The Republican Party is dead... — tim wood

... Long live the Republican party.

I would not want to be in the shoes of Republicans who will have to answer to their moderate base — 3017amen

Many of whom feel the president did something wrong, just not cause for removal from office.

It begs many questions one of which is how do you provide a deterrent to that abuse of power (?)

I think all this stuff is decreasing confidence in the government, which might be a good thing. — frank

I am not sure it decreases my confidence in the government. Maybe I am niave in thought or my hopeless romantic belief in the good in others is misleading me because I am pretty confident that if we were ever to be without a working government our collective desire to thrive would guide us until we created a new form of governing.

I guess what I am trying to say is that "we" are the government so if "it" appears to be changing, it is actually a reflection of the changes happening or not happening in you, me, Hanover and.... the slice of society we are supporting each day.

I guess what I am trying to say is that "we" are the government so if "it" appears to be changing, it is actually a reflection of the changes happening or not happening in you, me, Hanover and.... the slice of society we are supporting each day. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

Holy shit. You're right.

I guess what I am trying to say is that "we" are the government so if "it" appears to be changing, it is actually a reflection of the changes happening or not happening in you, me, Hanover and.... the slice of society we are supporting each day. — ArguingWAristotleTiff

"We" aren't the government. "They" are the government.

It’s looking more and more like Trump is going to be acquitted by the senate, and another anti-Trump witch-hunt and conspiracy theory revealed to be a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So how many times can one be duped by these failures before finding another avenue through which to participate in politics?

During this show trial Trump was able to continue working, for instance killing a top-ranking Iranian terrorist, presenting an ambitious Middle East peace plan, signing into law massive trade deals. The anti-Trumpists, on the other hand, have given us division, a distracted house and senate, and a massive waste of time and money. How much of this failure can the anti-Trump mind withstand before it cracks?

witch-hunt — NOS4A2

A lie.

conspiracy theory — NOS4A2

A lie.

ambitious Middle East peace plan — NOS4A2

A joke.

The anti-Trumpists, on the other hand, have given us division — NOS4A2

A lie.

It’s looking more and more like Trump is going to be acquitted by the senate, and another anti-Trump witch-hunt and conspiracy theory revealed to be a waste of time and taxpayer dollars — NOS4A2

An investigation that accurately identifies a serious wrongdoing is not a "witch hunt." The irony is that the wrongdoing consisted of Trump asking Ukraine to conduct a witch-hunt of a political rival.

One of the rationale Republicans have claimed for acquitting him was that the American people in the next election, not the Senate, should decide whether or not Trump should stay in office. Clearly, we need as much information as possible to judge him fairly. The impeachment and trial contributed to this body of information, and rational, open-minded person who considers all this information would surely agree that Trump's actions were wrong.

It’s looking more and more like Trump is going to be acquitted by the senate, and another anti-Trump witch-hunt and conspiracy theory revealed to be a waste of time and taxpayer dollars. So how many times can one be duped by these failures before finding another avenue through which to participate in politics?

During this show trial Trump was able to continue working, for instance killing a top-ranking Iranian terrorist, presenting an ambitious Middle East peace plan, signing into law massive trade deals. The anti-Trumpists, on the other hand, have given us division, a distracted house and senate, and a massive waste of time and money. How much of this failure can the anti-Trump mind withstand before it cracks? — NOS4A2

This dude doesn't just love licking the boot, he enjoys eating the whole damn thing

An investigation that accurately identifies a serious wrongdoing is not a "witch hunt." The irony is that the wrongdoing consisted of Trump asking Ukraine to conduct a witch-hunt of a political rival.

One of the rationale Republicans have claimed for acquitting him was that the American people in the next election, not the Senate, should decide whether or not Trump should stay in office. Clearly, we need as much information as possible to judge him fairly. The impeachment and trial contributed to this body of information, and rational, open-minded person who considers all this information would surely agree that Trump's actions were wrong.

Yeah, I just don’t understand how his actions can be misconstrued as “wrong-doing”. At best they can accuse him of thought-crimes, which in my mind is wrong. At best they can waste tax-payer dollars on political charades, false investigations and almost hollow out constitutional processes for their own political ends. That to me is wrong-doing.

It's not a charade or a false investigation. Trump illegally withheld aid to compel a foreign country to investigate a political rival to help his reelection. That's an abuse of power. And Trump refused to comply with, and ordered others to refuse to comply with, lawful subpoenas. That's obstruction of Congress.

Trump is going to be acquitted because Republicans won't remove a Republican president. That's " hollow[ing] out constitutional processes for their own political ends."

I just don’t understand how his actions can be misconstrued as “wrong-doing”. — NOS4A2

When your perspective is whatever is good for Trump is the correct thing, as yours is, it's easy to understand this statement. And since Trump is the saviour of the people, the second coming of Christ Himself, we might have to agree with you NOS4A2.

It's not a charade or a false investigation. Trump illegally withheld aid to compel a foreign country to investigate a political rival to help his reelection. That's an abuse of power. And Trump refused to comply with, and ordered others to refuse to comply with, lawful subpoenas. That's obstruction of Congress.

Trump is going to be acquitted because Republicans won't remove a Republican president. That's " hollow[ing] out constitutional processes for their own political ends."

I don’t see how any of that is true and simply repeating the accusation does not suffice for me. The burden of proof still lays at the feet of the accusers and they could not prove it.

I don’t see how any of that is true and simply repeating the accusation does not suffice for me. The burden of proof still lays at the feet of the accusers and they could not prove it. — NOS4A2

The evidence was presented in the Senate. We even had Dershowitz, Rubio, and Alexander accept that he's guilty. They just tried to rationalize a reason not to convict him for it. And there's more available testimony and evidence from people like Parnas and Bolton and the Republicans know this which is why they voted not to have more witnesses. They're aware that it'll be devastating to Trump's defence so they need to protect him from it.

And I don't know how you can claim that there's no evidence that Trump obstructed Congress. It is a fact that the House subpoenaed testimony and evidence and it's a fact that Trump didn't comply.

The evidence was presented in the Senate. We even had Dershowitz, Rubio, and Alexander accept that he's guilty. They just tried to rationalize a reason not to convict him for it. And there's more available testimony and evidence from people like Parnas and Bolton and the Republicans know this which is why they voted not to have more witnesses. They're aware that it'll be devastating to Trump's defence so they need to protect him from it.

And I don't know how you can claim that there's no evidence that Trump obstructed Congress. It is a fact that the House subpoenaed testimony and evidence and it's a fact that Trump didn't comply.

The evidence was presented in the senate and failed to establish any wrong doing, let alone anything impeachable. It’s funny that people might say Trump’s wrong doing is established by evidence, but then go on saying we don’t have all the evidence, such as more testimony and documents.

It is a fact that the administration was following advice from DOJ legal counsel and that many of the subpoena’s were invalid. Correspondence proves that the Whitehouse was ready to cooperate as soon as the House’s subpoenas were valid. So no, Trump did not obstruct Congress. Congress instructed itself.

It is a fact that the administration was following advice from DOJ legal counsel and that many of the subpoena’s were invalid. Correspondence proves that the Whitehouse was ready to cooperate as soon as the House’s subpoenas were valid. — NOS4A2

Which is bullshit. The best you can argue is that Trump shouldn't be convicted because he acted on bad legal advice.

Which is bullshit. The best you can argue is that Trump shouldn't be convicted because he acted on bad legal advice.

The best you can argue is that the Trump administration stonewalled Congress. That’s why we have the judiciary settle these kinds of disputes, separation of powers and all that. But the House inquiry team failed to do that.

https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/01/politics/trump-ukraine-aid-emails-omb-justice-department/index.html

A lawyer with the Office of Management and Budget wrote to the court that 24 emails between June and September 2019 -- including an internal discussion among DOD officials called "POTUS follow-up" on June 24 -- should stay confidential because the emails describe "communications by either the President, the Vice President, or the President's immediate advisors regarding Presidential decision-making about the scope, duration, and purpose of the hold on military assistance to Ukraine."

Yeah, I just don’t understand how his actions can be misconstrued as “wrong-doing” — NOS4A2

Then you haven't made an effort to understand what I've told you.

And Hitler was an excellent leader too, getting rid of all those undesirables and moving the German economy in the direction he thought best! Until his laws and his thugs that enforced them started taking and killing you and yours.... It's a lesson older that Aristotle: the bad man does not do good things. And you, nos4, are so wrong-headed on all of this that it leaves only the conclusion that you are a bad man. Or a grossly stupid one.

... it leaves only the conclusion that you are a bad man. Or a grossly stupid one. — tim wood

Or both.

And Hitler was an excellent leader too, getting rid of all those undesirables and moving the German economy in the direction he thought best! Until his laws and his thugs that enforced them started taking and killing you and yours.... It's a lesson older that Aristotle: the bad man does not do good things. And you, nos4, are so wrong-headed on all of this that it leaves only the conclusion that you are a bad man. Or a grossly stupid one.

That remains to be seen. I see it more as “The Boy Who Cried Wolf”. One of these days a real wolf will come along and, given your track record, no one will heed your cries. You’ve taken the Chicken Little approach and you would destroy the very republic to convince us the sky is falling.

A political sham. Shameful and very dangerous precedents are being set.

A judge who allows a juror to remain despite that juror's public admission that he cannot execute that sworn duty.

Members of the Senate have all taken a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution and execute the powers and responsibilities bestowed upon them by it. Acting as an impartial jurors during presidential impeachment proceedings is one exclusive responsibility given to only members of the Senate.

What needs to happen next is an exodus of recusals.

It's disgraceful.

For the very first time in American history, the president's defense team included most Senate members of his own party during impeachment proceedings into his own behaviour.

:worry:

And to think that the defense argues on procedural grounds.

Shameless and without integrity.

One cannot do both, argue on behalf of following the constitution all the while simultaneously neglecting what it says regarding one's own sworn duty according to it.

If truth was being sought then anyone and everyone so seeking would take every action in order to disclose it. The contrary(concealing it) is also true.

A political sham. Shameful and very dangerous precedents are being set.

A judge who allows a juror to remain despite that juror's public admission that he cannot execute that sworn duty.

Members of the Senate have all taken a sworn oath to uphold the Constitution and execute the powers and responsibilities bestowed upon them by it. Acting as an impartial jurors during presidential impeachment proceedings is one exclusive responsibility given to only members of the Senate.

What needs to happen next is an exodus of recusals.

It's disgraceful.

Three democratic candidates, all of whom are Trump’s opponents in the 2020 election, are in the senate voting on his impeachment. So much for impartial jurors.

The overwhelming majority of the citizens want to see the evidence being suppressed(key witnesses).

When an overwhelming majority of the people want the same thing, and those in charge of representing them do not, well...

The Senate majority are not doing their job.