The real coup is the overthrow of the rule of facts... — Wayfarer
We’ve been over that before, but that’s not the point of my comment. The Republicans don’t want witnesses because they’re worried that (more) impeachable behaviour will be uncovered. So they’re actively saying that they don’t care if he’s done something that warrants removal; they only care about acquitting him, and want that to be as easy as possible. — Michael
I think it says that they know what happened and this silly theater needs to end. We all know (1) exactly what Trump said in the phone call, (2) that the House would impeach, and (3) the Senate will acquit. It's not a fact finding mission. It's politics. If every witness testified he was the piece of shit you think him to be, it won't lead to his conviction and it won't affect the upcoming election. — Hanover
exactly what Trump said in the phone call — Hanover
So, Trump just got impeached? — Wallows
This is the interesting question.The only question now is whether this maneuvering will more energize the left or the right in the upcoming election. It's doubtful it will change a single vote from one side to the next, but it might cause more people to go to the polls. — Hanover
It's not just about the phone call, it's about what he actually did. — Baden
As noted by some people, in the end this might benefit Trump and just increase his status among his supporters as the "Teflon-President". — ssu
I'm not sure how you got that from "possibly reveal new information [that] might make it more difficult to acquit Trump." — Michael
I'm saying that we all know what happened, and there's no reason to present witnesses now so that we can pretend we're actually on a fact finding mission. Everyone knew the House would impeach before they held all their hearings and everyone knows the Senate will acquit regardless of the hearings, so why must we keep up the facade that we're actually having a trial and people are actually deliberating what they might do? Does spinning our wheels serve some important democratic function? — Hanover
Nothing like prosecuting someone fully knowing there is no chance you will prevail. — Hanover
Nancy Pelosi may wait awhile before sending the impeachment to the Senate. Which part of the 6th Amendment does she not understand?
Trump is so much an existential threat to national security and “our democracy” that she doesn’t want the trial to proceed at the pace of the inquiry. — NOS4A2
Remember how regarding Kavanaugh you were all like: 'It's dastardly to destroy a man's reputation." I understood what you were saying and it influenced my view of the situation.
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
Get involved in philosophical discussions about knowledge, truth, language, consciousness, science, politics, religion, logic and mathematics, art, history, and lots more. No ads, no clutter, and very little agreement — just fascinating conversations.