I don't think the founders envisioned a system where either party takes turns filling every major office with party-loyal sycophants who are willing to bend legal interpretations or outright lie in the service (or the attack) of the high-office.

Where has all the dignity gone?

We can imagine what the founders envisioned until the cows come home.

The only one bending legal interpretations are the ones impeaching a president based on fantasy.

The only one bending legal interpretations are the ones impeaching a president based on fantasy. — NOS4A2

Does repeating the word fantasy enact some kind of magical incantation?

This go-around started with a whistle-blower report, and a subsequent "transcript" which shows sufficient evidence of a high crime. (it's not a fantasy that the whistle-blower report/"transcript" is evidence, nor is it fantasy that asking a foreign government to investigate political rivals is a high crime).

You're pissing in our ears and telling us it's rain.

You don't think withholding military aid to allies in exchange for investigations into political rivals is impeachable?

You don't think we've seen seriously compelling evidence that Trump withheld military aid to Ukraine in exchange for public promises to investigate Trump's domestic political rivals?

The preponderance of the evidence strongly suggests Trump is guilty of that crime. Now we need a court of law to confirm or acquit that guilt.

. Now we need a court of law to confirm or acquit that guilt. — VagabondSpectre

In an impeachment proceeding, the Senate is the court of law. The House prepares the indictment, based on the articles of impeachment.

Let's assume that you've shown the "mass hysteria" present in this topic, how exactly does it play into the hands of totalitarianism? — praxis

I thought you’d prefer the NYT as opposed to Fox.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opinion/sunday/trump-hysteria-democracy-tyranny.html

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.

In fact, both the whistler blower and Bill Taylor both cite the same NYT article as their evidence. The NYT article on the other hand cites no evidence, and Giuliani’s quote in the article—We’re not meddling in an election, we’re meddling in an investigation, which we have a right to do—is completely contrary and exculpatory to that fantasy.

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.

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

Non sequitur, as if you've never hedged a bet.

It’s statement of fact that Biden is not the presidential candidate for the Democratic Party. The primary hasn’t occurred yet.

As Giuliani said, if he wanted to meddle in the election he would have waited until October 2020

Let's assume that you've shown the "mass hysteria" present in this topic, how exactly does it play into the hands of totalitarianism?
— praxis

I thought you’d prefer the NYT as opposed to Fox.

https://www.nytimes.com/2017/08/11/opinion/sunday/trump-hysteria-democracy-tyranny.html — Brett

I’ll ask once more, how exactly does the alleged mass hysteria expressed in this topic play into the hands of totalitarianism?

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.”

“fuller justice and true safety” are the essential words. Missing the path to true safety leads you away from the order of a Democratic society. There is only one version of Democracy which, just so we understand the point, is;
a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state, typically through elected representatives.

“Fuller justice” is the absolute priority of a Democratic society.

Once you move away from that, in in any way, you’re on that slippery slope that leads away from Democracy, that doesn’t lead to better things and ultimately will end in a totalitarian system.

I'm not disputing the fact, I'm disputing the conclusion you seem to draw from it which simply doesn't follow. If it's possible Biden could win the primary it makes sense to plan for that eventuality ahead of it happening. In fact, if Trump would consider him the strongest competitor frustrating his chances during the primary is even smarter. I suspect it's even simpler than that, and that Trump had heard of the conspiracy theory regarding Hunter Biden and went with that as I have trouble attributing anything thoughtful to Trump.

Also, once again, whatever Trump et al. says isn't remotely relevant as to what their actual motives are. Believing Trump is like believing the alleged murder didn't commit the murder because he went out of his way to deny it. Nobody would give the murderer's word any weight. Whenever Trump opens his mouth about any investigation into him, his words (and that of his cronies) carry no weight.

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?

It’s the other way about. Trumps explicit reasoning for what he said is relevant to his motives, but the Democrat conspiracy theory isn’t. The motives are the key because if what he said is true there is nothing wrong—indeed it was moral and right—with what he did. Of course the only people with direct knowledge of Trumps intentions are all consistent, and it lines up with the transcript.

As Giuliani said, if he wanted to meddle in the election he would have waited until October 2020 — NOS4A2

How naive. But I guess you have to regurgitate and stand by every imbecile argument that Giuliani makes in defence of Trump. Because...otherwise you wouldn't stand by your President against the evil "cultural-marxists" here.

Honestly, let's just remember when Trump started his campaign for the 2020 elections.

How naive. But I guess you have to regurgitate and stand by every imbecile argument that Giuliani makes in defence of Trump. Because...otherwise you wouldn't stand by your President against the evil "cultural-marxists" here.

Honestly, let's just remember when Trump started his campaign for the 2020 elections.

You believe the accusations of the opposition without evidence, and I’m naive. I’ve never used the word “cultural marxists” so it makes no sense putting it in quotes. Fantasy begets fantasy I suppose.

your conspiracy either makes you brilliant or a complete idiot, and I think we all know where most conspiracy lands on this spectrum.

No offense.

None taken.

What conspiracy would that be?

that the bulletin of atomic scientists isn't a credible source and that there is no reason for concern.

Silly to say "everything is fine" when everything is indeed not fine.

In my defense I believe it is a credible source insofar as it describes the fears of scientists. My only argument is their fears have turned out to be mistaken and a broken clock is not an appropriate symbol for atomic scientists

regardless of whether or not these are world ending circumstances, one would be an idiot to consider that our current ways are intelligent in general.

But whatever, enjoy you trash and waste. I hope it did you a great service while the next generations are stuck living with and fixing the obvious fuck ups.

Well the Dems have released their articles of impeachment: abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. So first they led you to believe Trump was guilty of bribery and extortion, to the point that you defended the accusation and believed it simply because they told you to, only to watch as the Dems abandoned you when it finally came time to make it formal.

Life has never been better. Moping isn’t going to fix anything.

So first they led you to believe Trump was guilty of bribery and extortion, to the point that you defended the accusation and believed it simply because they told you to, only to watch as the Dems abandoned you when it finally came time to make it formal. — NOS4A2

What do you mean by this? The first article (abuse of power) reads:

Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations.

President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation.

What I mean is one moment they were pushing bribery and extortion, the next moment they’re pushing “abuse of power”. Why wouldn’t they put bribery and extortion in the articles of impeachment? They’re crimes.

Why wouldn’t they put bribery and extortion in the articles of impeachment? They’re crimes. — NOS4A2

Probably because those kind of crimes require greater evidence.

Probably because those kind of crimes require greater evidence.

You’re probably right. What’s curious to me is that people were arguing for it without the evidence to do so, only to abandon the idea when it wasn’t politically expedient. Is there no sense of justice here?

I think Democrats exaggerate for the media just as Republicans downplay. But when it comes to the official impeachment articles they have to be more reasonable.

The shift in messaging from “quid pro quo” to “bribery” was the result of DNC focus groups. I suspect it’s the same with “abuse of power”. It’s not so much about truth or justice as it is opportunism and politics.

Sure, like Trump accusing people like Schiff of treason. But that’s not really of relevance any more. What matters is if Trump is guilty of the impeachment charges.

But Trump isn’t impeaching Schiff. We’re speaking about messaging for the purposes of influencing an investigation into the president of the United States.