Take all the evidence. Lose Trump as the individual. Imagine another.

What does the evidence warrant regardless of who the defendant is?

That's impartiality in a nutshell.

The Senate majority are not doing their job. — creativesoul

They are doing their job, because the majority of the Senate are Republicans.

And because the vast majority of Republicans choose to favor Trump and/or don't think there's nothing wrong, why wouldn't they do what they do? The line "yeah, this might be impeachable, but..." uttered by some sounds very logical and actually quite honest.

They have an election to win. They won't win it if Trump would be convicted. When Trump is acquitted it strengthens the idea of Teflon-Don and how awesome he is and utterly whimsical the Democrats are. After all, Republicans don't like Democrats (and vice versa).

Once Trump joked: "I could stand in the middle of 5th Avenue and shoot somebody and I wouldn't lose voters,". If he'd really do that, which he likely wouldn't (let's make that clear), Republicans would genuinely believe that he was attacked by this person and had to defend himself and all of the so-called witnesses saying it wasn't self defence are part of an utterly nasty conspiracy against Trump. That the incident was an elaborately staged by the Dems with the help of the Deep State. And surely one of the witnesses was a Democrat (we are talking about NYC) and had voted for Hillary, clear proof of the conspiracy!!! Besides, Trump used a gun to defend himself! How better can he show that he's genuinely for the 2nd Amendment! He's a hero.

The Republicans would look how their voters views fall on this matter and then decide what to do. You might think that the absurd story above is an exaggeration. It partly isn't. It's not actually even about Trump. It's about the polarization of Americans to two camps who cannot get along. It's a political system hijacked by two political parties instilling this polarization to prevent the people from falling off to support either one or the another. You have to understand the logic when people vote for a candidate "to shake things up".

Have a happy election.

It's about the polarization of Americans to two camps who cannot get along. — ssu

Folly-fueled simulation has eclipsed the trite simplicity of 'not getting along'.

The two camps inhabit two distinct simulacra (a la Baudrillard) buttressed by Facebook fact- and alt-fact-bubble algorithms.

The two camps inhabit two distinct simulacra (a la Baudrillard) buttressed by Facebook fact- and alt-fact-bubble algorithms. — ZzzoneiroCosm

And it's not going away.

When Occupy Wall Street / Tea Party were still hype, I remember putting this below on the forum and started to talk about the similarities of the two and how there could be a middle ground.



But no. Hardly any response to this. The other side was totally clueless, a joke. And annoying. That was the bottom line.

So I guess we may see fist fights on the street with two groups of people, which are both against corruption in the political system. Somehow I have this feeling that there's one side for whom that might be a favorable option. Divide et Impera.

They seem to have us figured out.

The Senate majority are not doing their job.
— creativesoul
They are doing their job, because the majority of the Senate are Republicans. — ssu

No, they are not.

Their job - as clearly demarcated in the Constitution - is to act as impartial jurors in a presidential impeachment proceeding(the trial)...

That is their only job in this matter. McConnell publicly announced that he could not be an impartial juror in this proceeding. That is to publicly pronounce dereliction of sworn duty.

Disgraceful. That is itself grounds for impeachment.

That Justice Roberts has not recalled that juror, that McConnell has not recused, all of this and more is utterly disgraceful.

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.

.

Nowhere does it say...that the jurors must be impartial... — Relativist

"Do you solemnly swear that in all things appertaining to the trial of the impeachment of Donald John Trump, president of the United States, now pending, you will do impartial justice according to the Constitution and laws, so help you god?" Roberts asked senators.

Senators: "I do."


https://twitter.com/cspan/status/1217888634902319104?lang=en

That's also not the only place in the Constitution where the separation of powers are set out.

Disgraceful. That is itself grounds for impeachment. — creativesoul

Well, Clinton was impeached on 11 grounds, including perjury, obstruction of justice, witness-tampering, and abuse of power. With the obstruction of justice the Senate was split 50-50, but nowhere near the 2/3 majority. And btw, no Democrats senators did vote for convicting Clinton, although 5 democratic House members were in favor of impeaching Clinton.

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

In short, the Constitution is flawed: — Relativist

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 exists, but in this case, it doesn't.

Were it not for Trump's incompetence and inability to string together a coherent thought, there would be a large risk of him going after his perceived accusers. But maybe all it will result in is a string of defamatory Twitter posts, which is pretty well business as usual for this White House.

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.

Well, Clinton was impeached on 11 grounds, including perjury, obstruction of justice, witness-tampering, and abuse of power. With the obstruction of justice the Senate was split 50-50, but nowhere near the 2/3 majority. And btw, no Democrats senators did vote for convicting Clinton, although 5 democratic House members were in favor of impeaching Clinton. — ssu

I'm not familiar enough with the Clinton case to comment. My comments on Senatorial duty apply... always.

They violated the oath they took, but the oath isn't enforceable — Relativist

Impeachment is the tool of enforcement.

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 — Relativist

You do realize that most of(nearly all) the framers were against political factions(parties)... right?

So, to point out partisan politics implying that it is not unconstitutional is well...

Just plain wrong.

"Tomorrow: Trump waves around a map in Oval Office showing that Kansas City is, in fact, in Kansas."

"Trump is going to sign an executive order moving the state boundaries so Kansas City ends up in Kansas and therefore making his tweet correct."

https://www.businessinsider.com/trump-kansas-city-chiefs-kansas-missouri-2020-2

Everyone’s favorite mastermind George Soros says Mark Zuckerberg Should Not Be in Control of Facebook because “The social media company is going to get Trump re-elected”.

It’s odd that the epicenter of so many conspiracy theories spouts a conspiracy theory of his own. Given Zuckerberg’s commitment to free speech, it is no strange wonder Soros has it in for him, but Soros’ propaganda isn’t so much a matter of principle as it is the typical anti-Trump politics.

Soros’ propaganda isn’t so much a matter of principle as it is the typical anti-Trump politics. — NOS4A2

If one's principles are contrary to Trump's behaviour and policies then being principled and being anti-Trump aren't mutually exclusive.

I'd like to think that if Facebook were promoting Nazi or Ku Klux Klan nonsense then my objection would be principled and not just a political disagreement.

Edit: Although it's not simply about being opposed to Trump but being opposed to Facebook allowing "deliberately misleading or false statements by candidates for public office and others, and tak[ing] no responsibility for them." Given Trump's constant attacks on "fake news" and threatening/punishing news organizations, I would have thought he'd agree with Soros on this one.

an oath is not enforceable — Relativist

Why not? Malfeasance of office comes to mind.

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

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.

It's not about my imaginings. It's about the way it's supposed to work. Not all Senators are failing to perform sworn duty.

If one's principles are contrary to Trump's behaviour and policies then being principled and being anti-Trump aren't mutually exclusive.

I'd like to think that if Facebook were promoting Nazi or Ku Klux Klan nonsense then my objection would be principled and not just a political disagreement.

Edit: Although it's not simply about being opposed to Trump but being opposed to Facebook allowing "deliberately misleading or false statements by candidates for public office and others, and tak[ing] no responsibility for them." Given Trump's constant attacks on "fake news" and threatening/punishing news organizations, I would have thought he'd agree with Soros on this one.

I never said nor implied they were mutually exclusive. Unless that principle is censorship, fear and politics is guiding Soros’ thinking.

But despite Soros’ claim, it isn’t Facebook posting misinformation and other claptrap. They are just a platform.

But despite Soros’ claim, it isn’t Facebook posting misinformation and other claptrap. They are just a platform. — NOS4A2

According to one of their lawyers, they're a publisher.

I disagree partially with the view of Soros that Facebook is a publisher not just a neutral moderator or platform and It should be held accountable for the content that appears on its site". A publisher of let's say a newspaper is in different. What they have to control is very limited. There are great examples on how you determine these issues in the traditional media. Facebook users aren't traditional media.

Should then Facebook be looking at what is published on it's site? Yes, but the guidelines ought to be totally clear to everyone and come from the government itself and defined that illegal activity isn't tolerated. Upholding laws on what is defined criminal doesn't infringe on the freedom of speech. It shows utter weakness of the state that the service provider is then let to handle the problem itself.

Now you get the worst of both Worlds. Facebook gets public condemnation and populists demand intervention and the Internet companies are in a scramble to do something and usually make many stupid decisions. What is defined to be acceptable is left to a lousy algorithm or the whims of some clueless worker. And if one wants to start a propaganda campaign, attack others and do whatever, anything goes.

But despite Soros’ claim, it isn’t Facebook posting misinformation and other claptrap. — NOS4A2

The company posts few if anything. Yet it cannot control shrewd manipulation. Many times it likely doesn't know what is written in other languages that English.

Weimarization sucks.

Agreed. It should be up to the governments to enforce their laws. The regulations set forth by governments making Facebook liable for what people post on their platform is an abridgement of free speech in my opinion.

But it isn’t just populists demanding intervention into platforms like Facebook. Germany’s Network Enforcement Act is already law and parties like the AfD have used their censorship as a springboard for their political platforms.

Devil is in the details with things like writing laws on hate speech.

The simple guideline would be that the majority of the people have a basic understanding of when something becomes so harmful and against the rules that it would be considered illegal, a crime. Being annoying (or stupid) isn't a crime. It's the agitators that makes these issues problematic.

Anyway, we ought to have this thing called a representative Parliamentary system to decide these issues where to draw the lines. The solution isn't simply to ask a private enterprise to figure it out (usually by hiring some consultant) and threaten with break up.

As if politicians will ever support a law banning deceptive propaganda.