Good point. And if Trump gets re-elected I suspect we'll discover at least three or four of those levels.There are several levels of "worse" beyond what Trump did.
Good point. And if Trump gets re-elected I suspect we'll discover at least three or four of those levels.There are several levels of "worse" beyond what Trump did.
I guess you'll see next year. *shrugs*Good point. And if Trump gets re-elected I suspect we'll discover at least three or four of those levels.
I don't think anyone argued that we are too far from the Constitution.We're getting too far away from the Constitution! So let's change something in the constitution!
Considering that the bastardized electoral college functions nothing like the deliberative body envisioned by the framers, yeah let's go ahead and change it to something that doesn't negate the vote of about half of American voters.We're getting too far away from the Constitution! So let's change something in the constitution!
2/3 of the population wanted witnesses and we saw how they voted on that.I'm more saying that if 2/3 of population make it known to their senators that they support removal, I'd hope the Senate would strongly consider that when voting.
Actually, it was written under the assumption that there would be no political parties, only shifting factions. Which is kind of the same thing as multiple parties, I guess.Our constitution seems to have a flaw in that it was written under the assumption that there would be multiple political parties - having only two viable choices seems to have thrown a lot of the checks and balances for a loop. It hasn't manifested in the prior 200 years because no one had the balls to exploit the weakness, but it's there none the less.
I doubt it.Maybe I am wrong on this, like I was in 2016 about Republicans being a stop to Trump's deplorable actions, but I really think Trump loses some of his base if he tries to do this. Granted not all, which is a scary proposition, but enough where he wouldn't have much power.
You should raise your complaint with McConnell and the rest of the Senate for not allowing witnesses at the trial.The President was impeached and not a single defense witness was allowed to testify. Not one.
Physician, heal thyself!The President was impeached and not a single defense witness was allowed to testify. Not one.
the “news” networks virtually all controlled by special interests
truth is derided as “conspiracy theory” and conspiracy theories are peddled as news
real whistleblowers like Julian Assange are silenced and jailed.
people are banned from social media if they post information outside of the accepted narrative. The government continues to pressure FB and TWTR to abridge free speech,
John Brennan and James Clapper and Comey lie repeatedly to Congress and are hailed as heroes, while a guy who screws up a date gets indicted.
i could go on and on
I don't think you sound crazy, because I'm pretty much in the same boat you are.no not a dictatorship.
no not a democracy.
we are encouraged to believe in what appears to be a democracy like children are with santa claus, and it is apparently working very well.
if push comes to shove (unlikely, but becoming ever more so), this will become somewhat more obvious to those paying attention.
power is held in many places, mainly centered around money/greed.
unorganized, unmotivated individuals (like myself) have very little power.
i have no links.
i have eyes and ears and an awareness that's been processing what i see and hear for a good while now.
my two cents. i know i sound paranoid/ crazy.
oh well.
It was the Democrats that refused to “trade”You should raise your complaint with McConnell and the rest of the Senate for not allowing witnesses at the trial.
There are no “defense witnesses” in an inquiry because there is no defense. There are also no “prosecution witnesses” because there is no prosecution. It’s an inquiry. The witnesses say what they’ve seen and heard whether it ends up benefitting one point of view or the other.The President was impeached and not a single defense witness was allowed to testify. Not one.
Trade what? For witnesses irrelevant to the case?It was the Democrats that refused to “trade”
it was already 18-0. I don’t see how 19-0
would have been more fair...19-1 and you are getting closer.
If the Ds wanted Bolton to testify, they should have adjudicated executive privilege months ago. They did not.
i fail to see how their hearsay case would have been enhanced anyway. Ukraine was blissfully unaware of any internal discussions anyway. It’s a sad excuse for botching the ultimate remedy permanently.
Why should there be a "trade"? Let the prosecutions call their relevant witnesses and let the defense call their relevant witnesses and see how it shakes out. That's how it would work if you or I were on trial.It was the Democrats that refused to “trade”
it was already 18-0. I don’t see how 19-0
would have been more fair...19-1 and you are getting closer.
If the Ds wanted Bolton to testify, they should have adjudicated executive privilege months ago. They did not.
i fail to see how their hearsay case would have been enhanced anyway. Ukraine was blissfully unaware of any internal discussions anyway. It’s a sad excuse for botching the ultimate remedy permanently.
So they ran an inquiry that wasn’t very inquisitive and failed to get a full picture. That makes it worse.There are no “defense witnesses” in an inquiry because there is no defense. There are also no “prosecution witnesses” because there is no prosecution. It’s an inquiry. The witnesses say what they’ve seen and heard whether it ends up benefitting one point of view or the other.
The prosecution and defense happen in the trial, not in the inquiry. It is true that no defense witnesses were called during the trial. I suggest voting against Republicans in 2020 if you are displeased about that.
This. Trump is definitely an authoritarian with no respect for checks and balances or separation of powers. How long voters and other politicians are going to continue to support his impulses is going to tell the tale. Unfortunately, being anti-brown people, anti-abortion, pro-gun, and pro trickle-down is probably about all it's going to take.Not a dictatorship, but the closest we’ve been to one. This administration has shown a pretty clear roadmap on how to get there. I have no doubt Trump wants to be one
Nobody could agree on that. The defense wanted to call Hunter Biden and because the Democrats didn’t want that, witnesses were off the table.Why should there be a "trade"? Let the prosecutions call their relevant witnesses and let the defense call their relevant witnesses and see how it shakes out. That's how it would work if you or I were on trial.
What percipient witnesses should “the defense” have offered? I’m sure any testimony by Rudy, Mulvaney, Trump, Parnas, Bolton, or Cippolone would have been welcomed.So they ran an inquiry that wasn’t very inquisitive and failed to get a full picture. That makes it worse.
The defense did not want to call Hunter Biden. This is evident from the fact that the defense did not call Hunter Biden. If they wanted to, nothing was stopping them.Nobody could agree on that. The defense wanted to call Hunter Biden and because the Democrats didn’t want that, witnesses were off the table.
All that it would have taken for witnesses to be on the table was for the majority Senate Republicans to say witnesses were on the table. They made the rules. No one else had to "agree" to anything.Nobody could agree on that. The defense wanted to call Hunter Biden and because the Democrats didn’t want that, witnesses were off the table.
We could start with the Bidens, Zelensky and Shokin and go from there...What percipient witnesses should “the defense” have offered? I’m sure any testimony by Rudy, Mulvaney, Trump, Parnas, Bolton, or Cippolone would have been welcomed.
What did Hunter Biden know about the President’s decision to withhold aid or the Administration’s representations to Ukraine?Nobody could agree on that. The defense wanted to call Hunter Biden and because the Democrats didn’t want that, witnesses were off the table.
we had already heard the testimony of 17 witnesses, while Schiff is still hiding the testimony of an 18th witness.
Hunter Biden wasn’t relevant at all. There is no argument in which he would be.Nobody could agree on that. The defense wanted to call Hunter Biden and because the Democrats didn’t want that, witnesses were off the table.
we had already heard the testimony of 17 witnesses, while Schiff is still hiding the testimony of an 18th witness.
I don't think Zelensky would have wanted to interject himself into American political matters, and the other two would have no knowledge of the impeachment charges.We could start with the Bidens, Zelensky and Shokin and go from there...
https://www.khou.com/article/sports/mlb/mlb-to-look-into-umpire-tweet-referencing-ar-15-trump-critics/285-cad1aff9-9b7a-441f-836f-724214832e53Maybe I am wrong on this, like I was in 2016 about Republicans being a stop to Trump's deplorable actions, but I really think Trump loses some of his base if he tries to do this. Granted not all, which is a scary proposition, but enough where he wouldn't have much power.
It’s even more evident than with Biden that the defense had no interest in calling Zelensky. They were allowed to admit public domain sources into evidence. Which means they had the “no pressure” statement already in evidence.I don't think Zelensky would have wanted to interject himself into American political matters, and the other two would have no knowledge of the impeachment charges.
Saying Biden wasn’t relevant is a cop out. Of course he’s relevant. He is at the center of the alleged corruption that Trump wanted to get the truth about.Hunter Biden wasn’t relevant at all. There is no argument in which he would be.
But...it would have been up to the Senate to call witnesses...they chose not to. What could democrats have done to have stopped Biden from being called?
No...its the truth. The articles of impeachment and the claims made...Hunter Biden gas no knowledge of Trumps actions of withholding aid/abuse of power or obstruction.Saying Biden wasn’t relevant is a cop out. Of course he’s relevant. He is at the center of the alleged corruption that Trump wanted to get the truth about.
The Hunter Biden investigation is likely to be dropped without a second thought as soon as Sleepy Joe is eliminated from consideration for the Dem nomination. If that happens, we'll know that a whole bunch of Trump supporters just had a big rug pulled out from under them.Saying Biden wasn’t relevant is a cop out. Of course he’s relevant. He is at the center of the alleged corruption that Trump wanted to get the truth about.
Term limits and Citizens United. The only fixes we need.I don't believe we're living in a dictatorship. I think Trumps very much the style of candidate who COULD push down the path of dictatorship. I do think though that the ability to implement a dictatorship has been made easier in this country by:
A) A lack of proportional represenation in the House.
B) The 17th Amendment and the removal of a filtration level in regards to U.S. Senators
C) The increase in Executive Power over the past number of years.
Why didn't the Republican Senators in charge of the Impeachment call him?Saying Biden wasn’t relevant is a cop out. Of course he’s relevant. He is at the center of the alleged corruption that Trump wanted to get the truth about.
Reminds me when Lamar Alexander said it was wrong for Trump to ask Zelensky to investigate Biden, and he should have asked Barr to do it instead. A few years ago, asking the AG to investigate your political opponent would have been considered a huge norm violation. Now it's the "moderate" position.That's the problem with this scope creep. Every year something a little bit worse goes by without any real repurcussions and suddenly the next thing, that would have seemed like a huge deal several years ago, is only a little bit worse than the last thing and close enough that it can be blown off.
It absolutely doesNo...its the truth. The articles of impeachment and the claims made...Hunter Biden gas no knowledge of Trumps actions of withholding aid/abuse of power or obstruction.
Biden's innocence or guilt does not legally justify Trump’s actions
This is 100% fair and correct.removal has never happened. This case was as strong as any presidential impeachment case ever tried, and came up far short of 2/3.
Within the confines of a 2 party system, and acknowledging the fealty of senators towards the party, removal by means of impeachment is not possible.
It didn't seem strange, it was totally predictable. Trump's personality failings have been on display for a while, it wasn't hard to see he pines to be one of those guys, even though he doesn't have the cognitive or emotional fortitude to pull it off (which makes his pining all the more pathetic to see).Remember how it seemed so strange that Trump fully embraced Dictators like Putin, Xi, and Kim, while constantly trashing our own democratic allies?
Doesn't seem so strange anymore.
It wasn't a clear corruption case though...there is zero probable cause about it...which is why there has been no legitimate investigation done. It was a conspiracy theory of Trump's along with Crowdstrike which he brought up. It was a joke.It absolutely does
we can’t have the President looking the other way on a clear corruption case and financial influence on US foreign policy. We can’t have a message being sent to an ally that the current administration will be complicit in the corruption of past administrations and their abuse of said ally.
Legally, a President can investigate anything he wants. Ethically, he should have a solid pretense. He certainly did here. I can’t say the same for Schiff investigating Trump.
The founding fathers were concerned with abuses of power that called into question the integrity of the government. That corrupted the rule of law. That went against the constitution. The Virginia plan that was adopted.This. The founders wanted Removal to happen for something egregious and unquestionably removable. Selling military secrets to China/Russia, for example.
People rush to assert "If this isn't impeachable, then nothing is." That would imply that there is NOTHING worse that Trump or any other President could ever do. And that's ludicrous. There are several levels of "worse" beyond what Trump did.
Save your breath.It wasn't a clear corruption case though...there is zero probable cause about it...which is why there has been no legitimate investigation done. It was a conspiracy theory of Trump's along with Crowdstrike which he brought up. It was a joke.
He withheld congressionally approved aid (which the GAO found to be illegal) to try and get a country to investigate his rival without probable cause. He never mentioned corruption...you know, actual corruption. Ukraine had already been approved to have the aid released by congress.
His actions...no matter what Biden had done...were an abuse of power and beyond the scope of his duties...that was the crux of the matter. What would Biden testify to? He wouldn't be obligated to answer anything that would incriminate him if he was, indeed, corrupt. As he was not on trial.
Schiff had probable cause to investigate Trump. Based on the WB complaint that an IG stated was credible.
noStrongly disagree. All citizens should have an equal vote. Today they don’t.
What's more, Trump (in the form of a DoD review did have the opportunity to review Ukraine's performance regarding corruption. DoD had certified that they were making progress and that the aid should move forward. Trump not only held back the aid, he refused to publicly admit what he was doing. The whole "investigating corruption" rationale only came about after he got caught.It wasn't a clear corruption case though...there is zero probable cause about it...which is why there has been no legitimate investigation done. It was a conspiracy theory of Trump's along with Crowdstrike which he brought up. It was a joke.
He withheld congressionally approved aid (which the GAO found to be illegal) to try and get a country to investigate his rival without probable cause. He never mentioned corruption...you know, actual corruption. Ukraine had already been approved to have the aid released by congress.
His actions...no matter what Biden had done...were an abuse of power and beyond the scope of his duties...that was the crux of the matter. What would Biden testify to? He wouldn't be obligated to answer anything that would incriminate him if he was, indeed, corrupt. As he was not on trial.
Schiff had probable cause to investigate Trump. Based on the WB complaint that an IG stated was credible.
What you left out is that he should also have a process in place. That's what gives the public confidence that impartial justice is being done, and that the president is not simply seeking to punish his enemies. (And no, "talk to Rudy" is not, in fact, a process.)Legally, a President can investigate anything he wants. Ethically, he should have a solid pretense.