I Support/Oppose The Articles Of Impeachment Because ______________

[John Galt incarnate!]

Do you support the articles of impeachment?

Why or why not?

[Zamboni]

support . . .  he has abused his power and broken the law multiple times while in office.

Did you see that the death sentence has now been imposed on Musharraf, former president of Pakistan? He has fled to Dubai, so the sentence will probably never be carried out, but breaking the law repeatedly will eventually catch up to anyone, even the president.

[John Galt incarnate!]

support . . .  he has abused his power and broken the law multiple times while in office.

Did you see that the death sentence has now been imposed on Musharraf, former president of Pakistan? He has fled to Dubai, so the sentence will probably never be carried out, but breaking the law repeatedly will eventually catch up to anyone, even the president.

I heard about a general who was sentenced to death in absentia.

I didn't know the general was once a president.

In the United States "Treason" is a death penalty-eligible crime.

THE CONSTITUTION OF THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA

ARTICLE II, SECTION 4

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

[YttriumNitrate]

I oppose. As a Hoosier, I REALLY don't want Pence as president. I'd rather have a president who's all bluster and little substance than one savvy enough to get his crazy shit done.

Tactically, I think the Democrats jumped the gun and should have waited about six months for maximum effect in the November election.

[Fireball]

Support.  Seems there is plenty of evidence he abused the power of his office for personal gain. 

[Raenia]

I support, not so much because I think it will do any good (as YttriumNitrate mentioned, Pence could well be worse in some ways), but because I think there has to come a point where we set the precedent that this is not ok.  At what point does silence become complicity?  There may have been better strategic choices that might have led to better outcomes, but I don't think that impeachment should be about political maneuvering, it should be about drawing a line that this is not acceptable, in ANY president, regardless of political expediency.

Maybe that makes me naive, but I guess I'd rather be principled than successful.

[Laserjet3051]

Oppose. Articles of impeachment are without merit. As a staunch conservative, independent voter, anti-democrat, I support an administration that seeks to correct the reckless and catastrophic immigration policies of decades gone by. An administration that tries to restore fair balance to  international trade; one that seeks to reduce onerous regulations where appropriate and restores a balanced approach to taxation. Contrary to the assertion that the TCJA only enriched mega-billionaires and largecap/megacap businesses, my small business has enjoyed substantial reduced tax liability; many of my friends who are also small business owners concur. Many other points I will not make at this time and of course there is much to fault Trump with in substance and policy, however, the current impeachment is ludicrous and short of a miracle, I will cast my vote next November accordingly.

[OtherJen]

I support, not so much because I think it will do any good (as YttriumNitrate mentioned, Pence could well be worse in some ways), but because I think there has to come a point where we set the precedent that this is not ok.  At what point does silence become complicity?  There may have been better strategic choices that might have led to better outcomes, but I don't think that impeachment should be about political maneuvering, it should be about drawing a line that this is not acceptable, in ANY president, regardless of political expediency.

Maybe that makes me naive, but I guess I'd rather be principled than successful.

Seconded.

[Kris]

I support, not so much because I think it will do any good (as YttriumNitrate mentioned, Pence could well be worse in some ways), but because I think there has to come a point where we set the precedent that this is not ok.  At what point does silence become complicity?  There may have been better strategic choices that might have led to better outcomes, but I don't think that impeachment should be about political maneuvering, it should be about drawing a line that this is not acceptable, in ANY president, regardless of political expediency.

Maybe that makes me naive, but I guess I'd rather be principled than successful.

I agree. This is not about politics. This is about much, much more than that.

[LennStar]

Support, for Reania's reason.

[Samuel]

Oppose the abuse of power charge. They didn't get there on motive.

Support the obstruction of Congress charge. There was plenty to warrant an investigation and the President can't just ignore lawful subpoenas.

[ketchup]

I support, not so much because I think it will do any good (as YttriumNitrate mentioned, Pence could well be worse in some ways), but because I think there has to come a point where we set the precedent that this is not ok.  At what point does silence become complicity?  There may have been better strategic choices that might have led to better outcomes, but I don't think that impeachment should be about political maneuvering, it should be about drawing a line that this is not acceptable, in ANY president, regardless of political expediency.

Maybe that makes me naive, but I guess I'd rather be principled than successful.

I agree. This is not about politics. This is about much, much more than that.

I'm in this boat too.  He won't be removed from office; I think everyone knows that.  The Senate will acquit him, and maybe he'll even gain support as a result (as did Clinton), but it needs to be done.  A more-competent Trump-like figure in the future needs to have the precedent set so they can't do even more damage.

[Davnasty]

Oppose. Articles of impeachment are without merit. As a staunch conservative, independent voter, anti-democrat, I support an administration that seeks to correct the reckless and catastrophic immigration policies of decades gone by. An administration that tries to restore fair balance to  international trade; one that seeks to reduce onerous regulations where appropriate and restores a balanced approach to taxation. Contrary to the assertion that the TCJA only enriched mega-billionaires and largecap/megacap businesses, my small business has enjoyed substantial reduced tax liability; many of my friends who are also small business owners concur. Many other points I will not make at this time and of course there is much to fault Trump with in substance and policy, however, the current impeachment is ludicrous and short of a miracle, I will cast my vote next November accordingly.

I've bolded your positions as relevant to the thread. As far as I can tell everything in between these statements is your opinion of policy and of no relation to the charges against the president. If policy is your reason for opposing impeachment, that's a legitimate position to take, but I suspect there's more to your opinion.

What is your argument as to why the articles of impeachment are without merit?

I have no delusion that I will change your mind on this topic, but I honestly want to understand the rationale that leads someone who is intelligent and capable of logical reasoning* to the conclusion that these charges are without merit.

*based on other conversations on the forum

[Sanitary Stache]

Support abuse of power.  His blatant lies are a very dangerous abuse of power, one that deserves to be checked with removal from power.  His actions to enrich himself are an abuse of power that deserves to be checked with removal from power.

Support obstruction of justice.  By refusing to face charges and calling the process an attempted coup he puts himself above the law.  A president that takes action to put himself above the law deserves to be checked and placed affirmatively within the law.

[BECABECA]

Support. To me, this is so far past being a legitimate question. If Congress didn’t bring impeachment articles for any of this, then they might as well have given up their power of impeachment altogether.

[By the River]

I suppose you mean the current articles of impeachment and not House resolution 438 of July 2017 (Russian collusion) or House resolution 621 of November 2017 (Russian collusion) or House resolution 646 of December 2017 (white supremacy tweets) or House resolution 705 of January 2018 (basic re-issue of HR 646).

I'll read the resolution when it passes.

[Norioch]

Support. Trump has repeatedly violated the emoluments clause, obstructed Congress, abused presidential power, and committed financial fraud. He's a habitual criminal and he should be in prison.

[bacchi]

+1 to what Raenia wrote even if, per Tucker, it will destroy the Democratic party. (I don't think it will but that's Tucker for ya.)

[John Galt incarnate!]

Oppose the abuse of power charge. They didn't get there on motive.

Support the obstruction of Congress charge. There was plenty to warrant an investigation and the President can't just ignore lawful subpoenas.

For the most part we  are opposite.

Among other most significant consequences, impeachment alone is an historic  sting. It is an affixment of a Washingtonian black eye,  an "I" that  is politically shaming.

 Though unlikely, I might be persuaded to support the article of Abuse of Power for the single purpose of stamping Trump with the indelible  "I" of impeachment.

Ambiguities of the objective of Trump's phone call to Ukraine's president, coupled with scrupulous adherence to the principle of benefit of the doubt, crucial in such a momentous undertaking as impeachment, are among considerations that weigh against my support.

The rarity and gravity of impeachment does not imbue House Judiciary Committee-issued  supoenas with a unique   force that dissolves the doctrine  of separation of powers and the presidential prerogative of executive privilege.

Neither does the House of Representative's rare exercise of its impeachment power convert America's form  of government from one that is tripartite to bipartite which eliminates the judicial branch.

The article  of Obstruction of Congress is a hollow,  expedient contrivance  absent the Supreme Court's determination that the appearance of certain subpoenaed witnesses and documents is not an impermissable intrusion into matters shielded by executive privilege.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

I oppose the articles of impeachment because they do not meet my burden of proof for impeachment, and the process was not fair to the president, even though I oppose much of what he is doing.

Abuse of Power

The abuse of power charge is complicated.  I voted for Obama/Biden and also Hillary.  But I have a huge, huge, huge problem with what Hunter Biden was doing.  It just stinks like hell.  And the fact that he is the son of a presidential candidate does not make him immune from investigation.  If Donald Trump Jr. was on some board of a Ukrainian gas company making $50,000+ per month, I think Democrats would be filing impeachment charges.

The problem is that Trump is a moron who doesn't know what the fuck he is doing. This should have been handled much more diplomatically and through different channels in the executive branch. It should have had nothing to do with aid to Ukraine, but again, Trump is a moron, so here we are.

Ultimately what tips the scale for me is that the executive branch, not Congress, makes foreign policy, not the other way around.  The executive branch holds up funds and uses other levers to navigate our foreign policy probably hundreds of times per year.  Trump is a moron, but holding up aid to look into something that was actually corrupt perhaps deserved censure, not impeachment.

Obstruction of Congress

This article is premature, as these issues are being litigated in the federal courts.  I don't recall enough from my constitutional law classes regarding executive privilege (I knew I wouldn't use it in my own practice), but I think the president has at least a good faith basis for his associates to assert executive privilege.  They may ultimately lose, but they at least have an argument about privilege.  The courts should decide this, not Congress.

I would also state, on this note, that this is an extremely dangerous precedent.  Is it beyond the pale to suggest that Republicans may launch a similar impeachment some day, and then subpoena everyone, and then when these are denied, they get to impeach?  It raises concerns for me.

A Final Thought on Due Process

The one thing that tips me towards opposing impeachment is the process failures of Democrats.  As a lawyer, and as someone who spends about 20-25% of my practice on public defender's work, I'm absolutely appalled by Democrats' complete failure to recognize constitutional rights.

The Confrontation Clause provides the accused with the right to confront his or her witnesses and have them testify.  The whistleblower should have been forced to testify.  There is no statute preventing that, and anyone telling you otherwise is lying to you.

The rules adopted by the House were also a fucking joke that de-legitimized the entire process.  Only witnesses approved by the majority could be called to testify? That leads to a partisan bullshit impeachment, which is what this turned into. Process matters, and Democrats approved every possible procedural device to their advantage.

On these notes, and I say this as someone who has voted for Obama, Clinton, Sherrod Brown, and Tim Ryan -- Adam Schiff was the worst person to preside over this impeachment.  He has lied through his teeth more times than I can count, including that "you can't identify the whistleblower!!!!" nonsense. He is a liar and a hack with absolutely zero credibility.

So, put it all together, and I just don't support impeachment.

[Raenia]

The one thing that tips me towards opposing impeachment is the process failures of Democrats.  As a lawyer, and as someone who spends about 20-25% of my practice on public defender's work, I'm absolutely appalled by Democrats' complete failure to recognize constitutional rights.

The Confrontation Clause provides the accused with the right to confront his or her witnesses and have them testify.  The whistleblower should have been forced to testify.  There is no statute preventing that, and anyone telling you otherwise is lying to you.

The rules adopted by the House were also a fucking joke that de-legitimized the entire process.  Only witnesses approved by the majority could be called to testify? That leads to a partisan bullshit impeachment, which is what this turned into. Process matters, and Democrats approved every possible procedural device to their advantage.

I may be misunderstanding part of the process, based on your comments, so I'd appreciate help clarifying the process.  As I understood it, the Impeachment proceeding is akin to indictment by a grand jury.  In a grand jury proceeding, the defense does not get to call witnesses, and the proceedings are kept confidential to prevent retaliation against the witnesses if the grand jury does not indict.  If the articles of impeachment are passed, then the issue proceeds to a full trial in the senate, which is akin to an indictment leading to a full trial, where the defendant has the right to mount a defense, face their accuser, etc.

Am I misunderstanding the purpose of impeachment?

[Michael in ABQ]

I neither support or oppose, I simply don't care. It's all just theater.

Ultimately nothing will happen and in a year we'll have another election and Trump will probably win again because the Democratic candidates are not exactly the next incarnation of JFK or FDR.

[dang1]

I oppose. As a Hoosier, I REALLY ...

Tactically, I think the Democrats jumped the gun and should have waited about six months for maximum effect in the November election.

6 months is plenty of time for Trump to get into trouble, again

[OurTown]

. . . he's guilty as fuck.

[JLee]

It absolutely boggles my mind how anybody could look at the facts of what has happened and think "yeah, that's fine."

I don't give two fucks about your political affiliation - this shouldn't be about politics. It should be about what is right and what is wrong.

[JLee]

I oppose the articles of impeachment because they do not meet my burden of proof for impeachment, and the process was not fair to the president, even though I oppose much of what he is doing.

Abuse of Power

The abuse of power charge is complicated.  I voted for Obama/Biden and also Hillary.  But I have a huge, huge, huge problem with what Hunter Biden was doing.  It just stinks like hell.  And the fact that he is the son of a presidential candidate does not make him immune from investigation.  If Donald Trump Jr. was on some board of a Ukrainian gas company making $50,000+ per month, I think Democrats would be filing impeachment charges.

The problem is that Trump is a moron who doesn't know what the fuck he is doing. This should have been handled much more diplomatically and through different channels in the executive branch. It should have had nothing to do with aid to Ukraine, but again, Trump is a moron, so here we are.

Ultimately what tips the scale for me is that the executive branch, not Congress, makes foreign policy, not the other way around.  The executive branch holds up funds and uses other levers to navigate our foreign policy probably hundreds of times per year.  Trump is a moron, but holding up aid to look into something that was actually corrupt perhaps deserved censure, not impeachment.

Obstruction of Congress

This article is premature, as these issues are being litigated in the federal courts.  I don't recall enough from my constitutional law classes regarding executive privilege (I knew I wouldn't use it in my own practice), but I think the president has at least a good faith basis for his associates to assert executive privilege.  They may ultimately lose, but they at least have an argument about privilege.  The courts should decide this, not Congress.

I would also state, on this note, that this is an extremely dangerous precedent.  Is it beyond the pale to suggest that Republicans may launch a similar impeachment some day, and then subpoena everyone, and then when these are denied, they get to impeach?  It raises concerns for me.

A Final Thought on Due Process

The one thing that tips me towards opposing impeachment is the process failures of Democrats.  As a lawyer, and as someone who spends about 20-25% of my practice on public defender's work, I'm absolutely appalled by Democrats' complete failure to recognize constitutional rights.

The Confrontation Clause provides the accused with the right to confront his or her witnesses and have them testify.  The whistleblower should have been forced to testify.  There is no statute preventing that, and anyone telling you otherwise is lying to you.

The rules adopted by the House were also a fucking joke that de-legitimized the entire process.  Only witnesses approved by the majority could be called to testify? That leads to a partisan bullshit impeachment, which is what this turned into. Process matters, and Democrats approved every possible procedural device to their advantage.

On these notes, and I say this as someone who has voted for Obama, Clinton, Sherrod Brown, and Tim Ryan -- Adam Schiff was the worst person to preside over this impeachment.  He has lied through his teeth more times than I can count, including that "you can't identify the whistleblower!!!!" nonsense. He is a liar and a hack with absolutely zero credibility.

So, put it all together, and I just don't support impeachment.

The impeachment process is not a criminal proceeding - your statement that "the accused" has "the right to confront" is itself a lie in this case.

[fattest_foot]

. . . he's guilty as fuck.

Of what?

The problem is that Trump is a moron who doesn't know what the fuck he is doing. This should have been handled much more diplomatically and through different channels in the executive branch. It should have had nothing to do with aid to Ukraine, but again, Trump is a moron, so here we are.

I'm still amazed that seemingly intelligent people, who apparently care enough to be informed on this, are still completely ill informed. In 1999, Congress passed a treaty with Ukraine, signed by Bill Clinton, that requires the Executive branch to work collaboratively with Ukraine on issues of corruption. Ukraine had been asking since 2017 for the US Government to cooperate with them on the investigation.

Further, this whole idea of "quid pro quo" is ridiculous, as literally every offer of foreign aid is technically quid pro quo, as we're looking to use the aid to further US interests. "Quid pro quo" isn't illegal, it's just a description of a transaction. All trade is "quid pro quo." There's no illegality there. The other argument people throw out is that the aid was contingent on an investigation into Hunter Biden (not Joe Biden; which as an aside, this idea that you can't have an investigation into someone running for President is equally ridiculous. I guess the Mueller investigation should be considered election interference as well?), but Ukraine has already confirmed they had no indication of this. Worse for that argument is that we have the transcripts of the call and Trump was asking for an investigation into the origins of Crossfire Hurricane, and Burisma wasn't even the main topic of conversation.



Every American should be appalled at this clown show. This sets a precedence for impeaching every President from here on out when we have a House of a different political party than the President.

[JLee]

. . . he's guilty as fuck.

Of what?

The problem is that Trump is a moron who doesn't know what the fuck he is doing. This should have been handled much more diplomatically and through different channels in the executive branch. It should have had nothing to do with aid to Ukraine, but again, Trump is a moron, so here we are.

I'm still amazed that seemingly intelligent people, who apparently care enough to be informed on this, are still completely ill informed. In 1999, Congress passed a treaty with Ukraine, signed by Bill Clinton, that requires the Executive branch to work collaboratively with Ukraine on issues of corruption. Ukraine had been asking since 2017 for the US Government to cooperate with them on the investigation.

Further, this whole idea of "quid pro quo" is ridiculous, as literally every offer of foreign aid is technically quid pro quo, as we're looking to use the aid to further US interests. "Quid pro quo" isn't illegal, it's just a description of a transaction. All trade is "quid pro quo." There's no illegality there. The other argument people throw out is that the aid was contingent on an investigation into Hunter Biden (not Joe Biden; which as an aside, this idea that you can't have an investigation into someone running for President is equally ridiculous. I guess the Mueller investigation should be considered election interference as well?), but Ukraine has already confirmed they had no indication of this. Worse for that argument is that we have the transcripts of the call and Trump was asking for an investigation into the origins of Crossfire Hurricane, and Burisma wasn't even the main topic of conversation.



Every American should be appalled at this clown show. This sets a precedence for impeaching every President from here on out when we have a House of a different political party than the President.

Which transcripts are you talking about?  The ones the White House edited?

[fattest_foot]

Which transcripts are you talking about?  The ones the White House edited?

Can we get an eyeroll emote?

Fine, let's say they edited it. What are you saying Trump did, or could have done, that was illegal? How come the only person who raised a flag on it was a third hand account of the phone call? Even Vindman, who they called in to testify and was listening, didn't have any concerns about the phone call until the whistleblower complaint was made public. If there was some massive scandal, wouldn't he have raised his concerns with his superiors at that point?

I get it, lots of people hate Trump. Hating him isn't the threshold for impeachment. And this circus where the Democrats didn't allow any Republicans to call witnesses, nor did they even question the originator of the complaint, is an embarrassment to the country.

[Kris]

. . . he's guilty as fuck.

Of what?

The problem is that Trump is a moron who doesn't know what the fuck he is doing. This should have been handled much more diplomatically and through different channels in the executive branch. It should have had nothing to do with aid to Ukraine, but again, Trump is a moron, so here we are.

I'm still amazed that seemingly intelligent people, who apparently care enough to be informed on this, are still completely ill informed. In 1999, Congress passed a treaty with Ukraine, signed by Bill Clinton, that requires the Executive branch to work collaboratively with Ukraine on issues of corruption. Ukraine had been asking since 2017 for the US Government to cooperate with them on the investigation.

Further, this whole idea of "quid pro quo" is ridiculous, as literally every offer of foreign aid is technically quid pro quo, as we're looking to use the aid to further US interests. "Quid pro quo" isn't illegal, it's just a description of a transaction. All trade is "quid pro quo." There's no illegality there. The other argument people throw out is that the aid was contingent on an investigation into Hunter Biden (not Joe Biden; which as an aside, this idea that you can't have an investigation into someone running for President is equally ridiculous. I guess the Mueller investigation should be considered election interference as well?), but Ukraine has already confirmed they had no indication of this. Worse for that argument is that we have the transcripts of the call and Trump was asking for an investigation into the origins of Crossfire Hurricane, and Burisma wasn't even the main topic of conversation.



Every American should be appalled at this clown show. This sets a precedence for impeaching every President from here on out when we have a House of a different political party than the President.

The quid pro quo wasn’t to further US interests. It was to benefit him personally. And to hurt another likely presidential candidate’s campaign.

[JLee]

Which transcripts are you talking about?  The ones the White House edited?

Can we get an eyeroll emote?

Fine, let's say they edited it. What are you saying Trump did, or could have done, that was illegal? How come the only person who raised a flag on it was a third hand account of the phone call? Even Vindman, who they called in to testify and was listening, didn't have any concerns about the phone call until the whistleblower complaint was made public. If there was some massive scandal, wouldn't he have raised his concerns with his superiors at that point?

I get it, lots of people hate Trump. Hating him isn't the threshold for impeachment. And this circus where the Democrats didn't allow any Republicans to call witnesses, nor did they even question the originator of the complaint, is an embarrassment to the country.

Go ask Graham.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/475149-graham-im-going-to-say-no-to-trump-impeachment-witness-request

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Wednesday that he will reject attempts by either President Trump's legal team or House impeachment managers to call witnesses during Trump's Senate trial.
 
"I am not going to support witnesses being called for by the president. I am not going to support witnesses being called for by Sen. [Charles] Schumer [D-N.Y.]," Graham said, adding that he wants as "short a trial as possible."

Or McConnell.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) went a step further during a Fox News Radio interview, saying he didn't think there should be any witnesses.

I also do find it quite interesting that you completely brush off lies being published by the White House as being irrelevant.

I would be perfectly happy to see Trump testify under oath. If he's being accused of things, does he not deserve to speak on the record and under oath about such things?

[fattest_foot]

The quid pro quo wasn’t to further US interests. It was to benefit him personally. And to hurt another likely presidential candidate’s campaign.

How did this hypothetical quid quo pro (which once again, has been debunked by Ukraine as they didn't know anything about aid being withheld) benefit him personally? Asking Ukraine to investigate corruption...so he could build a hotel or golf course?

Go ask Graham.

https://thehill.com/homenews/senate/475149-graham-im-going-to-say-no-to-trump-impeachment-witness-request

Sen. Lindsey Graham (R-S.C.) said on Wednesday that he will reject attempts by either President Trump's legal team or House impeachment managers to call witnesses during Trump's Senate trial.
 
"I am not going to support witnesses being called for by the president. I am not going to support witnesses being called for by Sen. [Charles] Schumer [D-N.Y.]," Graham said, adding that he wants as "short a trial as possible."

Or McConnell.

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) went a step further during a Fox News Radio interview, saying he didn't think there should be any witnesses.

I also do find it quite interesting that you completely brush off lies being published by the White House as being irrelevant.

I would be perfectly happy to see Trump testify under oath. If he's being accused of things, does he not deserve to speak on the record and under oath about such things?

I have my own issues with the Republicans. I imagine Lindsay Graham is likely implicated in the US aid money that's missing and probably doesn't want this thing to drag out.

Either way, hypotheticals about what the Republicans might ask for during a trial versus what the Democrats actually did in the House investigation is comparing apples to oranges. Strangely though, what Graham said would be allowing no one to call witnesses, not just a single party.

[JLee]

I have my own issues with the Republicans. I imagine Lindsay Graham is likely implicated in the US aid money that's missing and probably doesn't want this thing to drag out.

Either way, hypotheticals about what the Republicans might ask for during a trial versus what the Democrats actually did in the House investigation is comparing apples to oranges. Strangely though, what Graham said would be allowing no one to call witnesses, not just a single party.

As far as I can tell, House rules have been followed.  The House process is not a trial - if we are drawing analogies, it is more like a grand jury's decision to indict prior to a trial.  Would you rather discuss non-hypotheticals about what the Republicans have specifically said they are going to do during a trial?

Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, R-Ky., said Thursday that he will be in “total coordination with the White House counsel” as the impeachment into President Donald Trump presses forward.

During an interview with Sean Hannity on Fox News, the Majority Leader said that “everything” he does “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.”

Sen. Lindsey O. Graham (R-S.C.), chairman of the Senate Judiciary Committee, said Saturday that he’s made up his mind that President Trump should be acquitted, dismissed the notion that he has to be a “fair juror” and said he doesn’t see the need for a formal trial in the Senate.

To your earlier point, Ukraine did know aid was withheld.  Ask Laura K. Cooper (the American deputy assistant secretary of defense for Russia, Ukraine and Eurasia) about that, or revisit her testimony to Congress.

[bacchi]

The quid pro quo wasn’t to further US interests. It was to benefit him personally. And to hurt another likely presidential candidate’s campaign.

How did this hypothetical quid quo pro (which once again, has been debunked by Ukraine as they didn't know anything about aid being withheld) benefit him personally? Asking Ukraine to investigate corruption...so he could build a hotel or golf course?

Can we get an eyeroll emote?

Here's a clue: Who was the leading Democratic primary candidate at the time? Who would benefit from digging up dirt on him?

[GuitarStv]

There has been an awful lot of evidence brought forth to show that Trump did indeed have a quid pro quo thing going on.  The Republicans haven't refuted any of these claims . . . they're just screaming about how the Democrats don't like Trump.

Not that it matters, because the Republicans have already said that they are unwilling to try trump fairly.

[EscapeVelocity2020]

Every American should be appalled at this clown show. This sets a precedence for impeaching every President from here on out when we have a House of a different political party than the President.

I get so tired of Trump and Republicans using this phrase 'Every American'.  We live in a Democracy and on the most nearly universal of issues (nothing comes to mind, but certainly not impeachment where things are around 50/50) there is disagreement.

I could go on and on, but every time I tune in to the impeachment proceedings, Republicans use diversionary tactics to complain and divert and Democrats seem to be building a case that supports their argument.  I pray (to use Pelosi's superpower and Trump's kryptonite), that the Senate actually presents evidence and facts which reveal new findings and clear Trump before his acquittal, otherwise it will be laid bare that this truly was a partisan vote (by Republicans) and the abuse of power is that Republicans will, if left unchecked, turn the 3 co-equal branches in to one Republican bloc with no checks and balances.

What's that, elections will solve this you say?  Not if the President is allowed to lie, bribe, extort, and sell out the election process by inviting / forcing other countries to influence the voters.  Even if I'm not sure about anything else, I will always be certain that I do not want another country to meddle in our next elections.  And I so far have no reason to doubt Trump wants (and likely already benefits from) foreign interference.       

[LWYRUP]

Oppose.  i am not inherently offended by a president asking someone to investigate corruption... when it seems pretty obvious there was actual corruption. 

I would like to know more about why the former VP's son (generally not known for his business acumen) was getting paid $600k a year (while his dad was in office) for being on the board of an energy company operating in a region known for its corruption.  If there is actual corruption, it not an abuse of power to want to know more about it. 

I find it odd how many new outlets pore over the details of the impeachment process but seem so uninterested in investigating what was actually going on the ground in the Ukraine.  I am not being facetious here.  I really just want to know more and feel like we don't have all the facts. 

[scottish]

Oppose.  i am not inherently offended by a president asking someone to investigate corruption... when it seems pretty obvious there was actual corruption. 

I would like to know more about why the former VP's son (generally not known for his business acumen) was getting paid $600k a year (while his dad was in office) for being on the board of an energy company operating in a region known for its corruption.  If there is actual corruption, it not an abuse of power to want to know more about it. 

I find it odd how many new outlets pore over the details of the impeachment process but seem so uninterested in investigating what was actually going on the ground in the Ukraine.  I am not being facetious here.  I really just want to know more and feel like we don't have all the facts.

It's pretty obvious that they hired Hunter Biden in order to influence his dad.   But this doesn't seem to be illegal.     What would you do if someone offered you a 600K USD job just because your dad was important?

I think most people would seriously consider it, if not outright accept it.

[Norioch]

The president never asked anyone to investigate corruption, he asked someone to publicly announce an investigation into corruption. The public announcement was the important part. Actual investigation was irrelevant.

[JLee]

The president never asked anyone to investigate corruption, he asked someone to publicly announce an investigation into corruption. The public announcement was the important part. Actual investigation was irrelevant.

Yep. A lot of people miss this part, whether deliberately or unintentionally I do not know. Aid was predicated by a requirement to announce an investigation, not to actually complete one.

[Roland of Gilead]

Because the vote fell exactly on party lines, I oppose it.   Only a couple of democrats voted against it and no republicans at all voted for it.

This means it is a party issue instead of a significant breach of presidential duties.  I detest issues that just fall out exactly on party lines.


Had 20 or 30 republicans jumped ship and voted to impeach in the house, I would give the whole thing some consideration.


Presidents have done much worse than this in the past and barely gotten a hand slap.

Roosevelt was imprisoning Japanese American citizens in WWII for doing nothing wrong.

[Kris]

Because the vote fell exactly on party lines, I oppose it.   Only a couple of democrats voted against it and no republicans at all voted for it.

This means it is a party issue instead of a significant breach of presidential duties.  I detest issues that just fall out exactly on party lines.


Had 20 or 30 republicans jumped ship and voted to impeach in the house, I would give the whole thing some consideration.

Your conclusion displays faulty logic.

[Roland of Gilead]

Because the vote fell exactly on party lines, I oppose it.   Only a couple of democrats voted against it and no republicans at all voted for it.

This means it is a party issue instead of a significant breach of presidential duties.  I detest issues that just fall out exactly on party lines.


Had 20 or 30 republicans jumped ship and voted to impeach in the house, I would give the whole thing some consideration.

Your conclusion displays faulty logic.

No, unless you come to the conclusion that almost half of congress is completely corrupt.   If there were merit to the whole case, then some Republicans would have jumped ship.   The whole thing is just a 2020 political move.

[GuitarStv]

Oppose.  i am not inherently offended by a president asking someone to investigate corruption... when it seems pretty obvious there was actual corruption. 

I would like to know more about why the former VP's son (generally not known for his business acumen) was getting paid $600k a year (while his dad was in office) for being on the board of an energy company operating in a region known for its corruption.  If there is actual corruption, it not an abuse of power to want to know more about it. 

I find it odd how many new outlets pore over the details of the impeachment process but seem so uninterested in investigating what was actually going on the ground in the Ukraine.  I am not being facetious here.  I really just want to know more and feel like we don't have all the facts.

It's pretty obvious that they hired Hunter Biden in order to influence his dad.   But this doesn't seem to be illegal.     What would you do if someone offered you a 600K USD job just because your dad was important?

I think most people would seriously consider it, if not outright accept it.

I'm fine with investigating the Biden's and levying charges if/when corruption is found.  But it's beyond strange that the president of the United States would feel the need to withhold foreign aid to force another president to investigate the matter.  Last I checked, the US had people hired to do this perfectly well.  I guess Trump isn't a fan of hiring Americans?

But I've got to ask . . . How many events and business deals have Trump's children been offered because he's the president?  Quite a few that I can think of off the top of my head.  It's quite odd that the Republicans interested in preventing Hunter Biden's alleged corruption are deafeningly silent on this issue.  Either this sort of corruption is OK or it's not.  You don't get to give it a pass for your own team.

[GuitarStv]

Because the vote fell exactly on party lines, I oppose it.   Only a couple of democrats voted against it and no republicans at all voted for it.

This means it is a party issue instead of a significant breach of presidential duties.  I detest issues that just fall out exactly on party lines.


Had 20 or 30 republicans jumped ship and voted to impeach in the house, I would give the whole thing some consideration.

Your conclusion displays faulty logic.

No, unless you come to the conclusion that almost half of congress is completely corrupt.   If there were merit to the whole case, then some Republicans would have jumped ship.   The whole thing is just a 2020 political move.

Trump is incredibly popular among Republican voters.  Any Republican voting against Trump would certainly lose the next election.  My experience is that it's quite hard to convince someone of something when their job depends on them not believing it.

Holds true on both sides of course.  If you look at the Democrats who voted against impeachment, they're uniformly from districts with large numbers of Republican voters.

[Roland of Gilead]

Trump is incredibly popular among Republican voters.  Any Republican voting against Trump would certainly lose the next election.  My experience is that it's quite hard to convince someone of something when their job depends on them not believing it.

Holds true on both sides of course.  If you look at the Democrats who voted against impeachment, they're uniformly from districts with large numbers of Republican voters.

Right, but a issue that really required impeachment should transcend party politics and personal job protection.   The problem is that this issue was not really one where people are willing to charge the high ground to defend or attack.    The fact that this is just falling out on party lines means it is not worthy of the impeachment process and just makes the USA look even weaker and sillier to the world.

[GuitarStv]

Trump is incredibly popular among Republican voters.  Any Republican voting against Trump would certainly lose the next election.  My experience is that it's quite hard to convince someone of something when their job depends on them not believing it.

Holds true on both sides of course.  If you look at the Democrats who voted against impeachment, they're uniformly from districts with large numbers of Republican voters.

Right, but a issue that really required impeachment should transcend party politics and personal job protection.   The problem is that this issue was not really one where people are willing to charge the high ground to defend or attack.    The fact that this is just falling out on party lines means it is not worthy of the impeachment process and just makes the USA look even weaker and sillier to the world.

I admire your optimism that elected officials will always do the right thing . . . even if it costs them their job.  Don't share it, but admire it.

[Kris]

Trump is incredibly popular among Republican voters.  Any Republican voting against Trump would certainly lose the next election.  My experience is that it's quite hard to convince someone of something when their job depends on them not believing it.

Holds true on both sides of course.  If you look at the Democrats who voted against impeachment, they're uniformly from districts with large numbers of Republican voters.

Right, but a issue that really required impeachment should transcend party politics and personal job protection.   The problem is that this issue was not really one where people are willing to charge the high ground to defend or attack. The fact that this is just falling out on party lines means it is not worthy of the impeachment process and just makes the USA look even weaker and sillier to the world.

Yes, it should transcend party politics. But the fact that the GOP closed ranks around their leader and voted along party lines does not mean the same is true of the other side. Again, faulty logic.

If my father committed a crime, and my brother admits this to the police, but I swear up and down that he did not do it, that doesn’t mean he didn’t do it, or that he shouldn’t be prosecuted.

[JLee]

Trump is incredibly popular among Republican voters.  Any Republican voting against Trump would certainly lose the next election.  My experience is that it's quite hard to convince someone of something when their job depends on them not believing it.

Holds true on both sides of course.  If you look at the Democrats who voted against impeachment, they're uniformly from districts with large numbers of Republican voters.

Right, but a issue that really required impeachment should transcend party politics and personal job protection.   The problem is that this issue was not really one where people are willing to charge the high ground to defend or attack.    The fact that this is just falling out on party lines means it is not worthy of the impeachment process and just makes the USA look even weaker and sillier to the world.

I think you're drawing the wrong conclusion here. Trump has fanatical support from his party.

Why hasn't he testified under oath yet?

[GuitarStv]

Trump is incredibly popular among Republican voters.  Any Republican voting against Trump would certainly lose the next election.  My experience is that it's quite hard to convince someone of something when their job depends on them not believing it.

Holds true on both sides of course.  If you look at the Democrats who voted against impeachment, they're uniformly from districts with large numbers of Republican voters.

Right, but a issue that really required impeachment should transcend party politics and personal job protection.   The problem is that this issue was not really one where people are willing to charge the high ground to defend or attack. The fact that this is just falling out on party lines means it is not worthy of the impeachment process and just makes the USA look even weaker and sillier to the world.

Yes, it should transcend party politics. But the fact that the GOP closed ranks around their leader and voted along party lines does not mean the same is true of the other side. Again, faulty logic.

If my father committed a crime, and my brother admits this to the police, but I swear up and down that he did not do it, that doesn’t mean he didn’t do it, or that he shouldn’t be prosecuted.

Your brother sounds like a dirty liberal.