Although that's true, they can refer to actual laws being broken which does make it much less of an open question. For example refusing to comply with subpoenas which is an offense against 18 U.S. Code § 1505. So although the first article of impeachment is somewhat vague, the second is pretty clearly defined. — Michael

There is a legal means to enforce a Congressionally issued subpoena. https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trump-congress-subpoena-explainer/explainer-congress-no-longer-runs-a-jail-so-just-how-powerful-are-its-subpoenas-idUSKCN1S02K8

The remedy against someone who disputes the legitimacy of a subpoena is enforcement, not the overturning of an election.

You're just making stuff up. There is no "clear law" setting forth the criteria of theft, or any such crime, just like there is no clear criteria for high crimes and misdemeanors of a president. If there was such clarity the lawyers would be without a job. And it's very clear that there are a lot of lawyers making a lot of money in this world. — Metaphysician Undercover

The Georgia law on theft, for example:

"A person commits the offense of theft by taking when he unlawfully takes or, being in lawful possession thereof, unlawfully appropriates any property of another with the intention of depriving him of the property, regardless of the manner in which the property is taken or appropriated.".

Each provision of this statute must be proved beyond a reasonable doubt. If a statue is unclear or vague, it will be struck down as unconstitutionally void for vagueness. As you can imagine, if the government were permitted to vaguely define laws, the citizens would never know what is legal or not, and could be subject to unpredictable prosecutions.

Why is it not the discretion of the House, to deliver the papers when they see fit? It does not make sense that the Senate can force the House to deliver the papers at any particular time. — Metaphysician Undercover

It is, and when they do, the President will be impeached, but not before. As you guys have gone on and on describing the great need for this impeachment and congratulated one another on each other's rhetoric, you'd think the House would actually impeach this President instead of playing politics.

There are thousands of pages, and many hours, of witness testimony, which attest in enormous detail to Trump’s attempt to extort a foreign power by withholding aid to elicit help for political gain. Many of those witnesses were appointed by Trump and are generally witnesses of repute and professional standing. Really, the evidence against Trump is overwhelming, which is why the Republicans can’t defend him. All they can do is attack the process and obfuscate. Like you are doing. — Wayfarer

And this is non-responsive to my post. My comment relates to the vague Constitutional standard and the legal description of the allegations contained in the articles, not the factual basis of the allegations.

For example, if you're charged with theft, there will be a clear law setting forth the several criteria that must be met for a theft to occur. The jury willl then determine if the facts establish a theft.

In an impeachment, there are no such criteria to be met. There's just a vague Constitutional standard that the House then sets forth into a more specific allegation after the offense is committed (ex post facto). Whether the House's articles actually describe a "high crime and misdemeanor" will remain an open question for each Senator to answer.

You act like there's this clear impeachment process, yet one doesn't exist. If there is one, why is the House trying to negotiate a process with the Senate? In a courtroom, the State doesn't have to negotiate a procedure with the accused. Explain that.

Don't mind Hanover, he's just lawyering from a shit-igloo. — Baden

No, the problem is I'm right, even if the Democrats are right that Trump deserves removal. The Senate gets to be wrong and that'll be the final word. I'd say the same thing if the Senate removed an honest President for no good reason at all. This idea that there is a philosopher king protecting us from our dumb ass selves is just the silly stuff of philosophy forums.

His actions during the trial, and what can be proven during the trial, and what the consequences could theoretically be for such behavior in an impeachment trial, are matters yet to unfold and to be decided by a Supreme Court review (likely). — VagabondSpectre

You just really don't fully understand the judicial process. How does this case get to the Court? Who has standing to bring it? Someone is going to sue a Senator for failing to exercise his discretion in what they believe required (under what law?) and they're going to do what? File for equitable relief (a writ of mandamus) or they're going to ask for money damages? Are you moving for contempt? You think a judge can disqualify a Senator? You just don't realize how little sense you're making.

But it's the Senator's role to interpret and apply the constitution during an impeachment trial. If what Hanover suggests is true, then the Senate essentially has the authority to do whatever they want, where the only recourse is voting them out (even if they gerrymander or seek to rig elections in their favor apparently). If the senate gets to decide to any degree what the constitution means or when it should be ignored, then yes, that's fucked. Another level of irony given it's the republicans who are obsessed with appealing to founder's intentions in constitutional interpretation... — VagabondSpectre

Your attempt to directly analogize a judicial proceeding with an impeachment fails on many levels. The President has been accused vaguely of "high crimes and misdemeanors" that the House has itemized as "abuse of power" and "obstruction." There are no specific elements that must be proved for those crimes and they were created by the House ex post facto. That is the way impeachment is done, legally and constitutionally, but in a real judicial hearing it would be fundamentally unfair. There would also be a clear burden of proof (beyond a reasonable doubt), but here none is specified, a serious problem for an accused. There are also no rules of evidence, meaning hearsay, character attacks and the like might be admissible, as might be consideration of evidence outside the proceeding.

This is, by its nature, a free for all dependent upon the subjective whims of the Senate, very doubtfully reviewable by the courts. Impeachment is democracy turning in on itself, where our representatives vote out our representatives. It's therefore designed to be nearly impossible, requiring both houses to agree, with the upper house requiring a super majority. The brick wall the Democrats are running into was built there over 200 years ago, and I'm thankful for that. The ballot box is where revolutions happen in democracies not by the party that lost a most bitter election.

wonder... Is it a crime to violate an oath to be an impartial juror in an impeachment trial? — VagabondSpectre

You sort of made up the thing about Senators taking an oath to be impartial jurors. They represent those who elected them.

when Mitch says he is going to take a steaming shit on the congress by biasing the judicial process in the senate, it's actually a constitutional crisis for which there is neither precedent nor obvious solution. — VagabondSpectre

Yeah, except Senators aren't part of the judiciary, they are part of the legislature, so they don't act like judges, nor do House members.

the lower house found that the president abused power and obstructed congress(and once they transmit the articles), is the senate not obligated to orchestrate a fair judicial process to get to the bottom of it? — VagabondSpectre

They can do whatever they want to. It's their chamber and if you don't like it, vote them out. If this were an actual judicial inquiry there'd be an actual law cited as having been violated, with specific elements to be proved, and impartial jurors selected to consider it.

It's in the Constitution. - as the scholar I quoted says ‘the House shall have the whole power of impeachment’. The Constitution says nothing about referral to the Senate to complete this act. — Wayfarer

The Constitution says nothing about articles of impeachment either, so I'd suspect the could impeach by just saying it. Maybe the Senate can start the trial now, considering you're saying the impeachment is complete.

This is from the legal scholar who the Republicans called for the hearings. Explain to us where he says Trump has not been impeached. — Wayfarer

If the Senate can't try him, he's not been impeached. Whoever says to the contrary is wrong.

You exemplify the Republican duplicity with exquisite eloquence. — Wayfarer

The truth is obvious here. The House accomplished something the Senate will undo, so they want to delay it or possibly stop it by complaining the Senate can't be fair. It's all politics, so hop off your high horse and just admit both sides are just selling different brands of bullshit but you prefer Brand D over R.

Impeachment isn’t complete’ - no contest. But Trump has been impeached by the House. Even if he is ultimately acquitted, as Clinton was, he still will be an impeached President, as Clinton is. — Wayfarer

No, Clinton's articles of impeachment went to the Senate, at which point he was impeached. Trump hasn't been impeached.

Apparently the House, having no respect for the most fundamental of Constitutional principles, namely the separation if powers, refuses to cede the power to the Senate to hold its trial as it sees fit. If the Founders trusted a single body to both impeach and try a President, they they'd have written the Constitution that way. They attempted to protect against the very abuse of power we're now seeing.

What we have is a serious abuse of power, holding hostage the articles to gain an advantage in an election so that a political oppononent can be subjected to an investigation. Where have I heard such charges before?

A most delicious irony.

And the reason that the articles have not been forwarded, is because Schumer and McConnell haven't been able to agree on the rules — Wayfarer

The House can try to manipulate the process in the Senate, which will have no impact on the final result. Regardless, Trump has yet to be impeached, which means that not only is conviction incredibly unlikely, but it's becoming unclear whether Trump will even be impeached by the House.

This is not true. He has been impeached, the Senate trial then decides whether he should be removed from office. But the passing of the articles of impeachment means impeachment. — Wayfarer

The Senate has not been asked to decide anything and there has been no request by the House that Trump be considered for removal from office. Sure, it's a simple act for Pelosi to hand the articles to the Senate, but until she does, the Senate has nothing to consider.

No, I just didn’t think LuckilyDifinative’s argument would be amusing. I’m sure that yours would be hysterical though, if you would be so generous as to share it with us. — praxis

It definitely would be, but I'm not an organ grinder monkey here for your entertainment. I'm a real person with real feelings.

OH YES HE HAS. The articles of impeachment have been passed, by record margins, and he is, and forever will have been, impeached, regardless of what happens in the (corrupt, spineless, supine) Senate. — Wayfarer

Not until they've transmitted the articles to the Senate does the impeachment occur. That requires an act of the House, not the Senate.

I am aware of the unprecedented nature of the impeachment proceeding, occurring without a single vote from the other party,

This impeachment was not by record margins. In the Jackson impeachment, the House voted 126-47-17 (abstains) to impeach, which is 66%. Trump's was 230-197, which is 54%.

Anyone who would claim that Trump is not divisive is probably not worth arguing with. — praxis

It's apparently even divisive to claim he's not divisive.

Let's not get ahead of ourselves. Trump HAS NOT been impeached yet. Unless and until the articles of impeachment have been transmitted to the Senate, there has been no impeachment. https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-19/trump-impeachment-delay-could-be-serious-problem-for-democrats

So, back to your business. Nothing to see here so far except for a bunch of House members bickering.

We know Trump is extremely unlikely to be convicted by the Senate. The issue is which Republican Senators will be inclined to vote against Trump to ensure personal re-election, and what kind of division this will create within the party. And if they do not vote against Trump they face the prospect of being replaced by a Democrat. — Metaphysician Undercover

The real question is the number of Democrat detectors there will be. In the House, 3 Dems defected and 0 Repubs. I'm not sure why you think it'll be any different in the Senate.

There is probably a lot more to this matter than what you make of it here. The Democrats may have layered the strategy. The Senate has a complex election system, with representation by state. It is likely that some Senators will have a tough decision to make. Some Republican Senators will face the prospect of not getting re-elected if they side with Trump. There may be a shake up of the Senate, or there may be division in the Republican party. Either way, the Democrats come out ahead. — Metaphysician Undercover

37 Republican Senators have already gone on record as opposing removal. https://www.washingtonpost.com/graphics/2020/politics/senate-impeachment-votes/

They need 67 to remove. It was over before it began.

If Trump built himself an igloo out of human excrement, the Republicans would cut each other's dicks off to be the first to dive in and claim it was a five-star hotel. The guy owns their souls. It's fascinating to — Baden

So there's an igloo formed of human shit, and for some reason the only way to enter it is to dive into it, and then a bunch of people lop off their genitals so they can complete their dive, and then, when they do, they cry out "I'm in a 5 star hotel"?

I mean maybe, but I just don't think this is going to happen.

Yes, it's political, but he's guilty as fuck anyway, so let's talk about that instead of Partisan Dems! which is just a Republican distraction technique. — Baden

He's guilty of wanting dirt on a political rival and flexing his muscle to get it by insinuating money would be withheld indefinitely if assistance wasn't provided. In the end, the money was given and weapons were provided in excess of what the prior administration gave, despite not having received the dirt he wanted. Then a big to-do was held where all the people who have wanted him out of office since day one convened and held sanctimonious hearings before a half-concerned public and Trump refused to participate. For that, he's charged with abuse of power and obstruction of bullshit.

Then there's the nebulous matter of what constitutes a high crime and misdemeanor worthy of overturning an election, with the left saying it's the above and the right rolling their eyes.

So, when you say "he's guilty as fuck," that doesn't mean much, considering it's not clear that even if he's guilty of doing the things he's accused of that it constitutes a worthy removable offense. The decision of whether this is a removable offense is wholly (as is literally wholly) political. If there were actually a law with specific elements that had to be satisfied that I could weigh against some facts, then this whole inquiry might be more interesting. Instead, it's just a bunch of Democrats screaming at Trump, who care just about as much as when Trump screams at them.

I'll go on as record as the distinguished Senator from Hanorville as agreeing with every fact submitted by the Democrats and voting that Trump remain in office, as I believe his actions fall within the typical behavior of the typical Congressman on a typical Wednesday, yet he at least votes in a way that is ideologically similar to my own.

You're allowing that Trump might have been right to attack Biden because Biden might have been corrupt. By that logic we should have ditched Kavanaugh because he might have been a rapist. — frank

That's exactly not what I'm saying. I'm saying my vote against Biden will be based upon his political positions. I doubt the validity of Trump's accusations, but I'm not terribly interested in them either, considering I've noted I'm not voting for Biden regardless.

Anyway, take me at my word, I really don't believe in discarding human beings for their personal failures. It's an endearingly liberal part of my otherwise harsh personality.

There's no point giving me the Sean Hannity "It's all a big conspiracy by Dems" line. He did it. Sondland et al are telling the truth and he's lying. Simple as that. That the Dems are partisan doesn't change anything. And whether or not he'll win the election, who knows. But yes, the polarity is fucking your country up royally. — Baden

The whole impeachment thing is a political process. It's simply not an objective fact finding mission. You have partisan people pushing forth political agendas, and the greatest nonsense is the talking point of the Dems where they say their objective is to protect the holy Constitution, a thing greater than themselves that transcends all party affiliation. No one on the right takes it seriously. It's seen a a coup.

What this means is that if the left wants this taken seriously, they either have to obtain bipartisan support or they need to go about some other order of business. This has been a profound waste of time that will have no impact other than to shake up the election process one way or the other. I trust the politicians to be political, and have no reason to think any one of them actually thought all this wrangling would result in Trump's removal, so I have to believe the real reason for this was to help them politically, regardless of what their pretense might be.

American polarity leads to theater and gridlock, whereas Britain's leads to severing ties with Europe and having a good piece of its nation making efforts to secede. I think it's a strength of the American system that during periods of great strife the status quo becomes impenetrable.

That's what Trump was trying to do to Biden... using the power of the presidency to accomplish it. All you republicans who are ok with that aren't making any sense to me. I try to understand what the fuck you could be thinking and I don't get it. — frank

I don't see the situations as at all similar, where you had the Senate conducting an overreaching attack on a potential Justice and Trump trying to investigate Biden for what might be (if true) something that could affect the election. Regardless, no one is saying that Trump ought be impeached because he dared attempt to tarnish the reputation of the good Biden family, but it's because he attempted to do it through an abuse of power as President.

I will say also that I'd likely be more forgiving of Biden for his past transgression than most in terms of whether he ought be excluded as a candidate. I do have a problem with the way we dispose of people for imperfections. My decision not to vote for Biden will be because I disagree with his policies, which is in part why I don't really care that Trump is a pretty useless piece of humanity.

I'm not sure how you got that from "possibly reveal new information [that] might make it more difficult to acquit Trump." — Michael

I'm saying that we all know what happened, and there's no reason to present witnesses now so that we can pretend we're actually on a fact finding mission. Everyone knew the House would impeach before they held all their hearings and everyone knows the Senate will acquit regardless of the hearings, so why must we keep up the facade that we're actually having a trial and people are actually deliberating what they might do? Does spinning our wheels serve some important democratic function?

As noted by some people, in the end this might benefit Trump and just increase his status among his supporters as the "Teflon-President". — ssu

If Bill Clinton is an example, it will help the party being impeached. My own thought is that you have a dickhead of a President who is tolerated by the moderate Republicans who will now come out in droves to support him in the upcoming election because there is nothing they hate more than the left that orchestrated this nonsense.

If there is a belief that this impeachment stains his image, it's wrong. This is entirely (as in literally, entirely) a partisan rebuke of a hated President, seen as nothing more by the right than an attempt to end the left's worst nightmare when Trump got elected.

And what's the endgame here? It's well within the realm of possibility that Trump wins, the Republicans win back both houses, and Ginsburg dies and opens up yet another Republican appointment. After this impeachment, there will be zero restraint. Like they say, if you're going to try to kill the king, you better make sure you kill him.

It's not just about the phone call, it's about what he actually did. — Baden

Not really. It's more about the Democrats having wanted to impeach him since he took office and waiting for whatever infraction came along right before the election so that they could do it then. Last I read, Pelosi intends to delay presenting the articles of impeachment to the Senate, I guess so that she can put it off to the eve of the election.

Nothing like prosecuting someone fully knowing there is no chance you will prevail.

So, Trump just got impeached? — Wallows

Yes, meaning the Democrats (no Republicans) condemned his behavior enough to send it to the Republican controlled Senate so that they can say there's insufficient evidence for his removal.

The only question now is whether this maneuvering will more energize the left or the right in the upcoming election. It's doubtful it will change a single vote from one side to the next, but it might cause more people to go to the polls.

This is delicious. — Baden

He said he thought Bush's lies that led to war were impeachable. The rest is spin, where somehow that means Trump's lies are equatable to Bush's and similarly impeachable. That seems a debatable proposition.

We’ve been over that before, but that’s not the point of my comment. The Republicans don’t want witnesses because they’re worried that (more) impeachable behaviour will be uncovered. So they’re actively saying that they don’t care if he’s done something that warrants removal; they only care about acquitting him, and want that to be as easy as possible. — Michael

I think it says that they know what happened and this silly theater needs to end. We all know (1) exactly what Trump said in the phone call, (2) that the House would impeach, and (3) the Senate will acquit. It's not a fact finding mission. It's politics. If every witness testified he was the piece of shit you think him to be, it won't lead to his conviction and it won't affect the upcoming election.

I'd say real change would be very much possible in the US if there would be a meaningful difference between Democrats and Republicans. — Benkei

If there's no difference, then why can't anything get passed?

The system doesn't provide any protections for the losing party accept a filibuster. In other words, any 60% majority means you're scotfree to do whatever you like. — Benkei

Nice pun with the scotfree comment in light of the Scots claiming they're not free. I'm just asking though what the Democrats have to complain about right now in terms of Republican policy being forced down their throat? They really haven't taken any big hits.

From what I've seen happen is that the economy has boomed, with unemployment at record lows, and a regained confidence in the system, notwithstanding the massive blow back from Marxist Dutch academics who are so critical to worldwide economic policy.

But I see a loss of confidence in the usefulness of a free market capitalist model following the global financial crisis. — Punshhh

Except that didn't happen following the Great Recession.

Talking about views on the Brexit issue, can anyone name a tangible benefit to leaving the EU? — Punshhh

It's probably as good an idea as the Scots leaving Britain, which is as much based upon their desire for independence and desire to lose their association with England than it is whether they'll actually economically benefit.

I think independence has value in its own right, even if means a loss of economic benefit. It's entirely possible that Canada, for example, would economically benefit if it ceded certain powers to the US, but I can fully understand why Canada wouldn't do that.

Where exactly are those rules you mentioned to protect minorities then? — Benkei

Eventually there will be a loss for one side or the other. That's inevitable. Either Britain was going to stay in the EU or they weren't.

Polarization typically leads to gridlock, not just a trouncing of the minority. When the Democrats controlled both houses and the White House, all they got through was half ass health insurance reform that has since been weakened. What really has Trump changed, even during the time when the Republicans controlled everything?

And what I've referred to above is when all houses were controlled by one party, but typically (as in now), one house is controlled by the other party, which then protects that party. And of course the courts serve as another protection. The reason the Senate rules of filibuster were changed which previously required 60% approval wasn't so much that they wanted to destroy the minority party, but it's that the minority party created complete gridlock. But still, to what great end? All the Republicans have ever achieved is the appointment of a right leaning Justice.

My point is that real change is very difficult to bring about in the American system, and it seems the same in the UK, where they've been bickering about Brexit long after they supposedly decided to exit.

I can't see the likelihood that the Tory's can recruit sufficient numbers from anyone under 45 years old, — Punshhh

They'll just wait for them to turn 45 years old. Older people are more conservative because they like the way things were, even though things weren't like the way they remembered them. I can say this because I'm over 45 and I remember things being better even though they weren't.

Ah, you mean how that significant remain minority doesn't get to remain? — Benkei

I'm not sure I completely understand this comment, but I think you're saying I want to kill the minority. I deny that charge.

If I wanted to eliminate the minority, I would get rid of all districts and my vote would be watered down with the west coast votes and northeast votes, and we'd have a single party in all the US. That's not what I want, unless it benefits me somehow, in which case I'd be in favor of it, until it no longer was to my benefit, then I'd change my mind and pretend I never wanted things the way they were. You'd have some transcripts of me saying one thing on one day and another on another, but I'd deny I said what I said and half the people would believe me, or at least pretend they did, because they agree with what I'm saying now, but not before.

In the US we dont trust simple majorities to decide things. Would you argue that we should?

Should a simple majority decide who the president is? — frank

This question strikes me as a strained attempt to bring about a discussion about the electoral college. In the UK, they elect representatives who then pick a prime minister, which seems even further removed from a directly democratic system.

Regardless, I'm fine with the current system of both countries, and do believe the decisions of elections represent the will of the people, controlled by various rules designed to protect minority interests or whatnot.

Do you think that every member of the House and Senate should be elected as an at large representative of the entire nation? I mean we do wish that each vote from each representative represent the entire will of the nation don't me? We don't want to disproportionately advance the interests of some small district in some far away state somewhere, right?

Looking forward to making you eat this when the Dems win the Whitehouse. :halo: — Baden

I guess it's obviously true that the democracy does not determine truth, meaning it's entirely possible (and often likely) that the voters choose a wrong course, but I do think there's some denial in this thread that perhaps the voters actually voted exactly as they wanted, as they believed, and they did it with their eyes wide open. I'm sure both sides are guilty of this, but trying to describe one's opponents as manipulated and deceived every time they vote in opposition to you appears as a refusal to accept that there might be another legitimate way of looking at things.