No, she wants an unfair trial, the same as the inquiry. — NOS4A2

No, she wants a fair trial, the same as the inquiry.

Right, the inquiry was fair, the senate trial is unfair. Of course the senate trial hasn’t happened yet, and the inquiry was a Democrat show trial.

Right, the inquiry was fair, the senate trial is unfair. — NOS4A2

Yes. McConnell has said "Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can" and "I'm not an impartial juror."

That's direct evidence that the trial won't be fair.

Yes. McConnell has said "Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can" and "I'm not an impartial juror."

That's direct evidence that the trial won't be fair.

It’s a political process, not a judicial one. The idea that only Dems can be partisan is absurd.

It’s a political process, not a judicial one. The idea that only Dems can be partisan is absurd. — NOS4A2

I assume you meant non-partisan? I don't claim that they are. I think that they certainly have partisan motivations, but I think that the facts are nonetheless on their side: Trump abused the powers of his office and obstructed Congress; this warrants removal from office; McConnell's comments show that as it stands a trial in the Senate won't be fair; they are justified in waiting until a fair trial (with witness testimony, as is usual during trials (criminal or otherwise)) is certain.

What, exactly, is your concern? That the Democrats will have witnesses lie under oath in an attempt to trick 20+ Republicans to vote to convict him? Or that witnesses will truthfully testify on Trump's wrongdoing and that 20+ Republicans will realize that they cannot justify acquittal? The article I sourced earlier suggests that the latter is a concern among the Senators themselves.

I meant partisan.

Well, no, none of the articles of impeachment are mentioned in the constitution, and none of what he has done warrants removal, or else every president would need to be impeached. They did claim bribery there for a hot minute because it sounded good with a focus-group, but I suspect after dangling that lure in front of their base for too long, the knew the errors of their case. They could dangle anything and their base will bite. The democrats threw an unfair show trial and now they want fairness. That’s rich. They’re not going to get it nor should they.

I meant partisan. — NOS4A2

Then I'm confused, because I never suggested that "only Dems can be partisan".

Well, no, none of the articles of impeachment are mentioned in the constitution

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is, which covers such things as abuse of power and contempt of Congress, as shown in the impeachments of Clinton and Johnson and the almost-impeachment of Nixon.

Here's a relevant paper by the Congressional Research Service about the matter:

Impeachment and Removal

The Constitution describes the grounds of impeachment as “treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” While treason and bribery are relatively well-defined terms, the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined in the Constitution or in statute and remains somewhat opaque. It was adopted from the English practice of parliamentary impeachments, which appears to have been directed against individuals accused of crimes against the state and encompassed offenses beyond traditional criminal law.

Some have argued that only criminal acts are impeachable offenses under the United States Constitution; impeachment is therefore inappropriate for non-criminal activity. In support of this assertion, one might note that the debate on impeachable offenses during the Constitutional Convention in 1787 indicates that criminal conduct was encompassed in the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard.

The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not, however, comport with historical practice. Alexander Hamilton, in justifying placement of the power to try impeachments in the Senate, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

Such offenses were “political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official’s duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” a broad reading, “finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.”

A variety of congressional materials support this reading. For example, committee reports on potential grounds for impeachment have described the history of English impeachment as including non-criminal conduct and noted that this tradition was adopted by the Framers. In accordance with the understanding of “high” offenses in the English tradition, impeachable offenses are “constitutional wrongs that subvert the structure of government, or undermine the integrity of office and even the Constitution itself.” “[O]ther high crimes and misdemeanors” are not limited to indictable offenses, but apply to “serious violations of the public trust.” Congressional materials indicate that the term “Misdemeanor ... does not mean a minor criminal offense as the term is generally employed in the criminal law,” but refers instead to the behavior of public officials. “[H]igh Crimes and Misdemeanors” are thus best characterized as “misconduct that damages the state and the operations of government institutions.”

Clinton committed perjury, a crime. Andrew Jackson violated acts and allegedly the constitution. Either way they were acquitted. How has Trump abused his power? He hasn’t.

How has Trump abused his power? He hasn’t. — NOS4A2

He abused his power by illegally withholding aid approved by Congress to compel a foreign country to investigate a political rival.

And he obstructed Congress by refusing to comply with lawfully issued subpoenas and by ordering others to refuse to comply with lawfully issued subpoenas (which is a crime, as per 18 U.S. Code § 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees).

Either way they were acquitted.

Yes, which is to say they were found not guilty. That's not the same as the charges not being impeachable offenses.

Clinton committed perjury, a crime. Andrew Jackson violated acts and allegedly the constitution. Either way they were acquitted. How has Trump abused his power? He hasn’t. — NOS4A2

How do you figure that? If using (or trying to use) government money to undermine a political rival isn't an impeachable offence then one can excuse nearly any kind of behavior. I imagine if one happen to be a king or if somehow a ruler and the government were the same thing so actions wouldn't be treason but as far as I know that isn't the type of government we have.....at least not yet.

He abused his power by illegally withholding aid approved by Congress to compel a foreign country to investigate a political rival.

And he obstructed Congress by refusing to comply with lawfully issued subpoenas and by ordering others to refuse to comply with lawfully issued subpoenas (which is a crime, as per 18 U.S. Code § 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees).

He temporarily withheld it, which is legal and something they do all the time, and assisting Ukraine in tackling corruption is an obligation of treaty, namely, the Treaty Between
the United States of America and Ukraine on Mutual Legal Assistance in Criminal Matters.

How do you figure that? If using (or trying to use) government money to undermine a political rival isn't an impeachable offence then one can excuse nearly any kind of behavior. I imagine if one happen to be a king or if somehow a ruler and the government were the same thing so actions wouldn't be treason but as far as I know that isn't the type of government we have.....at least not yet.

Yeah I don’t get the whole idea that one cannot investigate the corruption of a political rival because it might ruin his political chances. Do you think the possible corruption of Joe Biden should be avoided because it might undermine his campaign?

Yeah I don’t get the whole idea that one cannot investigate the corruption of a political rival because it might ruin his political chances. Do you think the possible corruption of Joe Biden should be avoided because it might undermine his campaign? — NOS4A2

Just because someone is a democrat or doesn't support Trump and/or the Republican party, it doesn't automatically make that person a criminal or corrupt in some way. Because of this it isn't a given that Joe Biden, his son, or the rest of us are all going to secret cult meeting in the middle of the night to sacrifice virgins in the name of Satan or whatever it is Trump and his supporters think we are doing.

Also the problem is Trump was trying to use military aid (instead of his own money) to bribe the Ukrainian president to dig up dirt on his political rivals. If that isn't an example of plutocracy/crony capitalism in action then I don't know what is.

He temporarily withheld it, which is legal — NOS4A2

A lie.

"The illegal hold happened in August when Duffey was told by DOD that they wouldn't be able to spend funding by the end of the year if the hold continued and they ignored that. That's when the illegal action was," former Senior OMB lawyer Sam Berger told CNN.

Berger added that the Trump administration also failed to explain to Congress in a formal rescission notice why it wanted to withhold funds that Congress had approved. "It's a formal document that explains the money you want to withhold and why. It's a formal process and there's no question they did not do this" Berger said.

It’s not because he’s a Democrat, but because his son was being payed vast sums of cash by a corrupt Ukrainian company while his father was the point man in Ukraine.

Not a lie. General counsel of the OMB released a legal memo explaining why:

“For decades, OMB has routinely used its apportionment authority to prevent funds from being used,” Paoletta wrote, according to the Post.

“Often, in managing appropriations, OMB must briefly pause an agency’s legal ability to spend those funds for a number of reasons, including to ensure that the funds are being spent efficiently, that they are being spent in accordance with statutory directives, or to assess how or whether funds should be used for a particular activity," he reportedly continued.

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.

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.

It’s not because he’s a Democrat, but because his son was being payed vast sums of cash by a corrupt Ukrainian company while his father was the point man in Ukraine. — NOS4A2

And none of this was proven just as Obama it was never proven that some kind of manchurian candidate or pretty much all other ridiculous right wing conspiracies that are concocted to discredit nearly anyone who runs against republicans or is in office.

Also you are completely ignoring the fact that it IS against the law to misuse government money like it is part of your own personal slush fund even if what you think you are doing is the right thing which is why Trump and his lackeys tried so hard not to let anyone find out what they were doing. Anyone with common sense knows that if anyone else than Trump did what he did then they would both lose their job and have to serve some time in jail. Instead all he is getting is a slap on the hand which both him and the republican are bitching and moaning that it is too heavy handed by the democrats.

If the average american government worker so much as gets or gives a nice pen (or a lunch) to a vendor for help for whatever they are liable to being prosecuted to either being bribed or attempted bribery. However if your a politician, lobbyist, or have some other similar position where "campaign contributions" begin ends and bribery begins is a bit of a gray area.

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. — Hanover

They aren't similar because the Senate had a lady claiming to have been raped by Kavanaugh. Nobody but Trump cronies are claiming Biden was guilty of profiting from corruption in Ukraine.

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.

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. — Hanover

I thought I would vote for Trump as a sort of sabotage-America-vote. It's too much trouble, though.

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.

If you try to understand it as anything more than "my team must win by whatever means" then you'll get nowhere. — Michael

Yep, I guess so.

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.

Edit: Or maybe let's not. I think we both know the deal anyway.

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. — Hanover

Oh. But I don't think the drama was meant to influence you. It was for swing voters.

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. — Hanover

OK.

And none of this was proven just as Obama it was never proven that some kind of manchurian candidate or pretty much all other ridiculous right wing conspiracies that are concocted to discredit nearly anyone who runs against republicans or is in office.

Also you are completely ignoring the fact that it IS against the law to misuse government money like it is part of your own personal slush fund even if what you think you are doing is the right thing which is why Trump and his lackeys tried so hard not to let anyone find out what they were doing. Anyone with common sense knows that if anyone else than Trump did what he did then they would both lose their job and have to serve some time in jail. Instead all he is getting is a slap on the hand which both him and the republican are bitching and moaning that it is too heavy handed by the democrats.

If the average american government worker so much as gets or gives a nice pen (or a lunch) to a vendor for help for whatever they are liable to being prosecuted to either being bribed or attempted bribery. However if your a politician, lobbyist, or have some other similar position where "campaign contributions" begin ends and bribery begins is a bit of a gray area.

The conspiracy that Trump is a Manchurian candidate, that he colluded with Russia, made it to the highest parts of the government. To the chagrin of many it was proven false. This was literally concocted by the Democrats as their Russian-sourced dirt was used as the impetus for the investigations. There was no such investigation of Obama.

Other administrations misused funds and none of them went to jail as far as I know. Meanwhile Trump is getting impeached. So I’m not so sure your common sense is working in this regard.

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 watch.

Nancy Pelosi is openly obstructing congress.

To the chagrin of many it was proven false. — NOS4A2

A lie.

Where was it proven false?

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.