be bothered, so it would be a waste of my time to cite links in an attempt to dissuade you from your unfounded beliefs.
Carry on...
Perhaps if you were not so condescending to those you feel do not live up to your lofty standards and political ideals, it would be possible to have a meaningful discussion. But that's not going to happen, so in your words, carry on....
Tissue?
You don't want a 'meaningful discussion' Ed. You make your proclamations and then get pissed off when you get called out for them.
This is an adult forum and I post comments to be READ by adults.
Continuing to argue about an issue that you haven't researched and don't even seem really curious about is juvenile. Don't diss me because I've actually devoted the time necessary to UNDERSTAND WTF I'm talking about and am capable of articulating what I've learned.
If you come on here and make ridiculous statements about the LAW, expect me to call you out and post facts. If you don't want to feel condescended to, you can either avoid making ridiculous comments about the law or do some research and educate yourself so you can hang...
Your choice.
Thanks for proving my point. Have a good evening.
Thanks for proving mine. Good morning.
It was inappropriate, but certainly not impeachable, so no punishment is warranted. The upcoming election was not influenced in any way, and the military aid was only delayed, not denied. If I remember correctly, Trump's predecessor refused to send any aid at all. All the Democrats has proven, is that they are unfit and unable to govern
You remember wrong.
That's totally untrue. Are you intentionally ignoring or are you completely unaware that President Trump violated several U. S laws:
Moreover, Trump intentionally established an ongoing conspiracy to fraud Ukraine, by asking the nation to take improper responsibility to announce what we now know to be a fake, phony, investigation scheme. Thus, carrying the near-potential of making that nation complicit.
And now, republicans senators have acted in bad faith to collude with this president in getting an acquittal judgement without a properly carried out trial.
Don't split 'the baby': Either agree or disagree with the sentence, but do not disperse it!
Goose, actually I like your interest in this. But, you are missing the point . Here is what I wrote yet again:
Now do you understand the "words coming out of my mouth"? We know it was fake, because it (the scheme) was busted open by a whisteblower to Congress.
In other words, no real investigation need take place over days or months - the Ukrainian President, himself on demand , was to go to a microphone before world media - and lie about starting an investigation ("Pull a Trump.").
Did you read Sen Alexander's position?
“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation. When elected officials inappropriately interfere with such investigations, it undermines the principle of equal justice under the law. But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate."
Inappropriate does not equal an impeachable offense.
Abuse of power is outlined as an impeachable offense, and that's what he was impeached for.
Put it another way Vic:
The mayor of the town in which you live comes to your house and says, "If you don't vote for me, I will make sure that all EMS will never come to your house if you call 911".
Is that abuse of power?
Obviously. You wouldn't excuse that mayor for doing it to you yet you want to excuse trump for doing the exact same thing.
Lev Parnas attorney has offered his testimony to the impeachment.
Please show us where. "Abuse of power" is nothing more than an open ended criteria and not an impeachable offense.
The mayor of the town in which you live comes to your house and says, "If you don't vote for me, I will make sure that all EMS will never come to your house if you call 911".
The explicit "I will make sure that all EMS will never come to your house if you call 911" would make it extortion, which IS an impeachable offense. You notice that the House and all their legal experts didn't charge "bribery" or "extortion". Then they would have lost on the merits immediately!
Are bribery and extortion not
Abuses of power ?
As you've been told many times, Federalist 65, which your hero Dershowitz lied about multiple times.
Except Hamilton specifically said that it IS.
I'm kind of partial to the professor's version.
Except Hamilton specifically said that it IS.
Regardless of what was said, there was a Constitutional Convention and the writing of the Constitution. There was at the Constitutional Convention a proposal to include simple maladministration as a ground for impeachment. It was rejected on the ground that it would make it too easy for Congress to have the president serve at the will of Congress and would turn us into a parliamentary democracy where a vote of no confidence is enough.
AGAIN....If the democrats had a clear case of bribery and/or extortion they would have charged the President with that and believe me, Pelosi wouldn't have been waving it around for weeks - she would have ran it over to the Senate!
Bullshit. The Federalist Papers have been cited as underlying intentions of the Founders in hundreds of court rulings since the ratification of the Constitution.
You are just regurgitating Dershowitz's bullshit.
The actual reason that 'maladministration' was rejected is that they found it to be 'too vague a term' and substituted it with 'high crimes and misdemeanors'.
James Madison: So vague a term will be equivalent to a tenure during pleasure of the Senate.
Madison didn't like the idea of the Senate being elevated over the House and actually preferred to have the Supreme Court or a 'tribunal' to conduct the impeachment trial instead of the Senate. He was voted down.
Other founders argued that ANY impeachment clause would make the Executive 'dependent on the legislature' and they were also voted down.
It's clear that those debating the impeachment clause had a clear understanding of what the term 'high crimes and misdemeanors' meant, they were well versed in Sir William Blackstone's Commentaries on the Laws of England published in 1765. Instead of allowing yourself to be gaslighted by Dershowitz, I suggest you review Chapter 9 of that treatise in which he describes the meaning of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' as the founders understood it.
Dershowitz is full of shit and documented history proves it.
Let me try and respond amid all the Bullshiting, gaslighting and regurgitation.
The House of Representatives, under Pelosi's leadership, rushed to deliver a vote of impeachment, before Christmas (almost as a Christmas hate gift to the man they hate). She submitted the shortest impeachment investigation in American history, as well as the narrowest grounds (broad open ended allegations) and with the thinnest record (because they wouldn't wait for more testimony and info) to ever go to the Senate for trial. As flimsy as the case was democrats managed to hang "impeachment" on the President, delay what should have been an easy dismissal so that they have the President giving his State of the Union Speech without his acquittal and even managed to use the whole process as a political campaign against the President using taxpayer money. And you want to debate the Federalist Papers?
You could have done so prior to posting the bullshiting, gaslighting and regurgitation in your comments.
As were you until confronted with unequivocal facts about them and the debate in the Constitutional Convention. [deleted]
You said you're 'partial to the professor's version'. It's up to you if you want to accept a 'version' from a self serving hack verses the AUTHORS themselves.
I prefer to READ historical documents for myself and come to my own conclusions. It is also my practice to READ legal and scholarly articles about the subject to inform my decisions.
Because I have actually reviewed historical, legal and scholarly documents on this issue, I KNOW that Dershowitz's 'version' is a lie, PERIOD full stop.
But hey, far be it from me to dissuade you or Senators from swilling the koolaid. Please proceed.
I have an idea.!..Why not assume that Professor Dershowitz simply has a different point of view, which may be right or wrong, rather than calling it a lie? That would be what the affluent, suburban, progressive gals on twitter do. Wouldn't it? Allow for a different perspective.
Now you've devolved to blathering and deflecting, per your MO.
Well, I guess you'd be the one to know.
I prefer to READ historical documents for myself and come to my own conclusions. It is also my practice to READ legal and scholarly articles about the subject to inform my decisions.
[deleted]
Because he profits from putting himself out as an expert Constitutional Scholar and he's merely a hack sell out.
How the fuck would I know?
Yet Dershowitz doesn't do so. He insists that his vast research has caused him to do a 180 on his opinion while giving little to no REASON for that 180. Dershowitz LIED about Federalist 65 AND the statements made during the debate in the Constitutional Convention. That isn't a 'different perspective', it's intentional gaslighting and Senators are too fucking lazy to READ the documents for themselves and may be too stupid to understand them even if they did. This, after they bitched and whined about waiting for the Article to come from the House. Perhaps a review of what our founders ACTUALLY said would have been a better use of their time and yours.
Why yes Vic, sadly I've witnessed your comments devolve to blathering and deflecting all too often.
You bet! AS IN NEVER EVER!
BTW when you have to call every opposing argument "Bullshit" it means you haven't got much.[deleted]
Actually what it means it that it's bullshit.
BTW Vic, you haven't posted an 'opposing argument', you've merely regurgitated Dershowitz's bullshit. I stated WHY Dershowitz's lies are bullshit. You haven't refuted any of it.[Insulting]
[Meta]
Your only issue with me calling your 'opposing arguments' bullshit is that I PROVE they're bullshit.
Actually what it means is that your argument wasn't strong enough.
comment removed for context [ph]
[deleted]
Can I draw your attention to something? John Durham's face as 'yours,' it's association at-length is disconcerting. Do you agree at all? I am not sure how many of us are using the face of another living individual. Am I wrong? Exception: Trump's face does not count! No one here can be confused about that mug 'abuse.'
I am putting this comment here because it is the end of the thread for now. Both of you (in alphabetical order, Dulay and Vic) will stop with the personal jabs. Discuss the topic and not each other. Only warning.
Yet all you've done is proclaim that to be so.
Make an argument of your own Vic.
Post a link to the Constitutional Convention debates that refutes what I posted. Support Dershowitz's posit on Federalist 65 or at least express one of your own.
But please do spare me your unsubstantiated proclamations.
"The greatest danger is that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt." -- Alexander Hamilton (1757-1804) Federalist No. 65, regarding impeachment of the President
Truncating the quote takes it out of context.
I have posted this same paragraph multiple times to refute Dershowitz's bullshit. Neither you or anyone else has tried to argue that Dershowitz's interpretation of that paragraph is accurate.
I find it sadly ironic that you are unwilling to acknowledge that in the Party of Trump is guilty of what you're pretending to decry. I have lost count of how many Senators have said that Trump is guilty but they are voting to acquit him anyway.
Typical. Alexander or whatever his name is, passes the senate 'buck' to the citizenry. The old boy don't want THAT kind of fame on his record at the end. Moral of this story. Do not undertake anything - anymore with faith in Trump republicans and conservatives.
From now on democrats and others need to go it alone or do not undertake an effort at all! Republicans can come; but as an accessory only.
It will be interesting to see how many other Republicans have the "courage" to say Trump is guilty, even though they dont want to remove him.
I don't even care if they call it courage or whatever anymore. This long ridiculous experience has demonstrated to me 'just going along to get along' will not do against a phalanx of Trump 'troops' who are steamrolling and tossing everybody off their island who dare confront him.
The Rule of Law is dead. We are just about on our own now. Oddly familiar: We have been >here< before in the 60's.
I was alive in the 60's and old enough to know what was going on. Things are far worse today.
Humph. You mean a new consciousness movement and songs won't do?
They're all spineless, gutless, ball-less. They won't say he's guilty if they're complicit.
Screw that.
The Democrats have no room to talk after they voted against removing Bill Clinton from office. Perjury and Obstruction of Justice (witness tampering) are real damn crimes. Not like the made up BS against Trump.
If Trump had a D behind his name the Democrats would be stone walling just like the Republicans.
I WILL DEDICATE MY LIFE TO FINDING THE REAL KILLERS! # LamarsLegacy
Those words usually follow the decision of a jury box of simpletons. Fortunately, we're past that.
About a fucking blow job.
No.
It was all about a blow job. Nothing else.
Bill Clinton doesn't have a goddamned thing to do with this.
His impeachment set a precedent. Do you know what a precedent is?
I am not responsible for what Clinton senators did back in the 90's. So miss me with that. If you think it fair to base one impeachment on one or a set of other impeachments in some game of revenge—that is a sick game and perversion of justice and has nothing to do with me or the facts of today's impeachment.
Moreover, I have not intention of trying to help you get 'well' of your state. Screw that.
So when does trump testify under oath like Clinton did?
Never. He wouldn't last 5 minutes.
That's an opinion, not a fact. He was IMPEACHED.
So what? What difference will it make in your life?
What difference does holding to fair principles and not double standards make in any life?
My friend, a verb change. Trump IS impeached.
Is it possible that we have entered the realm of Trump invincibility? And, is it also possible that Doctor Ronny Jackson was correct when he said Trump was the healthiest person he'd
ever examined and could live to be two hundred years old? And this too; Is it possible that Trump really was sent by God?
As far as Alexander, there it is. There you have it. It is done and done.
No, no, no, no and no.
I agree. Trump and Trumpism thrives under The Sword of Damocles. He is a marked man. He has marked himself. The enthrallment of the 'christian right' will crash upon his unworthy head. America will never allow christian sharia.
The most likely result of the November elections will be that Trump and his crowd are crushed.
If he gets re-elected it will be the end of the U.S. as we have known it all our lives.
I just don't believe the downfall of our country is that close, at least I hope not.
I feel sorry for kids that are 10 or 11 years old now. The only president they have really known is this clown and they have to be indoctrinated with the idea that this idiot represents normalcy. If he gets 4 more years he will be the president for every teenager in the country. It is a travesty beyond description.
Oh, no, not at all. Those future teens can learn from today's "adults" and merely pretend Trump isn't their President.
Should work out fine for them.
I don't know of anyone pretending Trump isn't the President, just the vast majority of Americans who refuse to pretend he's not an inept moron.
Yea, and the left will continue to impeach the mothafucka for some arcane reason.
Be careful of what you write regarding Trump. If nothing else, he is a survivor who has demonstrated he knows how to manipulate those under his authority. If democrats are going to win this fall, then they need a new standard, a new format, and they need to get on with it every day. I'd imagine Donald Trump has started his next project already to undermining a leading democrat candidate against him. That's the smart thing to do!
Democrats get your heads in the damn game!
I can't believe you mentioned smart and this 'president' in the same paragraph.
And now we all know who pretends that many have claimed he isn't their President--as if there is another President that might be theirs.
Surely you remember the sky-screaming idiots who bravely shouted that out?
Yes! There are smart diabolical masterminds (and mob bosses) in our land.
That was nothing but a bullshit straw man created by Trump acolytes. Were there those who said he "wasn't 'their' President"? I heard a few say that, but that's different than claiming he's not 'the' President and just indicated what the vast majority of Americans felt after the election which was that a vile sexual predator piece of shit didn't represent them or their values regardless of the fact that he was "the President". Dishonest Donald only represents those who have abandoned their values, abandoned their morals and drunk recklessly from the sewer of lies that is Donald Trump.
[Deleted]
Which does not include tRump.
He's a moron.
Unfortunately, the only bottom line with Trump is the, "So What."
And once the senate acquits, Americans ought to brace themselves for a horrible barrage of revenge led by Trump and carried out by the unleashed MAGA base. It could become ugly.
Personally, I'm more concerned with revenge from the progressive leftist liberal Democrats that did not get their own way against Trump.
[deleted]
Revenge from the Democrats? How so?
removed for context
Why are you asking me?
Usually such a price is self-recrimination.
[deleted]
[deleted]
I think that was obvious from the start. Trump never offered a reason for why the funds were released after initially ordering the delay. (One could argue, as Trump attorneys did, that the delay was to ensure Ukraine made good on its promise to investigate corruption in general. The release is the issue.) The lack of a clear event precipitating the release is the problem because such a decision would not be arbitrary — there should be a clear reason for it (e.g. point to something that happened that satisfied the reason for the delay). Since the Trump defense never posited what precipitated the release of the funds, people will speculate on the reason for the delay in the first place. If people speculate, they will take into consideration Trump's character and style. Would Trump put a hold on funds to encourage Ukraine to announce an investigation of Hunter Biden? Bush, Obama likely would not; Trump is a different story. His character and style bites him in the butt on this one.
The question, really, is if this is an impeachable act. I think Pelosi misfired and shot the D side of the House in the foot. My guess is that she (and her team of advisers) figured an impeachment (the indictment itself) would harm Trump in his reelection bid. The success of that gambit will depend upon how the Senate votes. If none of the Rs vote to remove Trump from office then Trump will use that to campaign for electing R supporters in the House (arguing an irresponsible partisan witch hunt instead of doing the work of the people) and declare himself innocent. Repeatedly. If at least one D does not vote to remove Trump, then Trump will boast of a bipartisan acquittal.
Pelosi's gambit, seems to me, requires at least one R vote for conviction (bi-partisan label) and 100% support from the D,I senators.
The issue is, is Donald Trump fit to serve in the office of president of the United States? Obviously he is not, unless we as Americans are going to trash all our history, all our traditional beliefs about right and wrong, and all our desire for our children and future generations to revere and seek to emulate our national leaders. A good part of the reason we have always taught schoolchildren about Washington, Jefferson, Lincoln, and Teddy and Franklin Roosevelt is as much about their character and the way they presented themselves as it is about policies they pursued.
Now we live in a "cynical" age. People want a slimeball like Trump to be a sufficient "anti-hero" who makes it "ok" for them to hate the other.
Nancy Pelosi did what she needed to do. Of course what Trump did is an impeachable offense. He tried to cheat on his next election by preventing US aid from reaching a beleaguered foreign country that needs it, unless that foreign country played along with Trump smearing his main political opponent. If that isnt a "high crime" nothing is.
There is no blame on Democrats in this. I find it more likely that Trump will suffer, in November, especially as more facts about his criminal behavior unfold.
Are you saying that the impeachment trial is supposed to be a vote of confidence in Trump (as in the British system)?
Seems to me the trial exists for the Senators to decide on whether the articles of impeachment are factually supported and that they are sufficient to remove a sitting president.
She should have insisted on a case for removal that would satisfy an R-majority senate since this requires a 2/3 majority vote of the quorum. The impeachment articles should clearly fall under 'high crimes and misdemeanors' so that both the public and 2/3 of the senators would agree. Falling short of that, and failing to secure a single R House vote, the impeachment will be viewed now and historically as a partisan gambit. If it were me, I would have worked on subpoenas to get those in the know to testify to the House and also ensure the articles would clearly rise to the level of impeachable offenses. No impeachment until I knew that the charges had a decent chance of prevailing in the Senate (and that there was at least respectable bipartisan support in the House).
There are the facts and then there is the House managers' story. The House is asking the Senate to believe their story (which contains emotion, speculation and exaggeration in case you have not paid attention) and to deem this not only truth but worthy of the last possible resort for a rogue president.
Well, John, like I said, Pelosi better get at least one R voting to remove Trump from office and no Ds voting to acquit. If not, then I see this as a net political liability for House Ds.
Trump will suffer if credible evidence emerges. For example, if Bolton's book convinces people that Trump tried to hold up Ukraine funds primarily until they announced an investigation into Hunter Biden, then there will be fallout. The Trump-driven smear campaign is already afoot on this one. Thing is, Bolton's claims are not nearly as effective now as they would have been if the House had worked harder to get him to testify under oath before taking the impeachment step. Back to Pelosi's gambit.
I totally disagree. The impeachment will be seen as a necessity and a duty by the House of Representatives. After a government whistleblower revealed that Trump had abused the power of his office, and the details in the phone call and other evidence showed conclusively that he was guilty, Pelosi had no choice.
I wish you would turn your considerable intellectual power on Trump for a change, and stop looking for ways to blame "partisanship". The Democrats were duty bound to impeach Trump, because he committed high crimes and misdemeanors. Everyone knows it. More people should acknowledge it without needing to criticize "both sides".
I was waiting for when you made this personal. You are presuming my motives and your presumption is negative on my character.
My comments are what independent, non-partisan, unemotional analysis looks like John.
I read in a MSN.com article yesterday that Senator Diana Feinstein will not vote to convict.
[deleted]
I have my doubts. Your analysis of this impeachment is premised on Pelosi making a mistake.
Where is the line in your post where you say Trump committed an impeachable offense?
The fact is, he could have shot someone on fifth avenue, instead of simply have made a phone call, and the Republicans in Congress would say it didnt rise to a level requiring removal.
You talk about Trump bragging he was "acquitted". So ? , he's a pathological liar, what do you expect him to say? This trial was rigged, and we can know that because no witnesses or documents were produced . In a trial both sides can call witnesses and warrants are obtained for documents.
My commentary on your post stands.
I am asking the moderators to delete Greg Jones trolling of me. It is habitual on his part.
Your response was predictable.
Trump will not suffer sufficiently, and not if he keeps getting (accepting) cover from every convenient (usable) oddball out there who wants to block him from the experiences he is properly due! Dershowitz is a foolish man who apparently wants time basking in the light of recorded history. Alas! There are more men and women out there like him willing to play the joker for history sake. Trump will utilize them as needed. Watch this space.
There is your credible, convinced, republican senator. There will be no fallout, nevertheless. Because this retiring senator and man does not (and I can't blame him) want his golden years to be troubled and tainted by a last major act of party 'jeopardy' owing to himself.
Democrats were faced with a 'doomsday' scenario from the start. Everything about this president's matter of functioning (his life-long proclivity/experiences with lawyers and tying matters up in protracted court cases included) has led to this being an unmanageable term of events for folks who like order.
Trump profits off of chaos management.
I have given you and John both my vote. Because I see John's point and I am looking to see yours as a proven non-partisan.
One point of clarification. I don't believe John or myself have treated Donald Trump unfairly in making our case. Trump, in part, stated he wished to be impeached, if only because he would be let go in the senate by his supporters. Thus, he applied hindrances unabated. He mocked the House's authority to impeach. He offered no apology. He 'locked' down every avenue to compromise.
For instance, the democrats delivered a credible and well-reasoned case against Trump. The circumstance exists that - there is no one in control of the senate to deliver unbiased arguments to. McConnell announce ahead of the senate proceeding that he was not an impartial judge/juror. This president has this republican senate enthralled and behaving as a phalanx barreling ahead into a weaker democratic senate 'front.'
What this senate has called on democrats house lawyers to do is near impossible: Persuade republican senators the constitution is in danger of losing its potency disproportionate to letting this president escape its justice.
I don't believe this was Pelosi's doing, she was forced into this. She was waiting until Trump was reelected and using the constant we need to impeach him to keep her party as the majority after the next election and therefore the Speaker again. That's when she would push for impeachment and drag Pence in with it. For her pulling the trigger now on impeachment was a wasted shot at her chance to become president. A tell in this theory was her holding onto the articles of impeachment, she was trying to come up with a way to keep them until after Trump won reelection, but the optics of doing that starting working the other way and she gave in.
Nancy Pelosi will be 80 years old in a few weeks . Her interest in being president is zero.
Really? Age is a determining factor into wanting to become president? So, removing the POTUS, VPOTUS, and the next in line is you (the first woman to be POTUS) without even having to run an exhausting campaign, you don't think that would be of any interest to her? She just needs to win in her district where a cup with a "D" will win and she can become POTUS.
Oh, you are saying she would become president by default? I thought you meant she would run.
I think the Democrats already said at the start of the impeachment that if both Trump and Pence were somehow removed, another republican would be installed as president. In other words, Pelosi would decline her place in the line of succession.
So--you actually believe that Nancy would let Chuck Grassley become President?
What won't you fall for?
Speaker Pelosi had no choice but to proceed. She was up against a political clock counting down to campaigns and elections this year. Trump forced this issue by lying, following up by hiding behind a system of lawyers who would shroud him in a room of smoke and mirror legalese and a republican senate majority. As to what missteps, if any, in the process the House added to the Trump lawyers' argument we can not be sure of.
Speaker Pelosi was faced with not letting the 'sound' of impeachment continue to drone on weakly for several more months indecisively. It can be noted that during the Obama healthcare two years of debate and activity - the tea-party mounted a negative offensive which culminated with rallies on the steps of the Capitol Building and congress persons being railed and spit upon as they exited the building (according to media reports).
The impeachment charge should harm a guilty president and this one is of violations of the constitution and stated law. However, soon it seems it will be the people who have to act and that is always an iffy state to be in. This president is cheating through his office-in plain sight-and republicans in their capacity won't do anything to stop it!
Nancy herself said that Dems worked on impeachment for over 2 years, but, magically, only impeached Trump on charges related to something that happened in the last 6 months.
Any "pressure" on Nancy came from the misfits in her very own party.
She should learn to herd them better.
I do not see the logic. Do you think that Pelosi thought that this impeachment would result in a conviction?
You are entitled to your opinion. Have at it.
‘No choice but to act’ on impeachment, Pelosi says
No, she did not think it would result in a conviction in this senate 'running formation.' However, the 'buck' was squarely on the House (Speaker) to act or forever hold its peace.
Impeachment is the tool of last resort and requires a solid case (by design).
If she did not believe there was a chance at conviction then why not pursue the case until it had a chance at conviction? For example, go through the process to secure testimony of Bolton, et. al. with the full power of the House. If that case cannot be made then pursue other measures which hold a lower bar (e.g. censure) and would have a chance at a bi-partisan result. If the case can be made but it would take more time and effort, then put forth the time and effort. Something as important as impeachment should be done properly and seriously.
Pelosi called for a vote on impeachment before the House had a sufficient case to secure a 2/3 vote for conviction in the Senate. Impeachment that could only be secured via the force of a strict party-line vote should have been a major red flag. If one does not have at least bi-partisan support in the House (and they know the votes before bringing the question to the floor) then work until one at-the-very-least achieves it before impeaching and going to trial.
Under what circumstances do you think the Republicans in the Senate would help to constitute that 2/3?
I dont know of anyone who closely follows politics in DC today that believed there was any level of wrongdoing by Trump that would lead to conviction in the Senate.
Pelosi impeached him because it was her duty.
Maybe if people would stop opining that this "failed" impeachment represents a victory for Trump , it wouldnt be seen that way by anyone.
This impeachment is not a failure, they proved that he is guilty.
Well I can not speak to any particulars which resulted in Ms. Pelosi deciding to take the last resort of impeachment. As we well know, Ms. Pelosi is an informed, intelligent, and capable leader, nevertheless. We, some of us, see her acting in good faith with her party and its constituents.
Sometimes you need higher than normal participation in a worse case scenario. As an onlooker, I like others, am seeing that such needed participation from irreconcilable republicans has not been impacted by fact and importance. Trump needed impeaching. The Senate has offered little to nothing, by announcing ahead of time that it was in lock step with the administration. How can the House Leader be wrong for being right?
Granted, I duly note that impeachment was intended to be a bi-partisan exercise. However, remember the senate takes an oath of impartiality. That should mean something to everybody involved. There personal and professional reputation is called upon.
This a senate majority, from the outset looking for a way out of its obligation to try their party president. And yet, an impeachable act defacto occurred. In the words of former republican party leader Michael Steele, 'If what this president has done in this instance is not impeachable—what is?'
There was no time remaining. Courts do not take account of the House's timelines. It has been remarked upon. And as Trump was interfering with this upcoming election and possibly endangering Ukraine's, a friendly nation, ability to negotiate an ongoing war with Russia, options were and remain limited.
It wouldnt have bothered me at all if they had stretched it out into the spring. This is all damaging to Trump no matter when it comes out.
The House leaders chose to do it the way they did, and I dont fault them for that either. The White House was stalling through the courts, and could have stalled it out into the summer or later.
The facts are what matter , not what form or timeline the prosecution took. Trump is guilty, everyone who knows the issue knows that, and the question now is what will be done? In the end he needs to be voted out. No matter who the opposition candidate is, Trump should be voted out. That is what is needed now.
So after 2+ years of impeachment, thay couldn't find anything to impeach Trump LONG before the call to Ukraine?
Really?
Schiff said he had all the evidence he needed to impeach Trump, long before Nancy finally agreed to it. Was he lying, or was Nancy?
The election is but months away.
Have at it!
Perhaps the polls will tell you Trump is sure to lose against anyone.
Maybe you'll have better luck than you did in 2016.
Or maybe you'll wake up in November and have to face the fact that Trump is still your President.
Please hug those right-wing talking points for me. And, I will speak with you later.
Clear and convincing case that Trump was guilty of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' per the CotUS. Especially if the public opinion was clearly against Trump. Remember John that impeachment is the big gun. That big gun has a high threshold (purposely). This is not new information. If one is going to use the big gun then one should do so properly. If not, go for a lesser gun that has a better chance of being successful.
Any level of wrongdoing?
Unless Pelosi, et. al. believed that Trump would be removed from office, going for impeachment does not accomplish what you just stated. It would have been more effective to use the resources of the House to block Trump. One way to block Trump, by the way, is to make allegations. Indeed, Schiff has argued that the reason Trump released the funds was because he was being investigated. So that is one measure right there.
Boils down to what Pelosi wanted to accomplish. If she truly wanted to stop Trump in the short term then her chosen route was foolish. If she wanted to stain Trump with the mark of impeachment then she accomplished her goal. If she wanted to stop Trump in the long term then she should have worked on a case that had a chance of conviction and then (and only then) deliver it to the Senate.
Oh, thank you so very much. I am ecstatic that I have your permission to have my own opinion. How nice of you!!
Please save me from any more left-wing babble.
There is no need for threats here.
Again, I can not speak to any motivations or driving force behind Speaker Pelosi's spoken words. We are where we are today, because of her choices and the case combined. So, I will make a principled argument for what is before us. Did President Donald Trump violate the law by withholding funds to Ukraine? Did Donald Trump conspire to handicap Joe Biden, his political opponent, by manipulating and drawing in a foreign country into a conspiracy (against their wishes I might add)?
My principled judgement says: Yes. Yes.
Which law?
Probably.
Tig, they cant even get a majority (which requires Republicans) to agree to allow first hand witnesses, something which would seem to be the bare minimum for a fair trial. I honestly dont know where you are deriving the idea that a good number of Republicans would vote to remove Trump if the procedure had been held at a more deliberate pace in the House. There is absolutely no evidence or indication of that.
I have followed this fairly closely and I am pretty confident in what I am saying.
My take is that the voting down for witnesses is based on what I said before. Without a clear case made by the House and without clear support by the public, the Senate Rs are not willing to spend further time.
Naturally they will be reluctant to impeach a PotUS of their party so there must be significant momentum (of the impeachment articles) to overcome that reluctance. The lack of momentum is what I brought up this morning. Pelosi's logic to bring this case to the Senate escapes me.
Don't put words in my mouth John. You said that you see no way the Rs would convict Trump for any level of wrongdoing. My response was that any is pretty wide open. My implication is that you need some qualification on your view.
The pace is not what I have discussed in my comments; it is the quality of the content that matters.
I think the House made a very clear case and in any other courtroom it would be a unanimous vote to convict and we'd already be in the sentencing phase of this trial by now. Only those legislators with no spines believe key witnesses are necessary to prove this inept Presidents obvious guilt. So now the problem is that because of the ridiculous blanket executive privilege claimed by the President, the house would have had to go fight the subpoenas for key witnesses in court and they wouldn't have gotten them to show up till later this year. And then, when the key witnesses did show up, they would just claim "executive privilege" anytime they are asked any direct questions about what the President asked them to do. And with them refusing to answer specific questions we would end up having to rely on the honest civil servants testimony we already have to reach the same conclusion.
Let's see what the public opinion is on this. I am sure polls will ensue and that will be a read on the strength of the case.
If the polls show low support for removal the Republicans will scream victory, if the polls show high support for removal they'll scream polls don't matter. There's simply no reason to pretend any Republican legislator or Trump supporter will honestly weigh the evidence or care about having an executive that obeys the law and follows the constitution. I had often wondered how Jim Jones got so many people to willingly drink the poison, but after watching many Trump supporters throw whatever sense or logic they used to have on the pyre of a populist personality it's no longer much of a mystery.
The polls, however, will offer a read on the quality of the case.
"Radical."
The Impoundment Control Act of 1974 ~ The Congressional Budget and Impoundment Control Act of 1974 (ICA) reasserted Congress’ power of the purse. Specifically, Title X of the Act – “Impoundment Control” – established procedures to prevent the President and other government officials from unilaterally substituting their own funding decisions for those of the Congress. The Act also created the House and Senate Budget Committees and the Congressional Budget Office
Deferrals
The ICA defines a “deferral” as withholding, delaying, or – through other Executive action or inaction – effectively precluding funding from being obligated or spent. The ICA prescribes three narrow circumstances in which the President may propose to defer funding for a program: (1) providing for contingencies; (2) achieving budgetary savings made possible through improved operational efficiency; and (3) as specifically provided by law.
The ICA requires that the President send a special message to Congress identifying the amount of the proposed deferral; the reasons for it; and the period of the proposed deferral. Upon transmission of such special message, the funds may be deferred without further action by Congress; however, the deferral cannot extend beyond the end of the fiscal year in which the special message is sent. The ICA language on deferrals is long-standing budget law that allows the Executive branch to delay the obligation or expenditure of funding only for the specified reasons rather than policy reasons.
And, this nation's campaign finance law of 2002 thereabouts:
Trump asked Ukraine to make an expenditure of its own capital to investigate his political opponent Joe Biden. This is not allowed under the Campaign Finance Law (2002) thereabouts.
Where are you on principle involved in this impeachment trial? Please observe I have been in and out of this discussion and reading rapidly if I missed a mention of it in a comment above, by all means direct me to it. This is this accusatory. I just want to get a bead on your principles related to this.
In principle, impeachment of the PotUS (regardless of how much of an asshole he is) is a constitutional matter that should be taken deadly serious. It is the final remedy for a rogue PotUS and has a very high bar - as evidenced by the 2/3 quorum requirement. These are actions that establish precedent and thus affect (positively or negatively) future related actions. It goes beyond Trump.
Pelosi, et. al. jumped directly to impeachment, missing opportunities that are much easier to effect with success, and failed to properly develop articles and a case that would meet that high bar. One wonders what they thought they would accomplish (other than labeling Trump as the 3rd impeached PotUS).
I remain intrigued by their reasoning. I wish I could read the closed-room discussions wherein they decided that this was their best course of action.
I heard some pundits today that made me think.
We all know this is going nowhere in the senate. They said what the republicans and Democrats should do is come to a consensus that he is going to not be impeached yet he should be censured for his actions. That way he is not emboldened with any further actions he may try to undertake.
I don't even know if that is possible though.
It is entirely possible and was/is possible for the House to do on its own.
I am compelled to resist the statement that the democratic house did not take this impeachment "gravely" serious. Admittedly, I did not get why after one day in the House Judiciary Committee it was decided by the Speaker to file impeachment charges straightway. She must have had reason/s.
As stated prior, this violation of law by this president affected this country's national security. It is a grave offense. That 51republican senators can not be stirred beyond two republican votes to investigate this offense further is not a miscalculation made by the House Speaker or house managers, in my opinion. Not sure a democratic house can whip republican senate votes!
The question right now is: Will the Senate choose to HEAR relevant evidence to answer that question.
The GAO ruled that Trump ordered the OMB to intentionally violate the Impoundment Control Act. That, at minimum is a violation of his oath of office and as the ruling states, is a crime.
No evidence has been presented by the defense that Trump had anything but a corrupt intent for withholding both the aid and the WH meeting. By evidence, I don't mean statements by his lawyers, I mean statements by witnesses or supporting documents.
IMHO, the use of words like 'inappropriate' for Trump's actions are obsequious. It as if they are talking about the equivalent of a toddler having a tantrum at the grocery store.
The irony is that Alexander hangs his hat on the 'Dershowitz defense' yet the fact that Dershowitz disappeared from the trial makes it pretty clear what Trump's defense thought about his 'argument'.
Trying to imbed their sycophancy in the ridiculous argument made by Dershowitz is just pure cowardice.
Does not look like they will call witnesses.
It does appear that Bill Clintons only real mistake was ever showing up to testify or allowing any witnesses to testify. If he'd just issued blanket executive privilege I'm sure the Republicans would have just accepted it as his prerogative and just shut down any investigation. They would have proclaimed their case was based on hearsay and just called it a day... /s
He tried to avoid testifying and lost a Supreme Court case. 18 witnesses testified in the Trump impeachment. How many did in the Clinton?
They would have proclaimed their case was based on hearsay
It wasn't.
The senate is not allowing the calling of witnesses, or a single witness, or permitting any "revelatory" documents into the proceeding? There is a plethora of witnesses and relevant documents relating to this case. In your view are such activities in-keeping with an oath of impartiality taken by everyone involved in this trial?
The Senate Rs (and I think this was also true of the House Rs) have made the political calculation that favoring impeachment / conviction of Trump given these charges and this case would adversely affect them with the electorate. The quality of the case is likely insufficient to move the Senators from putting their reelections and their party's priorities as their top priority and instead engage in pure objective, honest judgment.
With all due respect, the remedy for lack of quality in the senate proceeding is to request witnesses and documents - if only to find whether or not the administration would stifle the senate (and Chief Justice)!
No impartiality, then? In your opinion, did/are these senators violate both oaths to date and should be charged ethically with conflicts of interest?
Moreover, if the House is considered to have rushed into impeachment, what is the senate's excuse for rushing through its duties to hold a complete trial?
The oaths are almost certainly a lower priority than their political careers and the success of their party. The oaths are, today, merely a formality. I did not expect them to take their oaths seriously. Would be nice, but I think we are well past that point in our national politics for the majority of our politicians.
The bullshit 'working on behalf of the American people' is a cruel joke IMO.
The BullShit ' working to behalf this country has Be
Haved for Half the people far over half the time while not getting time and a 1/2 as it half to be concerning,
at least
all the time , cause over time, some see sums
working and getting paid overtime.
We have so many not concerning,
over the ignorance discerning interest in realizing where real
real lies Lie.
Man and Womanipulators have shown us where threats can be real real
for peoples working supposedly
on and to behalf
this country,
all of the time .
I expect them to take their solemn oaths seriously. Else why bother with it? There is no such thing as a "wink-wink lie" on its face in the Constitution.
No matter, I can not and will not hold you to explain the cruel joke of faithless senators! I will throw it up in Trump's NT supporters faces accordingly, nevertheless.
If one of us 'little people' violated an oath taken to do 'impartial justice' we would end up behind bars. If our lawyer violated just about every ethics standard, as some of Trump's lawyers have, they'd be behind bars too.
Moreover, what ordinary rank and file citizen gets to orchestrate and steer his or her own trial up to and touching programming a brief delay next week until after the State of the Union speech to announce a triumphant victory?
We're saps out here. We have all become Mitch's, Graham's, and Donald's runts. It's all our fault! We pay these 'freak' politicians to let us serve them.
Yes. We have an unwritten class system.
Dennis Smith house members are by definition not senators. House members do not take an oath detailed in the Constitution for impeachment trials exclusively, house members do not have a vote in a senate trial on procedures or outcomes.For the record, the president has no authority in the senate trial: He is not a senator, he did not speak the oath detailed in the Constitution for impeachment trial, and by definition, he is the defendant-wielding no proper control over senate procedures or outcomes.
Do you have any explanation for why Senate Majority Leader McConnell would allow the defendant in an impeachment trial to shadow supervise its proceedings and stagecraft?
In the house, yes. But that wasn't a trial, it was an investigation. How many witnesses did trumps defense team have? None. How much evidence? None. How many documents? None.
That is not a trial.
Put it another way. How would the OJ trial have looked to the American public if there were no witnesses, no evidence, no proof? Would YOU have been ok with it? No.
You can not have it both ways. Alexander lacks the moral authority to say the election will determine tRump's fate. When tRump will continue to take action to rig the election how can that de fair? Alexander and the GOP are in a cult of personality and greed. They like their jobs and the perks they get. The problem is it is not a job. They chose to run to represent ALL Americans not their benefactors.
They will pay price for this show trial and regretfully we are paying for it now.
If anyone is going to pay and be punished for and weakened by this travesty of the House Democrats misuse and abuse of the Constitution, it will be the Democrats.
And we have no idea what AG Barr and Durham will turn up against the Dems between now and November.
"Turn Up" is a good comment for this sham of a trial. They will have to make up charges on any Democrat. Barr shuttered the Iran Contra Scandal and he is doing the bidding of the this Grifter in Chief. Even Alexander stated tRump was guilty but he wants the election to determine his fate. Meaning rig it.
Where was the abuse? Abuse of power? OH! You are meaning trump, got it. Last I checked, the dems have followed the constitution to the letter regarding this impeachment. And it's for life, it will never go away.
Have a good weekend.
How many documents and witness did trumps side make available during the impeachment phase in the house? None, despite subpoenas. That is what constitutes obstruction of congress.
Much of this trial has been trump's lawyers arguing that this is all about overturning an election, (which is impossible), ripping up ballots, and ignoring the will of the people...
<cough>
Will of the people?
At least 75% of the PEOPLE want witnesses, (I have seen polls between 75% and 84%), apparently THAT will of the people is being ignored by trump's lawyer team. Hypocrisy, 100%.
I have also noticed that trump's surrogates are tripping over themselves to silence Bolton. I wonder why that is? Hell, let him testify and if trump refutes what he has to say? Put trump under oath and let him say so.
We all know that will never happen because trump wouldn't last 5 minutes under oath before he lied and would be impeached for lying, (which the right would no doubt defend to the ends of the earth..)
This schmuck's voters need to take heed. If someone they voted in could say "So what" could be his death noll the next time he is up for election. You come out and declare Guilty, but so fucking refuse to indict, f you and your voters.
All of this is irrelevant. The anti american and anti Constitution republicans are not going to do the right thing and those who support this BS don't care as long as they are brainwashed to think they're "winning". When trump is out of office the next Administration will declassify the documents. Everything will be revealed to those Americans who actually give a shit about our republic more than jerking trump off.
[deleted]
X - I'm thinking about retiring to Redding so I can counter your republican vote. Maybe we can even be neighbors! That would be so cool.
I considered that once but the crime rate in Redding is really high and the winters are cold.
It is a really beautiful part of the country though.
You could live much further south in Oroville or Chico. Much warmer and still in the 1st District of CA, which is freaking huge.
I'm not really interested in moving to California. I may consider Washington State but I have a ways to go before I can retire.
I was only try to scare X by suggesting he and I could be neighbors. hahahahahaha
Well depending on where in Washington, you could still be his neighbor in the State of Jefferson. /s
Moving up to Jeff? Countering the votes? I love it! They live in an alternate reality up there. Or down there since I'm up in Washington now.
Let me get this straight. According to you we Republicans are anti American anti constitution and are brainwashed and don’t care about doing the right thing and think we are winning. You say that what 94% of us support is bs and finally you say we all want to masturbate our President. Just wow.
Major crime rates aren’t that high and our police are good at rooting out problem gangs and homeless who cause trouble. The state releases way to many ex cons out of prison here and homeless come because if they have any income source at all including welfare the money stretches further here than much of the state. Winters may be cooler than other parts of California but are much warmer than in much of the country. While it was 39 degrees this morning it was 72 this afternoon. You are right about the beauty and recreation options here and our unemployment rate here now is 3.5%.
Or maybe Lassen Park.
I was in Washington in the Summer of 2016 and outside of the Seattle Tacoma metro area I was pleasantly surprised at how many Trump signs I saw there just about everywhere else.
Democrats need to start relocating to heavy red States/Regions so they can vote out the republicans that are a danger to this country. The republicans are losing their hold on the south. Now we have to target the mid west.
Well gee wiz...guilty....So what?
Spit on the constitution....So what?
Keep a crook in the oval office...So what?
Go against what the framers put in place....So what?
This schmuck needs to never be reelected considering what he thinks about this county. He disappears in shame.....so what?
Pat Leahy had a good point.
"A partisan impeachment cannot command the respect of the American people. It is no more valid than a stolen election."
The basis of Alexander's defense of his no vote is that the voters should decide tRump's fate. Yet, what Alexander agreed to is activities by tRump that rigs the 2020 election. Only a fool or tRump supporter would buy his argument. We all know tRump will further interfere with the 2020 election but the GOP is good with that as long as they are the recipients of the rigged election. Vote tRump and his GOP acolytes out of the office.
He is full of it. We don't need an impeachment clause for president's who can't follow the rules, if it calls comes down to a scheduled vote. If only for fear of negligence or manipulation on the part of voters to reinstall an outlaw!
This is what you get when you don't kick these "old heads" out of government. They come in-own the place-drain the coffers-stiff the constitution on the way out!
This is what Republicans want us to teach our children. Lies, crimes, cronies, all okay. Lead by example? So our "leader" is a liar, lies to us daily, used a corrupt practice to solicit a favor from a foreign government, lied about it, had his cronies lie about it until they were caught and the only response is "so what"? All those lies and the foreign solicitation are okay and now it is okay to teach our children that this is okay? Lies and corruption don't meet impeachable standards? What about the moral leadership at the top? Is there no morality in the Senate? Are these old men now so senile they cannot see the detriment to America and our children seeing this as the example to follow?
This is what Republicans want us to teach our children. Lies, crimes, cronies, all okay
did you support bill Clinton’s removal from office and refuse to vote for Hillary Clinton?
Thanks. We need more whataboutism in this forum. /s
Well said.
When Senator Angus King asked if the President held back aid from Israel on condition that they make a public claim that one of Trumps opponents is an anti-Semite, would that be impeachable, Trump's defense wouldn't answer. A second time they were asked, they gave a twisted long winded deflection and eventually accepted that would be "wrong' but refused to accept it as impeachable. One must wonder what it would take to get impeached according to Republicans, will dishonest Donald actually have to start shooting people on fifth avenue? Is there no low they won't stoop to in an effort to save face? Do any of the Republican Senators have a spine or have they all abandoned their senses in favor of pure partisan warfare? I think the answer is an obvious "No", they have no spine and "Yes!" they have abandoned any sort of moral standards. What a sad day for the party that stole the name of the party of Lincoln, because let's face it, they are Lincoln 'Republicans' in name only. Lincoln would have kicked them all in the teeth long ago.
We've seen it from the Democrats for quite a while now. What changed? Oh that's right, they lost an election. Now everything we witnessed them do is now "wrong".
Name ONE politician who isn't a liar. Just one. I've ask the same thing of others here on NT that seem to have their panties in a wad and NONE have been able to provide an answer.
If they did, Obama would have been impeached.
Now that is laughable. There hasn't been any of that in decades.
As opposed to the morality of the house? This whole thing is nothing more than partisan politics. Democrats have been running around screaming like a spoiled toddler who was told "No" for the first time ever since they lost the election trying to remove a duly elected President. Now you have a Democrat run house and ALL Democrats vote along party lines for impeachment. You don't think the Republican run Senate won't vote along party lines?
So let me get this straight. You all are hair on fire upset that it appears that the Senate republicans may to vote like the house Democrats (along party lines)?
Are you all new to how this works? The articles of impeachment were a result of partisan politics. You dont think it will end that way? Pull your heads from your 4th point of contact people!
Republicans are truly idiots.
Seriously CK?