It was hysterical, whatever it was. It proves to me the saltiness and hatred of the anti-Trump faction. I hate to accuse others of being “triggered”, but Pelosi’s very public display was the epitome of it. — NOS4A2

I also liked watching nervous Nancy get the snub. Quite a sight. — NOS4A2

This "spectacle" that you so enjoy seems very much like a football game, for which you are rooting for your team. When team Trump says or does something rude or obnoxious, he's "fighting back". When the other team responds in kind, it's something bad ("salty", "hatred").

Trump has dragged the game into the gutter. Sure, people hate him - he gives them many good reasons to do so (would you like a list?) I contrast this with the hatred many Republicans have toward people like Pelosi and Schiff - it's rooted entirely in political disagreement.

0 P

An "atheist" is a person who either "believes" there are no gods...or who "believes it is more likely that there are no gods than that there is at least one." — Frank Apisa

What would you call someone who believes it extremely unlikely that a God of religion exists? A "God of religion" is a being who intervenes in the world, reveals himself to some, and provides for a life after death. (I'm referring to myself, btw).

My point is that "God" is a fuzzy term.

Here's my thoughts.

Over the years, I've seen many pointless debates about the meaning of the term "atheist". For example, I've encountered Christians who insist that to be an "atheist", one must hold the belief:no god(s) exist, and argue that "lack of belief in god" doesn't mean much (they counter: "I'm a theist because I lack belief in God's non-existence"). Their motivation seems to be a desire to argue against a strawman.

I therefore think the the term should be only be used to convey a general, vague sense of a person's position. One should make no specific assumptions about what any self-labelled atheist means. It's fair to assume he probably doesn't think there is a God, in the traditional sense of the term. If you want to know more specifically what he believes, set the label aside and ask.

BTW, as a point of trivia, the Roman empire labelled Christians as "atheist", because they didn't believe in the Roman gods.

Imagine going through life running to a fact-check site to let some journalist tell you what to think. — NOS4A2

I prefer to know the truth, and there's no better way than to see what both sides have to say. During Obama's presidency, I'd often listen to Hannity, Limbaugh, and even Levin. I wouldn't accept what they say verbatim, but they occasionally had a valid criticism. (I realize this isn't quite the same thing, since none of these guys are journalists).

You seem content to accept whatever Trump says, which seems pretty crazy to me.

Trump is killing the State of the Union address. — NOS4A2

I'm surprised you'd even watch, since you don't care what he says. Perhaps you're turning over a new leaf, in which case you should be interested in fact checking his show, and his presidency.

Impeachment is the tool of enforcement. — creativesoul

So...you envision the House impeaching approximately 50 Senators, and then each of these would be tried in the Senate...and these Senators would then vote to remove themselves.

Sure, and voters could, in theory, take that into account - but it can't be adjudicated.

Rather, it can't deal with a President and Senate majority that, to all intents and purposes, ignores the Constitution and flouts the law, which is what has happened. Impeachment is eminently possible, if the political will and commitment to principle existed. — Wayfarer

They didn't do anything unconstitutional; that was the point I made earlier. They violated the oath they took, but the oath isn't enforceable. Senators have carte blanche to judge guilt and to judge whether or not the crime is a "high crime or misdemeanor", and this implies there is always sufficient wiggle room to acquit. They will nearly universally use this wiggle room to acquit when it's a President of their own party. Unless the opposition party has close to a 2/3 majority (which is hard to forsee ever happening), there will not be a removal.

My bad. I forgot about that oath (a Senate rule that is not required by the Constitution), but unfortunately - an oath is not enforceable

Donald Trump's impeachment trial was fully consistent with the Constitution. Article I Section 3 says this:

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.

By virtue of having "sole power", the Senate makes its own rules. Nowhere does it say how the trial must be conducted, and it doesn't even say it must be fair, that the jurors must be impartial, nor that they can't be bribed or threatened.

In short, the Constitution is flawed: impeachment and removal is, for all practical purposes, impossible.

.

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.

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.

Watching the Senate Trial. The House managers are arguing testimony and documents are still required. Is this a tacit admission that they lack the evidence to prove their case? — NOS4A2

In a criminal trial, a prosecutor would be derelict if he failed to obtain every significant bit of evidence possible. On the other hand, the only credible reason I've seen to reject the seeking of more evidence is the one Lamar Alexander provided: Trump is obviously guilty, so it's not needed.

Last ditch deep-state effort to influence the Senate trial.

Trump Told Bolton to Help His Ukraine Pressure Campaign, Book Says — NOS4A2

Yeah, it would be outrageous for the trial to be influenced by facts.

Trump in 2016: "I love Wikileaks!". I know, that's different; the Wikileaks info was a product of Russia's efforts to help him.

That’s the problem with contextomy because all one has to do is look at what was left out to see the truth of the matter, and to notice the bad faith intentions of those who took it out of context. — NOS4A2

Your quotes do not dispute what I asserted, which is that there was a tie to investigating the Democratic server. I agree this should not be conflated with a tie to investigating Biden, although Trump himself made that tie on his call with Zelensky.

The whistleblower complaint had been made before this alleged motivation was given to him. There's no evidence this concern was raised prior to that - Sandy had tried to find out the cause of the hold in July, and Duffy didn't have an answer.

A rooster crows before sunrise therefore the rooster causes the sun to rise. The timing of these events is not enough to establish a connection. — NOS4A2

I didn't say it "established" a connection, but it circumstantially contributes to there being one, and it eradicates its exculpatory value.

In my defense no evidence shows trump was engaged in wrong doing, and evidence shows the opposite: good-doing. — NOS4A2

There isn't a shred of evidence that Trump was doing good. You have ignored the fact there was no identified crime to be investigated (Ukraine had previously announced that it was aware of no crimes having been violated), anti-corruption benchmarks had already been met, he wanted a PERSON investigated (violating due process and a failure to adhere to faithfully execute the law), and such an investigation would clearly benefit Trump politically. Even had there been a crime to investigate, the political benefit constituted a conflict of interest (contrary to the ethics standards of the federal government) that could and should have been addressed by personally recusing himself from involvement and letting the departments of State and Justice deal with it.

I truly believe this, because why the hell are we sending hundreds of million in aid to Ukraine? — NOS4A2

You can't be that ignorant. Ukraine is an ally, a weak one, and they are at active war with Russia. We have a long term commitment to assist them, and even if Trump disagreed with it - he was legally bound to provide the aid. If he was uncomfortable with it, he was at liberty to work with Congress at changing this.

He was corrected by Trump himself. — NOS4A2

You're playing the partisan game, ignoring everything that was said on the call with Sondland, other than Trump stating "no quid pro quo. Trump said those words, then outlined what he wanted -which constituted a quid pro quo. This article summarizes the context.

Mulvaney clarified that he was not in fact speaking about a quid pro quo, claiming the media misconstrued his statements. Of course no one includes the clarification in impeachment because that would be telling both sides of the story. — NOS4A2

His words were clear:

Reporter: So the demand for an investigation into the Democrats was part of the reason that he ordered to withhold funding to Ukraine?

Mick Mulvaney: (21:34)
The look back to what happened in 2016 certainly was part of the thing that he was worried about in corruption with that nation. And that is absolutely appropriate.

Reporter (M): (21:42)
Withholding the funding?

Mick Mulvaney: (21:43)]Yeah. Which ultimately then flowed. ...

Reporter (M): (22:25)
But to be clear, what you just described is a quid pro quo. It is funding will not flow unless the investigation into into the Democratic server happened as well.

Mick Mulvaney: (22:35)
We do that all the time with foreign policy. ...

While it's true Mulvaney tried to deny saying what he said, his motivation for doing so is obvious. This his statements aren't dispositive, it's suggestive coming from the man who is both head of OMB and acting chief of staff.

Mark Sandy of the OMB testified that Duffey "attributed the hold to the President's concern about other countries not contributing money to Ukraine" in "early September". He does not recall the exact date. The reasons that were given to the OMB match up to the initial questions on Ukraine aid — NOS4A2

The whistleblower complaint had been made before this alleged motivation was given to him. There's no evidence this concern was raised prior to that - Sandy had tried to find out the cause of the hold in July, and Duffy didn't have an answer.

I'd like to see what Bolton has to say, yes. But I do not think it will establish guilt because, as we know, there is no crime. It could establish that the administration was lying or Bolton is lying. — NOS4A2

If Bolton's testimony is consistent with reporting from the leaked manuscript, it will show that Trump's guilty of wrongdoing. It's another matter as to whether of not that wrongdoing constitutes a crime or whether or not it is adequate reason to remove him from office. My complaint with you is that you refuse to acknowledge that the evidence shows it likely Trump engaged in wrongdoing.

Bolton lying? Who has better credibility - Bolton (particularly if testifying under oath) or Trump, who has uttered thousands of falsehoods since taking office. John Kelly, who knows them both, believes Bolton. Testimony has already established that Bolton strongly disagreed at the time with what was going on - terming it a "drug deal", whereas the President has taken extreme measures to avoid letting the facts get out.

I stand corrected. His minor children benefitting from his position would present a legal a conflict of interest, but his elder son benefitting from his position doesn’t. Quite odd, but you’re right. — NOS4A2

Except in the case of Biden’s son. As we now know according to Vindman’s, Jeniffer Williams’ and George Kent’s testimony, questions of Biden’s conflict of interest were a concern, but these same stringent ethics policies didn’t apply. They were legal, as you’ve shown, but they didn’t pass the appearance test apparently. — NOS4A2

The regulation calls for ethics investigators examining such situations on a case by case basis:
"For situations that involve appearances of conflicts, provides that the circumstances be judged from the perspective of a reasonable person with knowledge of the relevant facts."
The relevant facts do not demonstrate a conflict of interest.

This proves Trump was NOT doing his duty to call for the investigation, as you claimed; he was doing wrong.

Sondland was wrong, as his own testimony shows. They did not all “understand” there was a quid pro quo. Sondland only presumed it. — NOS4A2

He assumed it because he could see no other explanation, and he kept the State department and NSC apprised. " The State Department was fully supportive of our engagement in Ukraine affairs, and was aware that a commitment to investigations was among the issues we were pursuing." Sondland also testified he told Pence that he believed there to be a tie. Why did no one correct him, if his assumption was wrong? Why has Trump blocked all testimony and documents? If these were exculpatory, why not release them?

Also recall that Mulvaney admited a quid pro quo in his famous "get over it" press conference. He only specifically attached the investigation into the Crowdstrike conspiracy theory, not the Bidens, but it seems clear that Bolton can connect the final dots. Trump's defense is to claim he's lying.

With these facts in mind, I see no rational basis for claiming it likely there was no quid pro quo.

Everytime The GAO says the administration violated the Impoundment act, the administration says it disagrees, as did the Obama administration, the Bush administration, and so on. They have no binding power over the Whitehouse and the world goes on. The aid was sent nonetheless. — NOS4A2

You're missing the relevance: the excuses that were used to hold up aid were contrived and do not reflect Trump's post hoc rationalizations (general corruption concerns and aid from Europe).

But there is evidence of Trump’s motives here. An article compelled Trump to put hold on the aid according to released emails. — NOS4A2

You're assuming a motive based on questions Trump asked. No one involved, including Cooper, has testified that this was the reason for holding back aid.

What about Bolton's alleged claims? You said you'd like him to testify, and it seems he'll testify there was a linkage.

I’d need to read the manuscript or hear a testimony — NOS4A2

Do you agree that Bolton's testimony could potentially establish Trump's guilt? We have a right to know what Bolton has to say. This is particularly important in light of the Republican claim that removal is inappropriate this close to an election. Sure- let the voters decide, but give them the complete information needed for ab informed decision.

That’s not the case because there are conflict of interest statutes on the books, violations of which are criminal offences. — NOS4A2

The conflict of interest laws apply specifically to government employees, their spouse, and minor children. It does not apply to Hunter Biden.

As I’ve said before, investigations into various Trump administration employees resulted in resignations despite here being no evidence of a crime being committed. To say those investigations were not warranted because there is no evidence laws are being broken is absurd. — NOS4A2

Executive branch employees are required to agree to a stringent ethics policy, which includes addressing cases where there's merely the APPEARANCE of conflict of interest. This gives the government the right to look into these matters without there being probable cause to investigate a crime. The ethics policy is not applicable to asking Ukraine to investigate a non-government employee.

BTW, ethics regulations require all employees to recuse themselves from participating in an official matter if their impartiality would be questioned.  This supports my assertion that Trump's action looks wrong on its face.

They aren’t just Republican talking points, but facts — NOS4A2

They are partial facts that ignore extremely relevant context:

No investigations. No public statements. Aid was released on time.

- This was the reprise from virtually every Republican member of the House Intelligence Committee, and all these ignore the damning context: there was no investigation, no public statement, and the aid was released ONLY AFTER the whistleblower complaint was made. Trump still did the misdeed.

No quid pro quo.

- Testimony shows there was a quid pro quo:
Gordon Sondland tells House impeachment panel ‘we all understood’ there was a quid pro quo

We also know that OMB held up aid without valid reason, in violation of the Impoundment act. Related to this is that Trump's post hoc claims about "pausing" the aid because of corruption concerns or concerns about what other nations were giving are not reflected in the documentation, and there is no other evidence that these were established priorities.

What about Bolton's alleged claims? You said you'd like him to testify, and it seems he'll testify there was a linkage.

Ukrainians say they were not pressured and were unaware of pause.

False.
Ukrainians Contacted U.S. Officials in May About Aid Fears
Trump pressure weeks before July call: reports

I say it’s “required” because the president has a duty to “take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”. So it is clearly right that he make sure government officials weren’t engaging in corruption. — NOS4A2

Faithful execution requires being consistent with due process and equal protection. Criminal investigations are predicated on there being crimes to investigate. There is no evidence of a US law being broken (and only US law is pertinent) and the Ukranian prosecutor said he's aware of no Ukranian laws being broken. This leaves only two possible reasons to investigate: a fishing expedition to see if some crime can be pinned to him, or simply an effort to dig up dirt. Fishing expeditions are unconstitutional and dirt digging is an abuse of power.

The only “real damage to Ukraine” is the mess Trump’s accusers have brought upon them. — NOS4A2

Had this not come to light, Trump would have induced Zelensky to engage in a corrupt act: announcing a Biden investigation solely to please his benefactor. This would be apparent upon announcement, and it would have been politically damaging for the anti-corruption Zelensky to be exposed. Trump's failure to publicly support Zelensky also hurt his standing in his discussions with Putin.

The facts favor Trump. No investigations. No public statements. No quid pro quo. Aid was released on time. Ukrainians say they were not pressured and were unaware of pause. — NOS4A2

You're parrotting Republican talking points and emulating their ignoring of evidence. I've addressed all those with you before, and yet you repeat your statements without rebutting what I said.

Stopping a crime in progress does not exonerate the criminal. A quid pro quo was established, and Bolton will likely add credence. There were indeed Ukranians who expressed concerns, and it's obvious why Zelensky would refrain from stating it.

I’ve always said that Trump asking Zelensky to investigate Biden’s possible corruption and Ukraine meddling in the 2016 election was certainly not impeachable, and even a good thing, required by the office. Had they made this case since the beginning they wouldn’t have to argue for this or that interpretation of the constitution. — NOS4A2

Yes, I know you've said that, but you're wrong. In no sense was this "required", and it was clearly wrong because it did real damage to Ukraine. We could debate just how bad the damage, but there's zero evidence it was helpful to anyone in Ukraine or the U.S.. It's also further exposed Trump's low moral character.

Interpretation of the Constitution was inevitable, and always will be in an impeachment. There is no Constitutional bright line, and I think reasonable people could reach different conclusions about that. Not that I think everyone in Congress is being reasonable. The facts have been against Trump from the beginning, and most Republicans have turned a blind eye to that from the beginning.

In light of the Bolton intervention, the Trump defense's best argument seems to be: It's not as bad as what Nixon did. — ZzzoneiroCosm

And/or the Dershowitz defense that this does not constitute a "high crime". I've always felt this was the backstop that Republicans could use, but would only use as a last resort. Reaching that point, and having some Republicans admit Trump did the deed- and that it was wrong, was as much as anyone could realistically hope for.

Public records and testimony state that there was indeed a smear campaign. According to these same public records and testimony it was started a full year after the Trump/Parnas convo. So I think any sort connection made between the two is specious at best, conspiracy theory at worst. — NOS4A2

The fact that Parnas was passing along the spurious information about Yovanovotch tells us the smear campaign was already in progress. How else can you explain Parnas' statements about her?

I’m not convinced. The context, the joking and laughter about her comments, suggests to me he was largely kidding around and playing it up for those he was having dinner with. — NOS4A2

So you're interpretation is that Trump was just kidding about dumping Yovanovitch, and it's a mere coincidence that he eventually did so.

This much is clear: there was a smear campaign against her by corrupt former officials in Ukraine, and Trump eventually gave them what they wanted. Further, Parnas was a part of it - at least in terms of being a conduit for the smearing - certainly thru Rudy and at least possibly directly to Trump, even if you aren't convinced of the latter. My point is that you're rationalizing Trump's behavior, and this rationalization depends on assuming a series of coincidences. Examined individually , each coincidence is plausible. But multiple ones are not.

The president can pressure and threaten whoever he wants. That’s in his power. He is just not allowed to do so for political gain, which is entirely unproven. But they cannot even prove that he was “pressured” to do investigations. — NOS4A2

Nearly a month before the July call, Ukranian officials expressed concern about the aid holdup and what to do about Giuliani, so a link was suspected by Ukraine.
(source).

Multiple witnesses testified there was an"irregular" channel to Ukraine in which Giuliani played a central role, and Rudy publicly acknowledged he was pursuing information about the Bidens and the DNC server.

Bill Taylor's testimony stated that Ambassador Sondland told Zelensky he needed to announce the investigation. Zelensky resisted, saying he didn't want to be used as a pawn in a US reelection campaign. Zelensky followed Sondland's advice on the phone call. So it was established that Ukraine was concerned about getting the aid, were concerned about Rudy' activities - recognizing it was political, they received confirmation from Sondland, Zelensky told Trump exactly what he wanted to hear, and he even scheduled an interview on CNN. After the scandal broke, Zelensky cancelled the interview and publicly expressed that he was tired of hearing about Burisma - which adds credence to the inference that he had just been telling Trump what he wanted to hear - and the only plausible explanation is that he thought it necessary.

Ukraine has publicly stated they want good relations with both Republicans and Democrats. If they were to acknowledge the pressure, it would hurt them with Republicans. It would also look bad within Ukraine, implying they were letting themselves be used for US political purposes - a bad image for someone elected for being anti-corruption.

Pam Bondi’s case against Hunter, complete with documents and congressional testimony, was pretty damning. — NOS4A2

Other than quoting people saying it looked bad, what else did she have? What's the damning evidence you're referring to?

That’s fair. Trump could definitely be lying. But given that she wasn’t fired for over a year later until after allegations from Ukrainian prosecutors, it appears he didn’t take it serious at all — NOS4A2

He took it seriously enough to react as he did ("get rid of her"). That doesn't seem like a reasonable reaction to a comment made by a casual acquaintance.

The idea that Trump should remember every conversation and every name with everyone he meets is a little silly. — NOS4A2

Parnas isn't just anybody. Still, it's certainly possible Trump doesn't remember meeting him, but it's also possible he is lying about it. In support of this being a lie: he's met Parnas at least 11 times; Parnas had a give and take with Trump about Ukraine (it's wasn't merely a photo op); sinceTrump was asking him questions he had to have some expectation that he could answer; Parna's claim about Yovanovitch was sufficient to induce Trump to say "get rid of her."

In support of it being the truth: Trump's word. I know you don't care about the number of untruths that come out of the guy, but surely you realize that it has an impact on his credibility. This certainly doesn't prove beyond a reasonable doubt that he's lying, but Trump looks bad either way. Why would he take a stranger's claim about Yovanovitch seriously?

Republicans struggle to get on message after Bolton rocks trial:


“We’re going to have some new stuff coming out every day. That doesn’t really change anything,” said Sen. Marsha Blackburn (R-Tenn.).

Odd. It contradicts what Trump's defense has stated explicity. It doesn't change anything for those who already believed Trump was guilty, but it forces Trump defenders to come up with another excuse.

Barrasso, the No. 3 Senate Republican, had a similar response. “I think there’s going to be something new coming out every day,” Barrasso said told reporters. “New information, old information told in a different way, to inflame emotions and influence the outcome.”
Isn't that the job of a prosecutor - to infuence the outcome of a trial?


But in the same press conference, Barrasso seemed to undercut his own argument: “To me the facts of the case remain the same. There is nothing new here to what the House managers have been saying.”
Right - it's consistent with, and adds support for, the charges brought by the House.

Why do we have taxes at all? We have it to pay for the things the government does. Everyone benefits from this, and I'd argue that the wealthy benefit more than everyone else. Money has no intrinsic value; it's de facto value is a social construct - one that is dependent on government to exist.

Lev Parnas seems to be a very forgettable guy. Even Devin Nunes forgot he'd ever talked with him. Maybe Parnas is a Jedi.

The pro-Trump view is that Trump really didn't know who Parnas was. But that implies he decided to fire Marie Yovanovitch on the basis of a stranger claiming she'd been badmouthing him.

Stupidity is not a defence either. — Benkei

Funny you should mention that, because some Republican Senators have argued that Trump's (stupid) belief in the Crowdstrike Conspiracy Theory constitutes justifiable reason for him to ask Ukraine to investigate it.

Perhaps Trump doesn't remember telling Bolton he was tying release of the funds to the Biden investigation, so he's' not lying. That's certainly an example where it doesn't matter.

He does seem to have a poor memory, since he doesn't remember meeting Lev Parnas. It's interesting that he decided to fire Marie Yovanovitch simply after hearing Parnas (the guy he doesn't know) tell him she'd been bad-mouthing him.

Would you care to place a small wager on whether or not Bolton's book, and or his testimony, will be consistent with this reporting?

Be careful. They say this is based on multiple sources, and Bolton's attorney has essentially acknowledged it.

As I often say when debating Christians: faith is an obstacle to truth.

Here's what the "failing New York Time" (LOL) reported:

WASHINGTON — President Trump told his national security adviser in August that he wanted to continue freezing $391 million in security assistance to Ukraine until officials there helped with investigations into Democrats including the Bidens, according to an unpublished manuscript by the former adviser, John R. Bolton.
The president’s statement as described by Mr. Bolton could undercut a key element of his impeachment defense: that the holdup in aid was separate from Mr. Trump’s requests that Ukraine announce investigations into his perceived enemies, including former Vice President Joseph R. Biden Jr. and his son Hunter Biden, who had worked for a Ukrainian energy firm while his father was in office.

Mr. Bolton’s explosive account of the matter at the center of Mr. Trump’s impeachment trial, the third in American history, was included in drafts of a manuscript he has circulated in recent weeks to close associates. He also sent a draft to the White House for a standard review process for some current and former administration officials who write books.

Multiple people described Mr. Bolton’s account of the Ukraine affair. The book presents an outline of what Mr. Bolton might testify to if he is called as a witness in the Senate impeachment trial, the people said. The White House could use the pre-publication review process, which has no set time frame, to delay or even kill the book’s publication or omit key passages.

The New York Times: Trump Tied Ukraine Aid to Inquiries He Sought, Bolton Book Says.

I wonder how Republicans will justify not calling witnesses now.

Purpura's arguments do not disprove the impeachment charges, at best they just suggest an alternative interpretation of the facts. IMO they don't fit the facts nearly as well, but if they raise serious doubt, that's all the more reason to bring in witnesses.

This event - this one - seems to me to be present. It is, I think, occurring 'now'.

But if time is some kind of wierd soup in which we're all slowly drowning, then there will surely be a lag between some event occurring and the event of my mind representing it to be occuring, occuring.

If that's true, then the mental event of mine that represents this - this now - to be occurring, is representing as occuring now something that has, in fact, already occurred. This event - this one - is in the past, not the present. I perceive it to be in the present - it has presentness to me - but in reality it is past.

If that's true, then doesn't that mean we are subject to a systematic illusion of the present? — Bartricks

The term the present connotes two different, but related, concepts: the mathematical present (that fleeting point on a real number line representing the procession of time), and the colloquial sense of the present, which is rooted in perception.

Our sensory perceptions take time to be integrated by the brain. The physics (sorry!) makes it impossible for each sense to be precisely synchronized, but they are sufficiently synchronized to deliver a reasonably accurate integrated perception of the environment in which we can interact.

Colloquial reference to the present are contextual. At present:
- I'm typing this response (I'm referring to the entire period of time I spend on it);
- The word I'm typing is "present" (which was true only during the brief period of time I was typing those letters).
- Donald Trump is President (I'm referring to the four year period in which that is true).

So its fuzzy semantically and perceptually, but it's precise only in the mathematical sense.

Yes the power of impeachment extends to the full house, not any one individual house member or committee. Therefore any subpoena issued before the house vote for an impeachment inquiry is invalid. This is one of the many arguments in the White House impeachment memorandum, which deserves a read. — NOS4A2

It's interesting that the memorandum does not rebut any of the facts of the case, and instead consists of complaints about the process. This particular complaint rests on treating precedents as binding. That's bogus because the House has sole power of impeachment - they set their own rules.

Adam Schiff is doing an incredible job - clearly the most effective of the House managers. He's changed my mind about the subpoenas. I previously thought the House should have taken Trump to court, but he made an excellent points on the fact that it risked dragging out indefinitely, to the point that justice could not possibly be served. It's interesting that even Lindsay Graham (speaking of hypocrisy...) complemented the job he's done.

The constitution grants the House full power of impeachment, not just select individuals and committees. That’s why the demands for documents were deemed invalid. This is precedent. — NOS4A2

By having the full power of impeachment, no other body has Constitutional authority to deem anything that transpires as invalid. You may judge it unfair, but you can't claim it's unconstitutional.

The fact that due process does not apply is not a good enough reason to avoid giving due process and applying justice. And in fact further proves the naked partisanship, how this is a ploy to influence the next election, and how the case is already doomed in the senate.

When you say it's "not a good enough reason" - are you again talking about fairness? Fairness and constitutionality are two different things, and it seems to me you resort to Constitutionality when it helps your case (defending Trump's expansive use of executive privilege - clearly going beyond past boundaries, ignoring its unfairness), and then shift over to fairness when Constitutionality doesn't give you what you want. What could be more partisan than that?

What if the impeachment inquiry was unfair and unjust, violating due process and the constitution? — NOS4A2

There is no such thing as an unconstitutional impeachment or trial. The Constitution grants the House and Senate sole powers to impeach and try, respectively. The Constitution sets no rules, so they can do whatever they want.

Complaining about fairness in this process seems similar to complaining that a participant in a street fight isn't following the Marquis of Queensbury rules of boxing. But lets consider it anyway. Is it fair for a President to block access to witnesses and documents by asserting executive privilege (and remember, that's the context we're discussing); it's contrary to the rules for discovery in standard cases. That "unfairness" is balanced against the "unfairness" of Congress' powers.

Besides that, there is no such thing as due process in the grand jury process that leads to an indictment. An impeachment is analogous to an indictment. The President is being granted all traditional due process rights in the Senate Trial, so current Republican complaints about that are unwarranted.