I Support/Oppose The Articles Of Impeachment Because ______________

[bacchi]

Does Bolton's admission change anything for those who Oppose? Here we have a hardcore Republican -- not a moderate like Romney -- who admits that Trump was withholding foreign aid for an investigation into Democrats.

If this isn't a crime, then it will really change American politics. Whoever promises the Chinese or Russians the most can get their aid in looking for/creating dirt on an opponent.

[JLee]

Oppose- Think the Democrats need to focus on getting a candidate that can actually beat Trump vs Spending 4 years trying to take the man down. They are looking foolish right about now and perhaps I will be proven wrong but I believe unless something significant changes there just handing him another 4 years.

Are you suggesting that laws no longer matter?

[OzzieandHarriet]

Oppose- Think the Democrats need to focus on getting a candidate that can actually beat Trump vs Spending 4 years trying to take the man down. They are looking foolish right about now and perhaps I will be proven wrong but I believe unless something significant changes there just handing him another 4 years.

Are you suggesting that laws no longer matter?

JLee - my sentiments exactly.

[OtherJen]

Oppose- Think the Democrats need to focus on getting a candidate that can actually beat Trump vs Spending 4 years trying to take the man down. They are looking foolish right about now and perhaps I will be proven wrong but I believe unless something significant changes there just handing him another 4 years.

I don’t think our Democrat legislators look foolish for investigating a potential breach of federal law and breach of the president’s oath to uphold our constitution. They’re doing their constitutionally mandated job. I think it looks foolish when Republicans claim that laws don’t matter and someone should get a free pass because it is politically expedient for them.

[GuitarStv]

If this isn't a crime, then it will really change American politics. Whoever promises the Chinese or Russians the most can get their aid in looking for/creating dirt on an opponent.

Why stop at political dirt though?  A bribe is a bribe.  Why not straight up ask for money to be transferred to their personal accounts?  The next president can start another trade war with China, then end it as soon as he's paid off whatever sticker price he settles on.  As a side bonus, the trade war that he started will end - so it's a win for the American people too!

[LennStar]

If this isn't a crime, then it will really change American politics. Whoever promises the Chinese or Russians the most can get their aid in looking for/creating dirt on an opponent.

Why stop at political dirt though?  A bribe is a bribe.  Why not straight up ask for money to be transferred to their personal accounts?  The next president can start another trade war with China, then end it as soon as he's paid off whatever sticker price he settles on.  As a side bonus, the trade war that he started will end - so it's a win for the American people too!

Somehow this reminds me of good ol' Mobuto, who knew how to make a deal!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mobutu_Sese_Seko

[Glenstache]

Does Bolton's admission change anything for those who Oppose? Here we have a hardcore Republican -- not a moderate like Romney -- who admits that Trump was withholding foreign aid for an investigation into Democrats.

If this isn't a crime, then it will really change American politics. Whoever promises the Chinese or Russians the most can get their aid in looking for/creating dirt on an opponent.

I think the GOP is holding their breath and seeing if anyone breaks ranks. Nobody wants to be the first to go. I'd imagine McConnell is working hard on damage control behind the scenes. That half of the country still supports this bullshit is a disgrace. We are, apparently, getting the democracy (ok, republic) that we deserve.

[bacchi]

Does Bolton's admission change anything for those who Oppose? Here we have a hardcore Republican -- not a moderate like Romney -- who admits that Trump was withholding foreign aid for an investigation into Democrats.

If this isn't a crime, then it will really change American politics. Whoever promises the Chinese or Russians the most can get their aid in looking for/creating dirt on an opponent.

I think the GOP is holding their breath and seeing if anyone breaks ranks. Nobody wants to be the first to go. I'd imagine McConnell is working hard on damage control behind the scenes. That half of the country still supports this bullshit is a disgrace. We are, apparently, getting the democracy (ok, republic) that we deserve.

The dam might have just broken. Romney has called for witnesses. That gives support for Collins, among others.

It is fascinating. Anyone who disagrees with the leader, even stalwart defenders of the GOP, is thrown under the bus and publicly vilified. They're all held in check through fear.

[LennStar]

Does Bolton's admission change anything for those who Oppose? Here we have a hardcore Republican -- not a moderate like Romney -- who admits that Trump was withholding foreign aid for an investigation into Democrats.

If this isn't a crime, then it will really change American politics. Whoever promises the Chinese or Russians the most can get their aid in looking for/creating dirt on an opponent.

I think the GOP is holding their breath and seeing if anyone breaks ranks. Nobody wants to be the first to go. I'd imagine McConnell is working hard on damage control behind the scenes. That half of the country still supports this bullshit is a disgrace. We are, apparently, getting the democracy (ok, republic) that we deserve.

The dam might have just broken. Romney has called for witnesses. That gives support for Collins, among others.

It is fascinating. Anyone who disagrees with the leader, even stalwart defenders of the GOP, is thrown under the bus and publicly vilified. They're all held in check through fear.

Political Parties generally are (in their inner workings) the same as dictatorships, just with less deadly outcomes. If you don't understand that, you can't understand why they all keep on "party line". If you deviate, you won't even be a candidate in the next election.

[former player]

I listened to as much as I could bear of the Trump defence yesterday, but the half-truths and misleading opinions are hard to put up with.  Ken Starr lamenting the !age of impeachment" when he spent years going up, down and sideways to impeach Clinton while barely mentioning it was almost laughable.

The argument against the second article was particularly weak, I though.  Congress is a co-equal branch of government that is entitled to treat its actions as lawful unless the courts rule otherwise.  When Congress passes an Act, it is law unless the Courts suspend it or rule against it.  A subpoena from Congress is the same: it is lawful until and until the Courts suspend it or rule against it.  There have been no Court rulings against the subpoenas issued to Trump for witnesses and evidence and so they are lawful.

Trump's defence is now that they are not lawful, for various reasons.  But Trump did not contest the subpoenas in court and so they are still on their face lawful, whatever Trump's opinion of them.  If Trump wanted them not to have effect, he would have needed to argue his case in court to get them first suspended and secondarily ruled unlawful by the Courts.  The elephant in the room that his defence is tiptoeing around is: if he is so sure that they are unlawful, why didn't Trump challenge the subpoenas in court?  The answer of course is that they are not unlawful and Trump and his lawyers know that if he went to court and lost he would have nowhere left to go.  That's what Nixon did: he challenged the subpoena for the tapes in court, he lost, the tapes had to be handed over and he had nowhere left to go.  Trump and his lawyers know that the same would have happened to him if he had challenged the subpoenas in court: it would have delayed matters but not for long enough for a President running for a second term: he would have lost, he would have had to hand over the evidence and he would have been left with nowhere left to go.  He thought instead that his better chance was that the Senate would let him off by deferring to the politics and to his bullying. And if they do, then the USA is no longer a country of laws, it is a country of one man.

[MasterStache]

Does Bolton's admission change anything for those who Oppose? Here we have a hardcore Republican -- not a moderate like Romney -- who admits that Trump was withholding foreign aid for an investigation into Democrats.

If this isn't a crime, then it will really change American politics. Whoever promises the Chinese or Russians the most can get their aid in looking for/creating dirt on an opponent.

I think the GOP is holding their breath and seeing if anyone breaks ranks. Nobody wants to be the first to go. I'd imagine McConnell is working hard on damage control behind the scenes. That half of the country still supports this bullshit is a disgrace. We are, apparently, getting the democracy (ok, republic) that we deserve.

The dam might have just broken. Romney has called for witnesses. That gives support for Collins, among others.

It is fascinating. Anyone who disagrees with the leader, even stalwart defenders of the GOP, is thrown under the bus and publicly vilified. They're all held in check through fear.

Yep. I wonder if those who claim the Dems "look foolish" will say the same when witnesses are finally called. Will be interesting to see how loyal their party affiliation really is.

[soccerluvof4]

Does Bolton's admission change anything for those who Oppose? Here we have a hardcore Republican -- not a moderate like Romney -- who admits that Trump was withholding foreign aid for an investigation into Democrats.

If this isn't a crime, then it will really change American politics. Whoever promises the Chinese or Russians the most can get their aid in looking for/creating dirt on an opponent.

I think the GOP is holding their breath and seeing if anyone breaks ranks. Nobody wants to be the first to go. I'd imagine McConnell is working hard on damage control behind the scenes. That half of the country still supports this bullshit is a disgrace. We are, apparently, getting the democracy (ok, republic) that we deserve.

The dam might have just broken. Romney has called for witnesses. That gives support for Collins, among others.

It is fascinating. Anyone who disagrees with the leader, even stalwart defenders of the GOP, is thrown under the bus and publicly vilified. They're all held in check through fear.

Yep. I wonder if those who claim the Dems "look foolish" will say the same when witnesses are finally called. Will be interesting to see how loyal their party affiliation really is.

I can't help think that was meant for me. In either case I am all for bringing the witnesses out. I would hope that if it proves to be truly an impeachable event then it all comes down because while everyone keeps saying he broke the law and so on I am not there yet. I don't see a President past or in the future that the opposing side cant build a case the way things are written right now one way or the other. But if it escalates and there is more to it I will be the first to eat crow admittedly.

[Dancin'Dog]

I can't believe that after this is all over the Senate is willing to be seen by history as the ones that refused to listen to witnesses or review evidence.  So far they have enabled Trump, but this will be the point recorded in history that they all chose to officially & collectively go against their duty to uphold the Constitution.  Only a few of them actually need to break rank to save the honor of the Senate, it will quite unfortunate for the future of our county if that doesn't occur.

[Plina]

Does Bolton's admission change anything for those who Oppose? Here we have a hardcore Republican -- not a moderate like Romney -- who admits that Trump was withholding foreign aid for an investigation into Democrats.

If this isn't a crime, then it will really change American politics. Whoever promises the Chinese or Russians the most can get their aid in looking for/creating dirt on an opponent.

I think the GOP is holding their breath and seeing if anyone breaks ranks. Nobody wants to be the first to go. I'd imagine McConnell is working hard on damage control behind the scenes. That half of the country still supports this bullshit is a disgrace. We are, apparently, getting the democracy (ok, republic) that we deserve.

The dam might have just broken. Romney has called for witnesses. That gives support for Collins, among others.

It is fascinating. Anyone who disagrees with the leader, even stalwart defenders of the GOP, is thrown under the bus and publicly vilified. They're all held in check through fear.

Yep. I wonder if those who claim the Dems "look foolish" will say the same when witnesses are finally called. Will be interesting to see how loyal their party affiliation really is.

I can't help think that was meant for me. In either case I am all for bringing the witnesses out. I would hope that if it proves to be truly an impeachable event then it all comes down because while everyone keeps saying he broke the law and so on I am not there yet. I don't see a President past or in the future that the opposing side cant build a case the way things are written right now one way or the other. But if it escalates and there is more to it I will be the first to eat crow admittedly.

I think it is an interesting question if you can say a country is still a ”real” democracy if not even a majority of the politican care to uphold the constitution. When do you slide over to a ”fake” democracy like Russia or dictatorship? And if there is a strong correlation between the amount a politician spend on getting elected and their chances to get elected is it not an indication of lack of democracy? When is the system so corrupt it is no a democracy more than in name only?

[ReadySetMillionaire]

I think the main political reason the Republicans are trying to sprint through this without witnesses is because of the Kavanaugh debacle.  It was "bombshell" after "bombshell" after "bombshell," and Democrats kept screaming "unfair!" when Republicans refused to drag it along any further.  Of course, it would have dragged on interminably, because the "bombshells" were never going to stop.

I have to think Republicans think the same song and dance is going on here, and thus are refusing witnesses, because once that door is open, it's Pandora's box.

This is just my observation as to what they are logically and politically thinking.

(No, I'm not going to answer your clarifying questions.  Just stating what I'm objectively observing what Republicans are doing, and not at all stating an opinion as to whether I agree or disagree with it).

[sherr]

I think the main political reason the Republicans are trying to sprint through this without witnesses is because of the Kavanaugh debacle.  It was "bombshell" after "bombshell" after "bombshell," and Democrats kept screaming "unfair!" when Republicans refused to drag it along any further.  Of course, it would have dragged on interminably, because the "bombshells" were never going to stop.

I have to think Republicans think the same song and dance is going on here, and thus are refusing witnesses, because once that door is open, it's Pandora's box.

This is just my observation as to what they are logically and politically thinking.

(No, I'm not going to answer your clarifying questions.  Just stating what I'm objectively observing what Republicans are doing, and not at all stating an opinion as to whether I agree or disagree with it).

You are putting scare-quotes around "bombshell" though and you are ascribing negative descriptions ("screaming", "debacle", "song and dance") to the actions of Democrats and positive descriptions ("refusing to drag it along", "refusing to open Pandora's Box") to Republicans.

So you clearly are stating an opinion on whether you disagree with it or not. It's also telling that you think "quick let's rush through the investigation before more truth comes out" is a legitimate strategy, either in Kavanaugh's case or Trump's.

[partgypsy]

I think the main political reason the Republicans are trying to sprint through this without witnesses is because of the Kavanaugh debacle.  It was "bombshell" after "bombshell" after "bombshell," and Democrats kept screaming "unfair!" when Republicans refused to drag it along any further.  Of course, it would have dragged on interminably, because the "bombshells" were never going to stop.

I have to think Republicans think the same song and dance is going on here, and thus are refusing witnesses, because once that door is open, it's Pandora's box.

This is just my observation as to what they are logically and politically thinking.

(No, I'm not going to answer your clarifying questions.  Just stating what I'm objectively observing what Republicans are doing, and not at all stating an opinion as to whether I agree or disagree with it).

Easy to prevent this from happening. Just don't nominate tainted unqualified people. Simple solution, Don't promote and support morally compromised crappy candidates! It should NOT be an inconvenience to get rid of people who taint the very office they hold. Republicans also complained about all the attention that Roy "nothing to see here" Moore was getting, but not about the problem that they had a sexual predator represent their party. https://www.salon.com/2017/11/09/a-defense-of-roy-moore-alabama-republicans-have-the-worst-response-to-sexual-assault-allegations/

[ReadySetMillionaire]

I think the main political reason the Republicans are trying to sprint through this without witnesses is because of the Kavanaugh debacle.  It was "bombshell" after "bombshell" after "bombshell," and Democrats kept screaming "unfair!" when Republicans refused to drag it along any further.  Of course, it would have dragged on interminably, because the "bombshells" were never going to stop.

I have to think Republicans think the same song and dance is going on here, and thus are refusing witnesses, because once that door is open, it's Pandora's box.

This is just my observation as to what they are logically and politically thinking.

(No, I'm not going to answer your clarifying questions.  Just stating what I'm objectively observing what Republicans are doing, and not at all stating an opinion as to whether I agree or disagree with it).

Easy to prevent this from happening. Just don't nominate tainted unqualified people like Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Don't vote for Trump and support him when he continues to tarnish the office of President. Sorry that other people have to be your conscience for you. It should NOT be an inconvenience to get rid of people who taint the very office they hold. Republicans also complained about all the press that Roy Moore was getting aka "nothing to see here". https://www.salon.com/2017/11/09/a-defense-of-roy-moore-alabama-republicans-have-the-worst-response-to-sexual-assault-allegations/

LOL at Kavanaugh being "unqualified."  Yale Law School (best in the country); clerk for 3rd Circuit (maybe .1% of law grads become appellate level clerks straight out of law school); SCOTUS clerk for Kennedy; worked at Office of Independent Counsel; then was an appellate judge in the DC Circuit -- the most important appellate circuit in the federal system -- for 13 years. 

You might not like the guy, or think he is tainted, but to call him "unqualified" shows that you're not very neutral yourself.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

You are putting scare-quotes around "bombshell" though and you are ascribing negative descriptions ("screaming", "debacle", "song and dance") to the actions of Democrats and positive descriptions ("refusing to drag it along", "refusing to open Pandora's Box") to Republicans.

So you clearly are stating an opinion on whether you disagree with it or not. It's also telling that you think "quick let's rush through the investigation before more truth comes out" is a legitimate strategy, either in Kavanaugh's case or Trump's.

You gleaned my opinion about the Kavanaugh circus rather correctly.  My posts are on here and I feel the same now as I did then.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

I think people who lean left or strongly left do not understand how much Midwest America just does not trust the Democratic establishment anymore.  It's been hysteria for three years, so nobody cares what they say anymore. 

[Kris]

I think the main political reason the Republicans are trying to sprint through this without witnesses is because of the Kavanaugh debacle.  It was "bombshell" after "bombshell" after "bombshell," and Democrats kept screaming "unfair!" when Republicans refused to drag it along any further.  Of course, it would have dragged on interminably, because the "bombshells" were never going to stop.

I have to think Republicans think the same song and dance is going on here, and thus are refusing witnesses, because once that door is open, it's Pandora's box.

This is just my observation as to what they are logically and politically thinking.

(No, I'm not going to answer your clarifying questions.  Just stating what I'm objectively observing what Republicans are doing, and not at all stating an opinion as to whether I agree or disagree with it).

Easy to prevent this from happening. Just don't nominate tainted unqualified people like Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Don't vote for Trump and support him when he continues to tarnish the office of President. Sorry that other people have to be your conscience for you. It should NOT be an inconvenience to get rid of people who taint the very office they hold. Republicans also complained about all the press that Roy Moore was getting aka "nothing to see here". https://www.salon.com/2017/11/09/a-defense-of-roy-moore-alabama-republicans-have-the-worst-response-to-sexual-assault-allegations/

LOL at Kavanaugh being "unqualified."  Yale Law School (best in the country); clerk for 3rd Circuit (maybe .1% of law grads become appellate level clerks straight out of law school); SCOTUS clerk for Kennedy; worked at Office of Independent Counsel; then was an appellate judge in the DC Circuit -- the most important appellate circuit in the federal system -- for 13 years. 

You might not like the guy, or think he is tainted, but to call him "unqualified" shows that you're not very neutral yourself.

Well, at least one former Supreme Court Justice also thinks he was/is not qualified.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/us/politics/john-paul-stevens-brett-kavanaugh.html

A Republican, at that...

Seems to me like he's pretty "neutral"...

[GuitarStv]

I think the main political reason the Republicans are trying to sprint through this without witnesses is because of the Kavanaugh debacle.  It was "bombshell" after "bombshell" after "bombshell," and Democrats kept screaming "unfair!" when Republicans refused to drag it along any further.  Of course, it would have dragged on interminably, because the "bombshells" were never going to stop.

I have to think Republicans think the same song and dance is going on here, and thus are refusing witnesses, because once that door is open, it's Pandora's box.

This is just my observation as to what they are logically and politically thinking.

(No, I'm not going to answer your clarifying questions.  Just stating what I'm objectively observing what Republicans are doing, and not at all stating an opinion as to whether I agree or disagree with it).

Easy to prevent this from happening. Just don't nominate tainted unqualified people like Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Don't vote for Trump and support him when he continues to tarnish the office of President. Sorry that other people have to be your conscience for you. It should NOT be an inconvenience to get rid of people who taint the very office they hold. Republicans also complained about all the press that Roy Moore was getting aka "nothing to see here". https://www.salon.com/2017/11/09/a-defense-of-roy-moore-alabama-republicans-have-the-worst-response-to-sexual-assault-allegations/

LOL at Kavanaugh being "unqualified."  Yale Law School (best in the country); clerk for 3rd Circuit (maybe .1% of law grads become appellate level clerks straight out of law school); SCOTUS clerk for Kennedy; worked at Office of Independent Counsel; then was an appellate judge in the DC Circuit -- the most important appellate circuit in the federal system -- for 13 years. 

You might not like the guy, or think he is tainted, but to call him "unqualified" shows that you're not very neutral yourself.

Well, at least one former Supreme Court Justice also thinks he was/is not qualified.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/us/politics/john-paul-stevens-brett-kavanaugh.html

A Republican, at that...

Seems to me like he's pretty "neutral"...

Any Republican against Trump is a deep state operative and therefore not longer neutral.  That's why the Republicans don't want to call witnesses.  They can't find any "neutral" witnesses.  Just libtards and deep state operatives.

[former player]

I think the main political reason the Republicans are trying to sprint through this without witnesses is because of the Kavanaugh debacle.  It was "bombshell" after "bombshell" after "bombshell," and Democrats kept screaming "unfair!" when Republicans refused to drag it along any further.  Of course, it would have dragged on interminably, because the "bombshells" were never going to stop.

I have to think Republicans think the same song and dance is going on here, and thus are refusing witnesses, because once that door is open, it's Pandora's box.

This is just my observation as to what they are logically and politically thinking.

(No, I'm not going to answer your clarifying questions.  Just stating what I'm objectively observing what Republicans are doing, and not at all stating an opinion as to whether I agree or disagree with it).

Easy to prevent this from happening. Just don't nominate tainted unqualified people like Kavanaugh to the Supreme Court. Don't vote for Trump and support him when he continues to tarnish the office of President. Sorry that other people have to be your conscience for you. It should NOT be an inconvenience to get rid of people who taint the very office they hold. Republicans also complained about all the press that Roy Moore was getting aka "nothing to see here". https://www.salon.com/2017/11/09/a-defense-of-roy-moore-alabama-republicans-have-the-worst-response-to-sexual-assault-allegations/

LOL at Kavanaugh being "unqualified."  Yale Law School (best in the country); clerk for 3rd Circuit (maybe .1% of law grads become appellate level clerks straight out of law school); SCOTUS clerk for Kennedy; worked at Office of Independent Counsel; then was an appellate judge in the DC Circuit -- the most important appellate circuit in the federal system -- for 13 years. 

You might not like the guy, or think he is tainted, but to call him "unqualified" shows that you're not very neutral yourself.

Well, at least one former Supreme Court Justice also thinks he was/is not qualified.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/10/04/us/politics/john-paul-stevens-brett-kavanaugh.html

A Republican, at that...

Seems to me like he's pretty "neutral"...

Any Republican against Trump is a deep state operative and therefore not longer neutral.  That's why the Republicans don't want to call witnesses.  They can't find any "neutral" witnesses.  Just libtards and deep state operatives.

The White House Chief of Staff is a deep state operative?  Had me fooled.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

The same side poo-pooing about soliciting foreign interference in our elections *actually* solicited foreign interference in our election via the Steele Dossier, which was a conspiracy riddled pile of crap that has tortured our democracy for three years.

Would Clinton be subject to impeachment had she won? Would soliciting foreign interference for her benefit in a presidential election be impeachable?

And if not, then what’s the distinction with the Trump-Russia collusion narrative? The thrust of that was Trump coordinated with Russia to steal the 2016 election, and if true, that was impeachable. Is Clinton’s situation different because she went through more murky back channels?

[OtherJen]

I think people who lean left or strongly left do not understand how much Midwest America just does not trust the Democratic establishment anymore.  It's been hysteria for three years, so nobody cares what they say anymore.

I live in Midwest America. You don’t speak for me or many people in my life.

[EvenSteven]

The same side poo-pooing about soliciting foreign interference in our elections *actually* solicited foreign interference in our election via the Steele Dossier, which was a conspiracy riddled pile of crap that has tortured our democracy for three years.

Would Clinton be subject to impeachment had she won? Would soliciting foreign interference for her benefit in a presidential election be impeachable?

And if not, then what’s the distinction with the Trump-Russia collusion narrative? The thrust of that was Trump coordinated with Russia to steal the 2016 election, and if true, that was impeachable. Is Clinton’s situation different because she went through more murky back channels?

Wasn’t the Steele dossier commisioned by a conservative political blog during the GOP primaries? Is that the side you now say is poo-pooing foreign interference?

Also, the Steele dossier was not written or researched by any foreign state or intelligence agency.

Also also Trump is not being impeached for anything related to the Steele dossier or Russia.

What are you on about?

[ReadySetMillionaire]

I think people who lean left or strongly left do not understand how much Midwest America just does not trust the Democratic establishment anymore.  It's been hysteria for three years, so nobody cares what they say anymore.

I live in Midwest America. You don’t speak for me or many people in my life.

I’ll let the 2016 electoral map do the talking.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

The same side poo-pooing about soliciting foreign interference in our elections *actually* solicited foreign interference in our election via the Steele Dossier, which was a conspiracy riddled pile of crap that has tortured our democracy for three years.

Would Clinton be subject to impeachment had she won? Would soliciting foreign interference for her benefit in a presidential election be impeachable?

And if not, then what’s the distinction with the Trump-Russia collusion narrative? The thrust of that was Trump coordinated with Russia to steal the 2016 election, and if true, that was impeachable. Is Clinton’s situation different because she went through more murky back channels?

Wasn’t the Steele dossier commisioned by a conservative political blog during the GOP primaries? Is that the side you now say is poo-pooing foreign interference?

Also, the Steele dossier was not written or researched by any foreign state or intelligence agency.

Also also Trump is not being impeached for anything related to the Steele dossier or Russia.

What are you on about?

The DNC paid for and solicited oppo research, or an investigation, from a foreign intelligence official.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

Can’t make this up — Joe Biden’s own memo that the Senate does not have a duty to call witnesses or hold a full trial is effectively guaranteed to defeat any vote for new witnesses.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/30/joe-biden-impeachment-witness-109730

I’m expecting a quick acquittal.

[OtherJen]

I think people who lean left or strongly left do not understand how much Midwest America just does not trust the Democratic establishment anymore.  It's been hysteria for three years, so nobody cares what they say anymore.

I live in Midwest America. You don’t speak for me or many people in my life.

I’ll let the 2016 electoral map do the talking.

This electoral map by population density?
(Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/is-us-leaning-red-or-blue-election-maps/amp)
 

[former player]

The same side poo-pooing about soliciting foreign interference in our elections *actually* solicited foreign interference in our election via the Steele Dossier, which was a conspiracy riddled pile of crap that has tortured our democracy for three years.

Would Clinton be subject to impeachment had she won? Would soliciting foreign interference for her benefit in a presidential election be impeachable?

And if not, then what’s the distinction with the Trump-Russia collusion narrative? The thrust of that was Trump coordinated with Russia to steal the 2016 election, and if true, that was impeachable. Is Clinton’s situation different because she went through more murky back channels?

Wasn’t the Steele dossier commisioned by a conservative political blog during the GOP primaries? Is that the side you now say is poo-pooing foreign interference?

Also, the Steele dossier was not written or researched by any foreign state or intelligence agency.

Also also Trump is not being impeached for anything related to the Steele dossier or Russia.

What are you on about?

The DNC paid for and solicited oppo research, or an investigation, from a foreign intelligence official.

Do you not understand the difference between paying a contractor (a former intelligence official of one of the USA's closest allies) for information and unlawfully withholding US taxpayer's military aid to a country at war \(with one of the USA's principal antagonists) to corruptly require them to fake an investigation that even the Attorney General can't find an excuse to look into?

[Davnasty]

The same side poo-pooing about soliciting foreign interference in our elections *actually* solicited foreign interference in our election via the Steele Dossier, which was a conspiracy riddled pile of crap that has tortured our democracy for three years.

Would Clinton be subject to impeachment had she won? Would soliciting foreign interference for her benefit in a presidential election be impeachable?

And if not, then what’s the distinction with the Trump-Russia collusion narrative? The thrust of that was Trump coordinated with Russia to steal the 2016 election, and if true, that was impeachable. Is Clinton’s situation different because she went through more murky back channels?

Wasn’t the Steele dossier commisioned by a conservative political blog during the GOP primaries? Is that the side you now say is poo-pooing foreign interference?

Also, the Steele dossier was not written or researched by any foreign state or intelligence agency.

Also also Trump is not being impeached for anything related to the Steele dossier or Russia.

What are you on about?

The DNC paid for and solicited oppo research, or an investigation, from a foreign intelligence official.

So the US president bribing the president of another country with $391 million in aid money, already appropriated to them by congress, to protect themselves from Russia is basically the same thing as a presidential candidate paying a British citizen for dirt on their opponent?

Interesting

[bacchi]

Can’t make this up — Joe Biden’s own memo that the Senate does not have a duty to call witnesses or hold a full trial is effectively guaranteed to defeat any vote for new witnesses.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/30/joe-biden-impeachment-witness-109730

I’m expecting a quick acquittal.

Biden is not a Senator. He doesn't get a vote in the impeachment.

[GuitarStv]

The same side poo-pooing about soliciting foreign interference in our elections *actually* solicited foreign interference in our election via the Steele Dossier, which was a conspiracy riddled pile of crap that has tortured our democracy for three years.

Would Clinton be subject to impeachment had she won? Would soliciting foreign interference for her benefit in a presidential election be impeachable?

And if not, then what’s the distinction with the Trump-Russia collusion narrative? The thrust of that was Trump coordinated with Russia to steal the 2016 election, and if true, that was impeachable. Is Clinton’s situation different because she went through more murky back channels?

Wasn’t the Steele dossier commisioned by a conservative political blog during the GOP primaries? Is that the side you now say is poo-pooing foreign interference?

Also, the Steele dossier was not written or researched by any foreign state or intelligence agency.

Also also Trump is not being impeached for anything related to the Steele dossier or Russia.

What are you on about?

The DNC paid for and solicited oppo research, or an investigation, from a foreign intelligence official.

What you're claiming here is simply not true.

Christopher Steele had former ties to British intelligence, but retired from his work there in 2009.  He was not a 'foreign intelligence official'.

While I'd say that it's still kind of a shady thing for the DNC to do (even though it was the conservative publication The Washington Free Beacon that initiated it), there's a pretty big difference between hiring a private investigator to look into a political opponent for dirt, and abusing the power of your office to extort a foreign government into publicly claiming that an investigation is going on in order to smear a political opponent.

[Jim Fiction]

Can’t make this up — Joe Biden’s own memo that the Senate does not have a duty to call witnesses or hold a full trial is effectively guaranteed to defeat any vote for new witnesses.

https://www.politico.com/news/2020/01/30/joe-biden-impeachment-witness-109730

I’m expecting a quick acquittal.

Ohh gosh another "Biden Rule" that the right will mis-characterize in order to justify their malfeasance. This is bad comedy.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

This electoral map by population density?
(Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/is-us-leaning-red-or-blue-election-maps/amp)

No, I'm talking about the one that matters; the one where Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, West Virginia, and Kentucky are red because Trump got more votes there. 

[DarkandStormy]

This electoral map by population density?
(Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/is-us-leaning-red-or-blue-election-maps/amp)

No, I'm talking about the one that matters; the one where Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, West Virginia, and Kentucky are red because Trump got more votes there. 

Land doesn't vote.

[DarkandStormy]

"We've already decided to acquit so why does it matter if we hear from new witnesses or see additional evidence" - supposedly "impartial" Republican jurors

[Kris]

In legacy-defining moment, Roberts forced to read Warren's question about his legitimacy at impeachment trial.

https://www.commondreams.org/news/2020/01/31/legacy-defining-moment-roberts-forced-read-warrens-question-about-his-legitimacy?fbclid=IwAR39X9aNfWXfp8yYcSy9thGOwxEaZQorBQNXIUBss4cRQd8k4OeuBsC2SEY

"Does the fact that the chief justice is presiding over an impeachment trial in which Republican senators have thus far refused to allow witnesses or evidence contribute to the loss of legitimacy of the chief justice, the Supreme Court, or Constitution?"

Good question, Senator Warren. And I think we know the answer.

[shenlong55]

This electoral map by population density?
(Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/is-us-leaning-red-or-blue-election-maps/amp)

No, I'm talking about the one that matters; the one where Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, West Virginia, and Kentucky are red because Trump got more votes there.

It's interesting that you think that my electoral power should be given to the red team just because someone living centuries ago decided that the land that I currently live on belongs the to 'Kentucky' tribe and more of the 'Kentucky' tribe currently favors the red team.  I personally think that I should get to decide how to exercise my electoral power, not the tribe that I happened to be born into/my parents placed me in.

ETA: Now that I think about it, this may be a significant factor in the political sorting that's been going on in America.  If how I express my electoral power is ultimately determined by my 'state' tribe rather than by myself then of course I'm going to want to ensure that the state that I live in is going to vote for my preferred political team...  Otherwise I don't feel like I have any electoral power.

[sherr]

I think people who lean left or strongly left do not understand how much Midwest America just does not trust the Democratic establishment anymore.  It's been hysteria for three years, so nobody cares what they say anymore.

I live in Midwest America. You don’t speak for me or many people in my life.

I’ll let the 2016 electoral map do the talking.

This electoral map by population density?
(Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/is-us-leaning-red-or-blue-election-maps/amp)

No, I'm talking about the one that matters; the one where Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, West Virginia, and Kentucky are red because Trump got more votes there.

Let's review. ReadySetMillionaire's original claim was that "no one in the midwest trusts Democrats anymore" because it's apparently the "hysteria" of the last three years is apparently all their fault. Not, like, Trump's fault at all in any way.

And then someone from the midwest says "you don't speak for me".

And then ReadySetMillionaire's response is "well Trump won the midwest in 2016 so there".

And now we've devolved down to "Trump eaked out an electoral college victory so neener neener neener."

Yup, sounds about like your standard conversation with a Trumper.

[bacchi]

"We've already decided to acquit so why does it matter if we hear from new witnesses or see additional evidence" - supposedly "impartial" Republican jurors

Lamar Alexander explained it for the Repubs thoroughly. They know he did it and why he did it but the Republicans don't feel that it's a crime. It's simply "inappropriate."

That sets a really bad precedent for future Presidents. If it's not a crime to enlist a foreign country to announce investigations into political opponents, it really changes elections.

As discussed earlier, there's now nothing stopping a sitting President from exchanging a trade deal for freezing someone's overseas assets for "investigations." It doesn't even have to be an opponent; it can be the opponent's colleagues or opposite party activists, like Soros or Koch (Don't the Koch brothers have assets in Canada?).

[OtherJen]

This electoral map by population density?
(Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/is-us-leaning-red-or-blue-election-maps/amp)

No, I'm talking about the one that matters; the one where Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, West Virginia, and Kentucky are red because Trump got more votes there.

This year will be interesting. The effect of Trump on Michigan state politics ultimately led to a newly Democrat governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, and attorney general, as well as a few congressional seats that flipped from solidly red to blue, despite some of the worst Republican gerrymandering in the country. Michigan is historically purple.

But sure, you can claim that a margin of 10,000 Michigan votes in 2016 is a major victory for Trump if it helps.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

This electoral map by population density?
(Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/is-us-leaning-red-or-blue-election-maps/amp)

No, I'm talking about the one that matters; the one where Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, West Virginia, and Kentucky are red because Trump got more votes there. 

Land doesn't vote.

Right; people do; and people in the Midwest voted in favor of Trump in 2016.

Pennsylvania -- Trump +45,000 people
Ohio -- Trump +447,000 people
Michigan -- Trump +11,000 people
Indiana -- Trump +524,000 people
Iowa -- Trump +147,000 people
Wisconsin -- Trump +23,000 people
 
***

I think the debate about the Electoral College is interesting, although I am wholly in favor of the Senate's structure and don't think that should change.  I certainly would love another Constitutional convention (maybe in 2037, 250 years after current Constitution?) to discuss these issues and to amend the Constitution in certain areas.

But the "land doesn't vote" phrase is an irrelevant trope in our current counter-majoritarian system.  You can complain about it all you want, but until the Constitution is amended, you effectively have to win a couple states in the Midwest to become President.  Clinton failed at that spectacularly, in part because large swaths of the Midwest felt the DNC screwed Bernie and was part of the Clinton machine.

My anecdotal experience in a traditionally Democratic area has been that people are leaning more and more Trump since 2016.  The Russia story, the Kavanaugh nomination, the hysteria over every news event, this impeachment...this just doesn't affect people the way taxes and healthcare do. 

People around here just don't trust the Democratic establishment anymore because they are tired of pursuing these hysterical goose chases. 

Yup, sounds about like your standard conversation with a Trumper.

I voted for Obama and Clinton. Just sharing my thoughts and observations from people I talk to on a daily basis.  My county went +30 for Obama in 2012 and only +3 for Clinton in 2016 (which I never thought I'd ever, ever, ever see in my life).  I'm betting Trump is going to be the first Republican to win my county in 50+ years.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

This electoral map by population density?
(Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/is-us-leaning-red-or-blue-election-maps/amp)

No, I'm talking about the one that matters; the one where Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, West Virginia, and Kentucky are red because Trump got more votes there.

This year will be interesting. The effect of Trump on Michigan state politics ultimately led to a newly Democrat governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, and attorney general, as well as a few congressional seats that flipped from solidly red to blue, despite some of the worst Republican gerrymandering in the country. Michigan is historically purple.

But sure, you can claim that a margin of 10,000 Michigan votes in 2016 is a major victory for Trump if it helps.

Agree it will be very interesting.  Midterms are almost impossible to forecast into the next election, as we saw when the Tea Party overwhelmed Congress in 2010, only for Obama to come back and win decisively in 2012.

FWIW, I'm in Mahoning County, which has been somewhere between +25 to +30 Democrat for probably the last 40 years.  My opinion of the Midwest is certainly prejudiced by how far this area has swung towards Trump in the last 3-4 years.  You would never see people with foreign cars around here, nor would you ever see yard signs for the Republican candidate.  Now you can't go hardly anywhere without seeing a Trump flag.

Strange times indeed.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

This electoral map by population density?
(Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/is-us-leaning-red-or-blue-election-maps/amp)

No, I'm talking about the one that matters; the one where Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, West Virginia, and Kentucky are red because Trump got more votes there.

It's interesting that you think that my electoral power should be given to the red team just because someone living centuries ago decided that the land that I currently live on belongs the to 'Kentucky' tribe and more of the 'Kentucky' tribe currently favors the red team.  I personally think that I should get to decide how to exercise my electoral power, not the tribe that I happened to be born into/my parents placed me in.

ETA: Now that I think about it, this may be a significant factor in the political sorting that's been going on in America.  If how I express my electoral power is ultimately determined by my 'state' tribe rather than by myself then of course I'm going to want to ensure that the state that I live in is going to vote for my preferred political team...  Otherwise I don't feel like I have any electoral power.

We live in a representative democracy that has a constitutional mechanism to amend the Constitution.  You are free to speak and organize to amend the rules regarding the Electoral College if you don't like them.

Agree with your point about "tribes."  There was a great article in the NYT (I think) about how politics is followed like sports now, where it's win-at-all-costs, hate your "rivals" even though you don't know why you hate them in the first place, etc.

[OtherJen]

This electoral map by population density?
(Source: https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.wired.com/story/is-us-leaning-red-or-blue-election-maps/amp)

No, I'm talking about the one that matters; the one where Pennsylvania, Ohio, Michigan, Indiana, Wisconsin, Iowa, Missouri, West Virginia, and Kentucky are red because Trump got more votes there.

This year will be interesting. The effect of Trump on Michigan state politics ultimately led to a newly Democrat governor, lieutenant governor, secretary of state, and attorney general, as well as a few congressional seats that flipped from solidly red to blue, despite some of the worst Republican gerrymandering in the country. Michigan is historically purple.

But sure, you can claim that a margin of 10,000 Michigan votes in 2016 is a major victory for Trump if it helps.

Agree it will be very interesting.  Midterms are almost impossible to forecast into the next election, as we saw when the Tea Party overwhelmed Congress in 2010, only for Obama to come back and win decisively in 2012.

FWIW, I'm in Mahoning County, which has been somewhere between +25 to +30 Democrat for probably the last 40 years.  My opinion of the Midwest is certainly prejudiced by how far this area has swung towards Trump in the last 3-4 years.  You would never see people with foreign cars around here, nor would you ever see yard signs for the Republican candidate.  Now you can't go hardly anywhere without seeing a Trump flag.

Strange times indeed.

Yeah, you live in a very demographically different place than I do (Wayne County, MI, with regular visits to Washtenaw County). And yet I am also a life-long Midwesterner. Like I said, we are not a monolith.

[ReadySetMillionaire]

Yeah, you live in a very demographically different place than I do (Wayne County, MI, with regular visits to Washtenaw County). And yet I am also a life-long Midwesterner. Like I said, we are not a monolith.

Yes, I'm in your classic "white people mad!" area of the country where national reporters won't stop writing about us as if we are some sort of undiscovered native species or something.

I bet we agree on a ton of issues.  This impeachment is just not one of them.

[Davnasty]

Yeah, you live in a very demographically different place than I do (Wayne County, MI, with regular visits to Washtenaw County). And yet I am also a life-long Midwesterner. Like I said, we are not a monolith.

Yes, I'm in your classic "white people mad!" area of the country where national reporters won't stop writing about us as if we are some sort of undiscovered native species or something.

I bet we agree on a ton of issues.  This impeachment is just not one of them.

Speaking of the impeachment, we should get back on topic.

You made some claims just before we went off on this "what Midwesterners think" tangent which were disputed as being false by several posters. Do you have a rebuttal?

[John Galt incarnate!]

I’m expecting a quick acquittal.

So am I for the reason that Senator Alexander declared  there is no need for more witnesses or documents "to prove something that has already been proven...that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense." Alexander also concluded that not the Senate but instead the electorate should decide on election day  "what to do about what [Trump] did."


Here  are the exact words of  Alexander's rationale that pave the way for a licit acquittal of Trump.


“I worked with other senators to make sure that we have the right to ask for more documents and witnesses, but there is no need for more evidence to prove something that has already been proven and that does not meet the United States Constitution’s high bar for an impeachable offense."


“The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did. I believe that the Constitution provides that the people should make that decision in the presidential election that begins in Iowa on Monday."