It's hardly any worse than @NOS4A2's pictures of Trump hugging American flags and whatnot.

I see why it means: democracy is not perfect, but I'm not sure why you're saying it doesn't work... — VagabondSpectre

The "most free democracy" will provide more freedom than what is good.

And the reason that the articles have not been forwarded, is because Schumer and McConnell haven't been able to agree on the rules — Wayfarer

The House can try to manipulate the process in the Senate, which will have no impact on the final result. Regardless, Trump has yet to be impeached, which means that not only is conviction incredibly unlikely, but it's becoming unclear whether Trump will even be impeached by the House.

The Democrat’s impeachment efforts were so weak that it is laughable. But it was never about “justice” or “democracy” anyways. It was just another layer of finery to adorn their reactionary response to Trumpism, and the failures their efforts have gifted the world and posterity. As we still wait for the second coming of Hitler, the nuclear wars, the fascism and the economic disasters they promised us and the world, now they have given themselves impeachment as the reward for their live-action role playing.

It was only a matter of time before they impeached Trump for word crimes. It was too difficult for them to find actual crimes, so they reduced themselves to scouring his statements for transgressions of speech, and then lying about them to make them seem worse than they are. Whether it was Schiff’s parody, or Escobar’s and Lee’s “misquotation”, they can never seem to get those words right.

Of course! I’m being facetious

Philosophy is useless if it cannot be applied to all things

ut it's becoming unclear whether Trump will even be impeached by the House. — Hanover

Do you have news media in your part of the world? It would seem not, from your comments.

//ps// you only have to google Trump Impeached by House. //

The suggestion that Trump has not really been impeached because the articles haven’t been sent to the Senate is just another of the lies being told by the GoP.

So, as we’re here, let's review the Republican Party's defense of Trump.

Important point: there is none. Trump himself has not uttered a single word in defense of the charges brought against him. His only statements on the matter is that the impeachment is a sham, a witch-hunt, and a hoax.

As is typical with Trump, all of these statements are lies. The impeachment enquiry is a properly-constituted, legally-mandated and factually-grounded warrant for the investigation of crimes in high office. Abundant, some would say damning, evidence of crimes has been revealed through the process thus far. In reality, Trump's conduct is indefensible, so the only way to proceed is by sending out a barrage of falsehoods to bury and distract from the facts - which is what the Republican party is doing. And you can't help but notice that constant repetition of the falsehoods is parrotted by many people. So this fallacious excuse for a 'defense' is working, is because people are willing dupes.

The Lies Have It: Republicans abandon truth in Trump impeachment defence

Republican Impeachment Lies are protecting Trump, but they could destroy America.

Trump Has Been Impeached. Republicans Are Following Him Down.

How to Disengage With the Republican Conspiracy Theories Swirling Around Impeachment.

Finally, the suggestion that 'impeachment is a waste of time, because the Senate is going to acquit' is another lie. Impeachment by the House has already left an indelible mark on the Trump presidency and proven beyond reasonable doubt that he has engaged in impeachable offenses. Secondly, if the Senate trial were to be conducted fairly and openly - which is exactly what Mitch McConnell is working furiously to prevent - then it's quite feasible that evidence will emerge which torpedoes the adamantine shell of Republican mendacity, leading to Trump's removal from office.

Noah Feldman:

"Until a few weeks ago, no one, to my knowledge, has ever suggested that impeachment could be complete even if there is no communication to the Senate. And no historic example of this new idea has been brought forward in the current discussion. This issue isn’t merely theoretical or “academic” in the pejorative sense. It has major political implications for the current stand-off between Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi and Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell."


https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-12-22/trump-impeachment-why-can-t-the-senate-start-a-trial-now

‘Impeachment isn’t complete’ - no contest. But Trump has been impeached by the House. Even if he is ultimately acquitted, as Clinton was, he still will be an impeached President, as Clinton is.

Why are the articles of impeachment not being sent to the Senate? Read the news accounts. McConnell and Lindsay Graham have both openly stated that they are making no pretence of impartiality and that they’re taking their leads from the White House. Schumer is insisting that testimony be heard from Bolton and Mulvaney. So the Democrats are saying, as of this morning, that this is further evidence of a cover-up and obstruction of justice, and I think that is self-evidently true.

The suggestion that Trump has not really been impeached because the articles haven’t been sent to the Senate is just another of the lies being told by the GoP.

The man who made the claim was one of the Democrat’s witnesses, Noah Feldman. The republican witness disputed his claims. Don’t you have news media where you live?

Yes, and they all report that Trump was impeached by the House. Feldman’s argument to the contrary was described by one of his peers thus:

That idea has left much of the legal academy unconvinced, including Laurence H. Tribe, one of Professor Feldman’s colleagues at Harvard. “The argument is textually bizarre, historically inaccurate, structurally misguided and functionally misleading,” Professor Tribe said.

Just typical of the way facts are routinely manipulated by Trump lackeys.

Professor Feldman was one of three constitutional scholars to testify in favor of impeachment before the House Judiciary Committee this month. Jonathan Turley, a law professor at George Washington University and the sole scholar invited by Republicans to testify against impeachment at that hearing, also disagreed with Professor Feldman.

’Mr. Trump was impeached on Wednesday’ Professor Turley said. “Article I, Section 2 says that the House ‘shall have the sole power of impeachment.’ It says nothing about a requirement of referral to complete that act.”

Impeachment isn’t complete’ - no contest. But Trump has been impeached by the House. Even if he is ultimately acquitted, as Clinton was, he still will be an impeached President, as Clinton is. — Wayfarer

No, Clinton's articles of impeachment went to the Senate, at which point he was impeached. Trump hasn't been impeached.

Apparently the House, having no respect for the most fundamental of Constitutional principles, namely the separation if powers, refuses to cede the power to the Senate to hold its trial as it sees fit. If the Founders trusted a single body to both impeach and try a President, they they'd have written the Constitution that way. They attempted to protect against the very abuse of power we're now seeing.

What we have is a serious abuse of power, holding hostage the articles to gain an advantage in an election so that a political oppononent can be subjected to an investigation. Where have I heard such charges before?

A most delicious irony.

You exemplify the Republican duplicity with exquisite eloquence.

Mr. Trump was impeached on Wednesday’ Professor Turley said. “Article I, Section 2 says that the House ‘shall have the sole power of impeachment.’ It says nothing about a requirement of referral to complete that act.”

This is from the legal scholar who the Republicans called for the hearings. Explain to us where he says Trump has not been impeached.

You exemplify the Republican duplicity with exquisite eloquence. — Wayfarer

The truth is obvious here. The House accomplished something the Senate will undo, so they want to delay it or possibly stop it by complaining the Senate can't be fair. It's all politics, so hop off your high horse and just admit both sides are just selling different brands of bullshit but you prefer Brand D over R.

This is from the legal scholar who the Republicans called for the hearings. Explain to us where he says Trump has not been impeached. — Wayfarer

If the Senate can't try him, he's not been impeached. Whoever says to the contrary is wrong.

I’ll never admit that. Also don’t assume the senate will acquit.

It’s in the Constitution - as the scholar I quoted says ‘the House shall have the whole power of impeachment’. The Constitution says nothing about referral to the Senate to complete this act.

the separation if powers — Hanover

Abuse of power is what got us here in the first place. You can call it a "political process" like Mitch McConnell et al., but in reality when he turns around and says "I'm not an impartial juror, and I will take cues from the president's defense lawyers", it unambiguously undermines the whole separation of powers line that republicans love to flout.

If the lower house found that the president abused power and obstructed congress(and once they transmit the articles), is the senate not obligated to orchestrate a fair judicial process to get to the bottom of it?

So when Mitch says he is going to take a steaming shit on the congress by biasing the judicial process in the senate, it's actually a constitutional crisis for which there is neither precedent nor obvious solution.

I wonder... Is it a crime to violate an oath to be an impartial juror in an impeachment trial?

It's in the Constitution. - as the scholar I quoted says ‘the House shall have the whole power of impeachment’. The Constitution says nothing about referral to the Senate to complete this act. — Wayfarer

The Constitution says nothing about articles of impeachment either, so I'd suspect the could impeach by just saying it. Maybe the Senate can start the trial now, considering you're saying the impeachment is complete.

wonder... Is it a crime to violate an oath to be an impartial juror in an impeachment trial? — VagabondSpectre

You sort of made up the thing about Senators taking an oath to be impartial jurors. They represent those who elected them.

when Mitch says he is going to take a steaming shit on the congress by biasing the judicial process in the senate, it's actually a constitutional crisis for which there is neither precedent nor obvious solution. — VagabondSpectre

Yeah, except Senators aren't part of the judiciary, they are part of the legislature, so they don't act like judges, nor do House members.

the lower house found that the president abused power and obstructed congress(and once they transmit the articles), is the senate not obligated to orchestrate a fair judicial process to get to the bottom of it? — VagabondSpectre

They can do whatever they want to. It's their chamber and if you don't like it, vote them out. If this were an actual judicial inquiry there'd be an actual law cited as having been violated, with specific elements to be proved, and impartial jurors selected to consider it.

Abuse of power is what got us here in the first place. You can call it a "political process" like Mitch McConnell et al., but in reality when he turns around and says "I'm not an impartial juror, and I will take cues from the president's defense lawyers", it unambiguously undermines the whole separation of powers line that republicans love to flout. — VagabondSpectre

Very nicely put.

Republicans do know where they have to stand. During Nixon's time, they were far more confident where they stood. They could throw away Nixon and be confident that they would have enough popular support in election (even if the Dems got Carter later). Now they aren't so confident about themselves anymore, hence they will defend to the last man Trump, even if they hate the guy privately.

The Constitution says nothing about articles of impeachment — Hanover

You’re now entering the realm of parody.

You sort of made up the thing about Senators taking an oath to be impartial jurors. They represent those who elected them. — Hanover

Article 1, section 3, clause 6:

The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present.

When sitting for an impeachment trial, the senators shall be on oath or affirmation... The senators are essentially judge and jury, but they also aren't meant to decide what is and is not an impeachable offense (for they are already detailed in the constitution, and it's not the senate's prerogative to set precedent in constitutional law, or to ignore it's stipulations (the constitution is modified by state ratification, and interpreted by the Supreme Court.)). Because the senate is the sole authority in impeachment trials, I'm not sure if the Supreme court would or could actually rule on what is or is not an impeachable offense, but that certainly doesn't mean that senators get to cherry pick absolutely any kind of interpretation they wish( at least that's not the intent outlined in the constitution).

For example, here are the oaths that the senators agreed to for the Clinton trial:

"Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of William Jefferson Clinton, President of the united states, not pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you God?"

In other words, if it is abundantly clear that the president abused his powers, but the senate decides to nullify his guilt by acquitting him anyway, then they will have violated such an oath, and even without swearing any oath or affirming any intentions, will have undermined the constitution. Clause 6 is meant to make it clear that the judicial process that is impeachment demands impartiality. Impeachment is not a political tool, despite the deepest hypocritical desires of the Republican bloc.

The founders gave impeachment trial power exclusively to the senate because they assumed the upper house would be filled with the most intelligent, dedicated, and virtuous individuals from society, who would therefore be the best educated,equipped, and positioned to take the issue of impeachment seriously.

That's called "situational irony"...

I wonder... Is it a crime to violate an oath to be an impartial juror in an impeachment trial? — VagabondSpectre

Dereliction of one's solemnly sworn duty...

Dereliction of one's solemnly sworn duty... — creativesoul

Technically there is no actual formal "jurors oath" as far as I know (or at least no defined penalties). I think in a typical civil, state or federal case, it would be obstructing the chamber (obstructing its justice). Contempt or Obstruction maybe, but probably not perjury. That said, impeachment trials are unicorns, so this is probably something the Supreme Court would get to decide.

The oath to take the public office they preside over includes upholding the Constitution... which most certainly includes performing their role as judge regarding the guilt/innocence of the accused based upon the facts and testimony brought into evidence...

A judge who is fulfilling his/her duty does not openly and publicly state that they are already of the exact same position as the accused prior to allowing the trial/hearing to proceed. When the accused is the president and that president has already ordered specific witnesses to not honor subpoena, and that judge says what McConnell has said...

:down: :angry:

That is dereliction of duty.

Don't mind @Hanover, he's just lawyering from a shit-igloo.