Right, the inquiry was fair, the senate trial is unfair. — NOS4A2
Yes. McConnell has said "Everything I do during this, I’m coordinating with the White House counsel. There will be no difference between the president’s position and our position as to how to handle this to the extent that we can" and "I'm not an impartial juror."
That's direct evidence that the trial won't be fair.
It’s a political process, not a judicial one. The idea that only Dems can be partisan is absurd. — NOS4A2
I meant partisan. — NOS4A2
Well, no, none of the articles of impeachment are mentioned in the constitution
The Constitution describes the grounds of impeachment as “treason, bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.” While treason and bribery are relatively well-defined terms, the meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” is not defined in the Constitution or in statute and remains somewhat opaque. It was adopted from the English practice of parliamentary impeachments, which appears to have been directed against individuals accused of crimes against the state and encompassed offenses beyond traditional criminal law.
Some have argued that only criminal acts are impeachable offenses under the United States Constitution; impeachment is therefore inappropriate for non-criminal activity. In support of this assertion, one might note that the debate on impeachable offenses during the Constitutional Convention in 1787 indicates that criminal conduct was encompassed in the “high crimes and misdemeanors” standard.
The notion that only criminal conduct can constitute sufficient grounds for impeachment does not, however, comport with historical practice. Alexander Hamilton, in justifying placement of the power to try impeachments in the Senate, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.”
Such offenses were “political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” According to this reasoning, impeachable conduct could include behavior that violates an official’s duty to the country, even if such conduct is not necessarily a prosecutable offense. Indeed, in the past both houses of Congress have given the phrase “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” a broad reading, “finding that impeachable offenses need not be limited to criminal conduct.”
A variety of congressional materials support this reading. For example, committee reports on potential grounds for impeachment have described the history of English impeachment as including non-criminal conduct and noted that this tradition was adopted by the Framers. In accordance with the understanding of “high” offenses in the English tradition, impeachable offenses are “constitutional wrongs that subvert the structure of government, or undermine the integrity of office and even the Constitution itself.” “[O]ther high crimes and misdemeanors” are not limited to indictable offenses, but apply to “serious violations of the public trust.” Congressional materials indicate that the term “Misdemeanor ... does not mean a minor criminal offense as the term is generally employed in the criminal law,” but refers instead to the behavior of public officials. “[H]igh Crimes and Misdemeanors” are thus best characterized as “misconduct that damages the state and the operations of government institutions.”
How has Trump abused his power? He hasn’t. — NOS4A2
Either way they were acquitted.
How do you figure that? If using (or trying to use) government money to undermine a political rival isn't an impeachable offence then one can excuse nearly any kind of behavior. I imagine if one happen to be a king or if somehow a ruler and the government were the same thing so actions wouldn't be treason but as far as I know that isn't the type of government we have.....at least not yet.Clinton committed perjury, a crime. Andrew Jackson violated acts and allegedly the constitution. Either way they were acquitted. How has Trump abused his power? He hasn’t. — NOS4A2
He abused his power by illegally withholding aid approved by Congress to compel a foreign country to investigate a political rival.
And he obstructed Congress by refusing to comply with lawfully issued subpoenas and by ordering others to refuse to comply with lawfully issued subpoenas (which is a crime, as per 18 U.S. Code § 1505. Obstruction of proceedings before departments, agencies, and committees).
How do you figure that? If using (or trying to use) government money to undermine a political rival isn't an impeachable offence then one can excuse nearly any kind of behavior. I imagine if one happen to be a king or if somehow a ruler and the government were the same thing so actions wouldn't be treason but as far as I know that isn't the type of government we have.....at least not yet.
Just because someone is a democrat or doesn't support Trump and/or the Republican party, it doesn't automatically make that person a criminal or corrupt in some way. Because of this it isn't a given that Joe Biden, his son, or the rest of us are all going to secret cult meeting in the middle of the night to sacrifice virgins in the name of Satan or whatever it is Trump and his supporters think we are doing.Yeah I don’t get the whole idea that one cannot investigate the corruption of a political rival because it might ruin his political chances. Do you think the possible corruption of Joe Biden should be avoided because it might undermine his campaign? — NOS4A2
He temporarily withheld it, which is legal — NOS4A2
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
There's no point giving me the Sean Hannity "It's all a big conspiracy by Dems" line. He did it. Sondland et al are telling the truth and he's lying. Simple as that. That the Dems are partisan doesn't change anything. And whether or not he'll win the election, who knows. But yes, the polarity is fucking your country up royally. — Baden
And none of this was proven just as Obama it was never proven that some kind of manchurian candidate or pretty much all other ridiculous right wing conspiracies that are concocted to discredit nearly anyone who runs against republicans or is in office.It’s not because he’s a Democrat, but because his son was being payed vast sums of cash by a corrupt Ukrainian company while his father was the point man in Ukraine. — NOS4A2
I don't see the situations as at all similar, where you had the Senate conducting an overreaching attack on a potential Justice and Trump trying to investigate Biden for what might be (if true) something that could affect the election. — Hanover
My decision not to vote for Biden will be because I disagree with his policies, which is in part why I don't really care that Trump is a pretty useless piece of humanity. — Hanover
You're allowing that Trump might have been right to attack Biden because Biden might have been corrupt. By that logic we should have ditched Kavanaugh because he might have been a rapist. — frank
That's exactly not what I'm saying. I'm saying my vote against Biden will be based upon his political positions. I doubt the validity of Trump's accusations, but I'm not terribly interested in them either, considering I've noted I'm not voting for Biden regardless. — Hanover
Anyway, take me at my word, I really don't believe in discarding human beings for their personal failures. It's an endearingly liberal part of my otherwise harsh personality. — Hanover
And none of this was proven just as Obama it was never proven that some kind of manchurian candidate or pretty much all other ridiculous right wing conspiracies that are concocted to discredit nearly anyone who runs against republicans or is in office.
Also you are completely ignoring the fact that it IS against the law to misuse government money like it is part of your own personal slush fund even if what you think you are doing is the right thing which is why Trump and his lackeys tried so hard not to let anyone find out what they were doing. Anyone with common sense knows that if anyone else than Trump did what he did then they would both lose their job and have to serve some time in jail. Instead all he is getting is a slap on the hand which both him and the republican are bitching and moaning that it is too heavy handed by the democrats.
If the average american government worker so much as gets or gives a nice pen (or a lunch) to a vendor for help for whatever they are liable to being prosecuted to either being bribed or attempted bribery. However if your a politician, lobbyist, or have some other similar position where "campaign contributions" begin ends and bribery begins is a bit of a gray area.
Yes, it's political, but he's guilty as fuck anyway, so let's talk about that instead of Partisan Dems! which is just a Republican distraction technique. — Baden
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.