But Trump isn’t impeaching Schiff. — NOS4A2

And Trump isn't being impeached for bribery. I'm not sure why it matters what was said prior to the impeachment articles being drafted.

We’re speaking about messaging for the purposes of influencing an investigation into the president of the United States.

Who is being influenced? Are you suggesting that the Democrats' talk of bribery compelled people to testify before the House with false information? Or that they're tricking themselves or their Republican colleagues to vote in favour of impeachment?

I'm afraid I just don't understand this line of questioning. The articles have been drafted. Either Trump abused his power and obstructed Congress or he didn't. Congress now needs to vote on whether or not the evidence supports these accusations.

What say you? I know your opinion on the abuse of power charge, but what of obstructing Congress? Did Trump refuse to comply or order others to refuse to comply with subpoenas? Is refusing to comply or ordering others to refuse to comply with subpoenas an obstruction of Congress?

No, my only point was the Dems were waffling, more concerned with messaging and optics than justice. The fact they use focus groups to see which worked better is evidence of this. In other words, the accused Trump of crimes and then changed their minds upon realizing it wouldn’t work. It’s all a show; it’s all Democrat dinner-theater.

As for obstructing congress, this is the type of fishing expedition I was talking about: accuse Trump of a trumped up charge and then accuse him of obstructing the sham investigation when he protests. I’m not sure what crime “obstruction of Congress” is (Obstruction of Justice?) but I suspect they’ll make the case that he is somehow “violating his oath of office” moving forward. I think that without a crime we’ll be entering the court of opinion.

I’m not sure what crime “obstruction of Congress” is — NOS4A2

18 U.S. Code § 1505.Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

accuse Trump of a trumped up charge and then accuse him of obstructing the sham investigation when he protests. — NOS4A2

He wasn't just protesting. He was refusing subpoenas or ordering others to refuse subpoenas. Even someone who's innocent can be guilty of obstructing justice, so not even that defense works. Congress issued subpoenas; they must be complied with. It's their job to determine innocence or guilt, not the accused. Otherwise Congressional oversight is moot. We've discussed this before.

accuse Trump of a trumped up charge and then accuse him of obstructing the sham investigation when he protests. — NOS4A2

Also, they weren't the ones making accusations. It started with the whistle-blower complaint which was deemed by the IG to be urgent and credible. It's Congress' job to investigate further, and to carry out their investigation they need to subpoena evidence and testimony. That testimony warranted further investigation.

You seem to be saying that they need proof that he's guilty before they can even start an investigation into whether or not he's guilty, which is nonsense.

I’m hoping you looked at the article, and read it to the end where the article finishes with this line;

“The threat of tyranny can be real enough. But those who act as though democracy is constantly on the precipice are likely to miss the path that leads not simply to fuller justice but to true safety.” — Brett

In the preceding paragraph the author writes:

tyrannophobia is blinding many to the real warnings of the election: A dysfunctional economy, not lurking tyranny, is what needs attention if recent electoral choices are to be explained — and voting patterns are to be changed in the future.

The apparent concern in regard to "true safety" is not placing attention where it can do the most good, which in this case is claimed to be the dysfunctional economy. Nowhere in the article does it explain how mass hysteria or tyrannophobia plays into the hands of totalitarianism. You still haven't explained how one may lead to the other. The truth is that you can't explain it, because the claim is irrational, as is your claim that this topic expresses mass hysteria. To put it bluntly, you're being hysterical, which is extremely odd considering your line of critique.

You believe the accusations of the opposition without evidence, and I’m naive. — NOS4A2

That Trump would be interested in the dealings of Biden's son wouldn't be about the upcoming elections? Gimme a break, you are simply very silly now.

No, my only point was the Dems were waffling, more concerned with messaging and optics than justice. The fact they use focus groups to see which worked better is evidence of this. In other words, the accused Trump of crimes and then changed their minds upon realizing it wouldn’t work. It’s all a show; it’s all Democrat dinner-theater. — NOS4A2

Just going to point out that, over here in the real world, it's perfectly normal for charges to be downgraded during the course of an investigation. So is selecting the most promising charges to proceed.

But obviously impeachment proceedings are highly political. They're not, or only in a small part, about justice.

I never drew from it the conclusion you pretend I did. I’m only saying that it isn’t true Biden is Trump’s opponent in 2020, so why keep saying it? — NOS4A2

You concluded that Trump couldn't ask for the investigation for the 2020 election because the primary hadn't occured yet. I'm not pretending anything, you're just terrible at admitting mistakes. Here's a refresher.

I use the term “fantasy” because the idea he is using it for political benefit for the purpose of winning the 2020 election is imagined, made up, presumption without evidence, and contrary to the explicit reasoning of all parties involved.

I’ve been consistent on this argument to no avail. — NOS4A2

Second, the primary hasn’t even occurred yet, so unless Biden is a foregone conclusion (which is often how the DNC operates) he is not yet Trump’s opponent in 2020. — NOS4A2

QED

Now stop being a partisan ass and use your brain for a change.

Whoever corruptly, or by threats or force, or by any threatening letter or communication influences, obstructs, or impedes or endeavors to influence, obstruct, or impede the due and proper administration of the law under which any pending proceeding is being had before any department or agency of the United States, or the due and proper exercise of the power of inquiry under which any inquiry or investigation is being had by either House, or any committee of either House or any joint committee of the Congress—

That’s a problem for Dems because again they’ll have to prove corrupt intent.

He wasn't just protesting. He was refusing subpoenas or ordering others to refuse subpoenas. Even someone who's innocent can be guilty of obstructing justice, so not even that defense works. Congress issued subpoenas; they must be complied with. It's their job to determine innocence or guilt, not the accused. Otherwise Congressional oversight is moot. We've discussed this before.

The US constitution does not explicitly grant Congress the power to investigate the executive branch. It has been stonewalling congress since time immortal because it has the power to do so. Congress could hold the branch in contempt of Congress, sue for the documents or hold the office in criminal contempt, but absent that they have nothing.

Also, they weren't the ones making accusations. It started with the whistle-blower complaint which was deemed by the IG to be urgent and credible. It's Congress' job to investigate further, and to carry out their investigation they need to subpoena evidence and testimony. That testimony warranted further investigation.

You seem to be saying that they need proof that he's guilty before they can even start an investigation into whether or not he's guilty, which is nonsense.

The IG also deemed the whistleblower to have an an indica of arguable political bias in favor of an opposing candidate. The alleged whistleblower is a CIA Obama holdover connected to Biden. He used a New York Times articles as the basis for one of his accusations, that trump was doing so for his own benefit and for political dirt.

Guilty of what? The problem is there was no crime, no direct evidence of any intention of committing a crime.

That Trump would be interested in the dealings of Biden's son wouldn't be about the upcoming elections? Gimme a break, you are simply very silly now.

Do you believe Ukraine shouldn’t investigate possible corruption because it might hurt Biden’s chance in the next election?

You concluded that Trump couldn't ask for the investigation for the 2020 election because the primary hadn't occured yet.

Second, the primary hasn’t even occurred yet, so unless Biden is a foregone conclusion (which is often how the DNC operates) he is not yet Trump’s opponent in 2020.

From the horse’s mouth. more fantasy.

Just going to point out that, over here in the real world, it's perfectly normal for charges to be downgraded during the course of an investigation. So is selecting the most promising charges to proceed.

But obviously impeachment proceedings are highly political. They're not, or only in a small part, about justice.

Show me the man, and I'll show you the crime.

From the horse’s mouth. more fantasy. — NOS4A2

Which is a non sequitur as I explained. It doesn't follow that because the primary hasn't occured that therefore asking Ukraine to investigate Biden had nothing to do with the 2020 election.

So what, from the horse's ass now?

It does, surely.

I made no such conclusion. The conclusion I did make is bolded for all to see.

WASHINGTON — President Trump and Attorney General William P. Barr took aim at the F.B.I. on Tuesday, reiterating attacks on former bureau officials and contradicting the agency’s director, Christopher A. Wray, a day after an independent watchdog concluded that agents were justified in opening an investigation into Russia’s possible ties with the Trump campaign.

https://nyti.ms/38jnf0t

So - you call in an umpire, a third-party source, to investigate a conspiracy that you think you can see - and when the results don't support your conspiracy theory, you attack the umpire.

So typical of these hucksters.

Yep, I see him and Nixon acting very similar...let's deflect attention away from one's wrongdoings and instead attack the process and throw in some ad hominem. He's his own worst enemy; he focuses too much on his image, crowd size, and all the other silly child-like behavior unfitting for a President of this great Country. MAEA-Make America Embarrassed Again.

Guilty of what? The problem is there was no crime, no direct evidence of any intention of committing a crime. — NOS4A2

If I'm earning £30,000 a year and I buy a £500,000 sports car in cash then the government is warranted to open an investigation to determine if I have an unreported income or if I'm stealing, even though there's no direct evidence of there being any crime.

If there's a whistle-blower complaint, deemed credible by the Inspector General, that the President is improperly (or illegally) withholding aid approved by Congress and asking the would-be recipient of that aid to investigate a political opponent then Congress is warranted to open an investigation to determine if the President is abusing his power.

The IG also deemed the whistleblower to have an an indica of arguable political bias in favor of an opposing candidate. The alleged whistleblower is a CIA Obama holdover connected to Biden. He used a New York Times articles as the basis for one of his accusations, that trump was doing so for his own benefit and for political dirt. — NOS4A2

Don't you see the hypocrisy in always accusing Democrats and Obama-appointees of being partisan and biased? You dismissing every accusation because they come from a Democrat or an Obama-appointee is the very partisanship and bias that you're accusing them of.

Congress can't just dismiss a complaint based on the political-affiliation of the complainant. They have to investigate to see if there is any substance behind the accusation. Otherwise I guess when it's a Democrat President they can ignore any Republican?

Or maybe you should ignore everything Barr and Durham conclude in their investigation because, being Trump-appointees/subordinates, they're biased in Trump's favour and will lie to protect him and to attack his opponents.

The US constitution does not explicitly grant Congress the power to investigate the executive branch. It has been stonewalling congress since time immortal because it has the power to do so. — NOS4A2

The Executive is bound by laws passed by Congress unless the Constitution explicitly says otherwise. Does the Constitution explicitly protect the Executive from the demands of 18 U.S. Code § 1505?

Congress could hold the branch in contempt of Congress, sue for the documents or hold the office in criminal contempt, but absent that they have nothing. — NOS4A2

They have sued for documents (and testimony) and the White House has refused. Hence the obstruction of Congress impeachment article.

If I'm earning £30,000 a year and I buy a £500,000 sports car in cash then the government is warranted to open an investigation to determine if I have an unreported income or if I'm stealing, even though there's no direct evidence of there being any crime.

If there's a whistle-blower complaint, deemed credible by the Inspector General, that the President is improperly (or illegally) withholding aid approved by Congress and asking the would-be recipient of that aid to investigate a political opponent then Congress is warranted to open an investigation to determine if the President is abusing his power.

I agree they are stonewalling congress. But we cannot pretend that stonewalling congress is out of the ordinary or every president would have to be impeached.

Don't you see the hypocrisy in always accusing Democrats and Obama-appointees of being partisan and biased? You dismissing every accusation because they come from a Democrat or an Obama-appointee is the very partisanship and bias that you're accusing them of.

Congress can't just dismiss a complaint based on the political-affiliation of the complainant. They have to investigate to see if there is any substance behind the accusation. Otherwise I guess when it's a Democrat President we can ignore any Republican or Trump-appointee?

My speculations on the motivations of the whistleblower are speculations, and I’m not pretending otherwise. It is true that he could just be deluded by poor reporting, as I’ve previously stated, but that he is connected to Biden and the previous administration, which is the subject of Trump’s concerns with respect to Ukraine, is worrying to any accusation of malfeasance.

The Executive is bound by laws passed by Congress unless the Constitution explicitly says otherwise. Does the Constitution explicitly protect the Executive from the demands of 18 U.S. Code § 1505?

The executive branch has “executive privilege”. It’s just not that easy. It’s going to be tricky for the Dems.

Yep, I see him and Nixon acting very similar...let's deflect attention away from one's wrongdoings and instead attack the process and throw in some ad hominem. — 3017amen

Ultimately Nixon acted for the good of the nation by resigning - something Trump would never do.

ah, the willfully ignorant and unconstructive approach.

I feel like I could speak to you infinitely and it would do no good because you refuse to face reality.

Good point. It is a little uncanny, after looking at some old footage of Nixon, how similar Trump acts when he gets defensive...

Summary of the main charges behind the Articles:

The evidence shows:

* Trump's attorney Rudy Giuliani has promoted a debunked conspiracy theory that blames Ukraine and not Russia for the cyber-attacks on the 2016 election.

* In spring of 2019, Giuliani began pressing Ukrainian officials to announce investigations into the conspiracy theory and unfounded charges of corruption against Trump's presidential rival Joe Biden and his son Hunter Biden.

* Trump handed Ukraine-America affairs over to his private attorney telling top officials to "talk to Rudy."
*For months Trump held-up nearly $400 million in war-fighting aid to Ukraine because he wanted the country's new president to do him the "favor" of investigating the Biden family and the conspiracy theory about the 2016 election. (Trump denies any quid pro quo.)

* In refusing all requests for information, Trump committed obstruction of Congress as it sought to investigate him.

Taken together, and as three esteemed constitutional law scholars have testified, the facts present an irrefutable case that the President committed impeachable offenses and a pattern of abuses that support an urgent approach [i.e. articles of impeachment]. Having invited a foreign power to attack his election rival in 2016 -- publicly asking Russia to find Hillary Clinton's missing emails (Trump claimed that he was only joking) -- he had done it again in anticipation of 2020. "The integrity of our elections is at stake," noted Judiciary Committee Chairman Jerry Nadler as he explained the urgent necessity for holding Trump accountable.

https://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/10/opinions/gop-trust-trump-ig-report-dantonio/index.html

The apparent concern in regard to "true safety" is not placing attention where it can do the most good, which in this case is claimed to be the dysfunctional economy. Nowhere in the article does it explain how mass hysteria or tyrannophobia plays into the hands of totalitarianism. You still haven't explained how one may lead to the other. The truth is that you can't explain it, — praxis

I’m pretty sure that none of my responses would satisfy you. That’s because you’ve take the position that if you’re not with me then your against me.

Of course there is nothing specific in the article about mass hysteria leading to totalitarianism. What it does indicate is how things come apart so easily because of this tyrannophobia, which, if it continues, I suggest, feeds elements of totalitarianism.

“History raises serious doubts about how helpful this tyrannophobic focus on catastrophe, fake news and totalitarianism really is in dealing with the rise of the populist right, of which this bumbling hothead of a president is a symptom. Excessive focus on liberal fundamentals, like basic freedoms or the rule of law, could prove self-defeating. By postponing serious efforts to give greater priority to social justice, tyrannophobia treats warning signs as a death sentence, while allowing the real disease to fester.”

What is “the real disease”?

I’d be happy to walk back on the word “hysteria” as being a bit too extreme but I see I’m not alone in using that word, because it defines the mood of the hyperbole accurately, so I’ll stick with it.

You asked me how it plays into the hands of totalitarianism and I posted the article to explain that. Posting a few lines from the story about the economy suggests the article is only about that. It is not. Social Justice has a very broad interpretation these days, but we can assume that most people would regard it as “a concept of fair and just relations between the individual and society” (Wikipedia), which would involve the institutions of that society.

There are people, myself included, who see the Impeachment process being used as a tool to remove an elected President. You may not agree with this. Whether we support Trump or not is beside the point, what we see happening is the erosion of Democratic norms. In time that erosion runs deeper and deeper and becomes the norm. The hysteria I’m referring to is what we read and hear that feeds this process; political use of peoples irrational fears. There’s nothing irrational about my claim.

There are people, myself included, who see the Impeachment process being used as a tool to remove an elected President. — Brett

Isn't that what the impeachment process is there for, to remove an elected president? If so, then using it for this purpose is not an erosion of norms, it is just a normal procedure. It would only be an erosion, if the process was being used to convict the president of crimes he did not commit. Do you believe president Trump committed no crimes? If not, then why complain about the impeachment? ..

Do you believe president Trump committed no crimes? — Metaphysician Undercover

As stated in Impeachment articles; obviously not.

Conviction of a crime implies that the criminal will be duly punished. The end, punishment, follows from the means, conviction. So it's not erosive to the justice system, to put people on trial for the purpose of punishing the criminals.