Incidentally, speaking of lies, the entire GOP argument against the impeachment is lies. Notice that none of them actually tackles the substance of the charges. Instead they say that Trump has not been afforded due process (a lie, Trump himself has refused every opportunity to participate and blocked every request for information), that the impeachment process itself is a coup (also a lie, as it is grounded in a justified complaint and has been conducted according to every rule.)

As I said earlier in this thread, Trump makes his contempt of congress and the rule of law obvious every time he speaks. He has no comprehension of the notion of 'three co-equal branches of Government' and the role of the Presidency. This is why many conservatives are among the chorus of criticism. Everything Trump says is a lie, and he is bent on overturning the constitutional order. Make no mistake.

The real coup is the overthrow of the rule of facts, and so the rule of law. Trump’s culpability in the matters at issue is beyond reasonable doubt. Thousands of pages of utterly credible witness testimony have confirmed the charges. And his refusal to cooperate fully justifies the obstruction charge. So in any normal world, Trump would be impeached and removed from office. Republicans are simply dismissing the facts and will acquit regardless of guilt. So you now have one of the two major political parties conspiring against the constitutional power of Congress.

There’s your ‘coup’, and it’s for real.

The real coup is the overthrow of the rule of facts... — Wayfarer

Yes.

It looks like Republicans are just going for it: Constructing then goose-stepping to an alternate reality buttressed by Fox News and Facebook.

The time is ripe for this kind of foray. They're going for it.

This is delicious.

TRUMP ON BUSH: 'He lied. He got us into the war with lies'. And for that he should have been impeached.

I really hope this gets maximum airtime the next couple of days.

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.

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.

Article 1: Abuse of Power just passed the House

Weird watching history occur in real-time.

Obstruction passed too.

I was just watching Trump at his Michigan rally just now for a few minutes and at one point he mentioned “in the Trump presidency 10 months is an eternity,” meaning that people will have a hard time remembering this crap a week after the senate vote, so no backlash for Liberals. Sounds about right to me.

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. — Hanover

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

exactly what Trump said in the phone call — Hanover

It's not just about the phone call, it's about what he actually did. The phone call wasn't the crime in itself, it led to the discovery of the crime of abuse of power, which involved much more, and which is described in detail in the report and backed up by multiple witnesses. And he obstructed justice by directing his minions not to obey subpoenas and such. Trump's blabbering on about his perfect phone call is just a silly distraction technique.

Then again, the whole thing is probably going to end up as little more than a distraction, so yes, mostly theater.

So, Trump just got impeached?

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.

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. — Hanover

This is the interesting question.

Who exactly will benefit from the upcoming impeachment ritual?

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

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.

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.

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?

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? — Hanover

Then what you're saying has nothing to do with the point of the article, which is that Republicans don't want witnesses because they're concerned that new information could provide more evidence of Trump's wrongdoing and make it harder for them to justify acquittal, showing that they care more about protecting their party than they doing about finding out the truth.

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.

That might well be.

Yet when it comes to Trump, absolutely anything can happen between today and election day. One year and everything can look different. Who knows. The Trump Presidency hasn't been boring, so likely it won't be boring in 2020.

I'm just waiting when Jeffrey Epstein's surveillance tapes of both Bill Clinton and Donald Trump having sex with underage girls hits the fan. Never a boring day in Trumpland. :halo:

Well, as you know, Trump’s been impeached on Trumped up charges, none of which are mentioned in the constitution. This is historic. I hope a trial occurs so that Trump is completely exonerated, the Democrats rebuked for their partisan efforts, and the evidence of Biden’s possible corruption gets a fair trial.

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

Remember how regarding Kavanaugh you were all like: 'It's dastardly to destroy a man's reputation." I understood what you were saying and it influenced my view of the situation.

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.

And pigs can fly.

Nancy Pelosi may wait awhile before sending the impeachment to the Senate. Which part of the 6th Amendment does she not understand?

Nancy Pelosi may wait awhile before sending the impeachment to the Senate. Which part of the 6th Amendment does she not understand?

Trump is so much an existential threat to national security and “our democracy” that she doesn’t want the trial to proceed at the pace of the inquiry.

Nancy Pelosi may wait awhile before sending the impeachment to the Senate. Which part of the 6th Amendment does she not understand? — Argentum

What does the 6th Amendment have to do with it? Impeachment isn't a criminal trial.

Trump is so much an existential threat to national security and “our democracy” that she doesn’t want the trial to proceed at the pace of the inquiry. — NOS4A2

She wants a fair trial, and McConnell has already made it clear that it won't be a fair trial, given his comments that he isn't impartial and that he will coordinate with the White House.

Remember how regarding Kavanaugh you were all like: 'It's dastardly to destroy a man's reputation." I understood what you were saying and it influenced my view of the situation.

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

The simplest answer is that the Republicans don't care what Republicans do to advance the Republican agenda. Everything they say and do makes perfect sense with that understanding. Just look at McConnell. Denies Merrick Garland a hearing because "it's an election year" but then says he won't deny any potential Trump nominee even it it's an election year. Or Graham's remarks during Clinton's impeachment compared to whatever he says now. If you try to understand it as anything more than "my team must win by whatever means" then you'll get nowhere.

She wants a fair trial, and McConnell has already made it clear that it won't be a fair trial, given his comments that he isn't impartial and that he will coordinate with the White House.

No, she wants an unfair trial, the same as the inquiry.