"Trump" is an exemplar of a much larger problem. So is the Republican Party. But then, so is the Democratic Party, and so is Wall Street, Capitalism, and more! — Bitter Crank
Yes but 'everything is fucked anyway' is hardly an answer??? — Wayfarer
The so-called 'defense' of Trump is preposterous in the extreme. It all comes down to, well if Trump does it, then it can't be criminal! It can't be an abuse of power, but the legit exercise of political power. They're now openly saying - even if he did it (and of course he did it, the evidence is undeniable), it can't be considered wrong. In effect they're just blatantly putting Trump above the law, above any kind of accountability. — Wayfarer
They're now openly saying - even if he did it (and of course he did it, the evidence is undeniable), it can't be considered wrong. — Wayfarer
Not really, it is a direct quote from the text itself. The Senate has the exclusive power to determine what qualifies.I know that is your interpretation, however, High Crimes and Misdemeanors is simply that, a constitutional interpretation. — 3017amen
Of course not; but in my opinion, the House managers did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump requested foreign assistance strictly for personal political gain. That is an attribution of motive, which is a very tricky thing to prove, especially on the basis of a single phone conversation. The issue there is whether an investigation of Burisma and the Bidens was (and still is) properly predicated, in which case the fact that it might also have a personal political benefit for Trump is irrelevant.And would you condone such behavior from any President (requesting foreign assistance for personal political gain-which is in violation of campaign statues.) — 3017amen
Not really, it is a direct quote from the text itself. The Senate has the exclusive power to determine what qualifies. — aletheist
Of course not; but in my opinion, the House managers did not establish beyond a reasonable doubt that President Trump requested foreign assistance strictly for personal political gain. — aletheist
Impeachment is supposed to be a rare and serious matter. Gathering evidence to support taking such action is the responsibility of the House of Representatives. If its investigators believed that there was genuine "obstruction of documents and witnesses," then they could (and should) have taken that argument to the courts, since that is where such disputes between the legislative and executive branches are routinely resolved. Besides, two Democrats in the House and Mitt Romney in the Senate acknowledged that President Trump was not guilty of obstructing Congress.Even though it wasn't a criminal trial, we all wanted witnesses in order to help determine incriminating or exculpatory evidence. The mere fact there was obstruction of documents and witnesses, suggests a Modus Tollens type of inference. — 3017amen
No, it is the first Senate trial for removal from office without witnesses; again, please do not conflate the two distinct steps. It is also the first impeachment without bipartisan support in the House of Representatives, and even Nancy Pelosi once argued against proceeding under such circumstances.This is the first Impeachment without witnesses. — 3017amen
A majority of Senators did not believe that additional witnesses would have revealed any new information that would have changed their assessment--President Trump's conduct did not warrant removal from office. What other inference would be reasonable?So, what are we left with, reasonable inference you think? — 3017amen
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.