Capitol Hill Blue Forums Political Issues The Trump Administration The Impeachment of Donald trump

I completely and thoroughly disagree. Indeed, I couldn't disagree more. You're buying into the tripe, my friend. The Republicans want to create the perception that this is a purely partisan issue because that is the way they approach it. The Democrats have not behaved the same way- which should be obvious from the fact it took 3 years to bring articles of impeachment! While it is true that the vast majority of democrats want Trump gone and think he is a notorious liar, crook, and traitor, that is a perception born of years of experience and evidence. One cannot simply ignore the accrual of actual misconduct because one might be accused of "political bias." Reality has to play a role. That's akin to arguing, and I'm serious here, that a federal judge can't hear a case involving Trump because he's a "Mexican" judge.

Lisa Murkowski is pushing back on McConnell's trial collusion with the impeached president. Says it is "disturbing".

Actually the false equivalency in this case is like saying an organized crime boss versus a DA who has evidence against him, are just two equally valid "sides" of a political divide.

No, that is absolutely not true! One side has committed crimes and the other side's job is to prosecute them. If they failed to prosecute, they could be prosecuted for dereliction of duty or accepting a bribe.

That is active normalization of Trump. Trump isn't normal. This is not the usual push/pull of partisan politics.

I'm going to go tangential and pedantic for a moment to address some arguments I keep reading over and over online. I just want to get this off my chest:

Trump is impeached. People keep repeating the canard that "he's not impeached until it is sent to the Senate." That's simply not true. An impeachment is not an indictment, although it has some equivalence, but it is more than that. It is a deliberated determination by a body of Congress. It is its own thing. Trump is Impeached. It is a done thing. The House has spoken. As the Constitution provides It cannot, as Rep. McCarthy has claimed, be "undone". The next stage of the process is to transmit the articles of impeachment to the Senate for trial. That is a procedural, not a substantive, step. It does not affect the reality of impeachment.

The Senate, as a separate body of Congress, has a separate responsibility. The Senate conducts a "trial". Although undefined in the Constitution, a trial in American jurisprudence has a meaning, an implication, and expectations. The Chief Justice presides. It requires some kind of "due process", although it is not, and explicitly so, a criminal proceeding, and does not import criminal conceptions like "proof beyond a reasonable doubt", "innocent until proven guilty", "cruel and unusual punishments" or a unanimous verdict. To make these arguments is to misapprehend its purpose. The Senate trial is an administrative or "civil" proceeding. Rules of court do not apply - evidence, procedure, etc. The Senate creates the process and establishes its own rules. Some things are expected: Presentation of evidence, opportunity to rebut, arguments. Beyond that, the "trial" is whatever the Senate wants it to be, subject to whatever the presiding Chief Justice might interject.

Moreover, the Senate is extremely limited in its responses. It cannot "unimpeach" the President. It cannot "exonerate" him. It can only "convict" or "not convict" an impeached officer. Upon conviction it can: do nothing, remove him from office, bar him from future office (by a simple majority vote). That is it. (By tradition and implication it can impose a lesser punishment, such as "https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Censure_in_the_United_States"or reprimand, but that is technically separate from impeachment.) It cannot jail him, banish him or take other punitive actions. In impeachment proceedings the "defendant/respondent" does not risk forfeiture of life, liberty, or property. Indeed, the Constitution so states:
Although, "the Party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to Indictment, Trial, Judgment and Punishment, according to Law", that is a separate process.

The Senate majority can "short-circuit" the trial process, but it will be out in the open and offend about 70% of the population who would see that as "unfair". Many of those people would probably vote. So, there is that. There is, potentially, a third option that the Senate could consider: They could convict, not remove him, and merely bar Trump from future office. It is a constitutionally tricky proposition, but might be a compromise for some Senators. I find the concept intriguing.

Thanks. I just had to get that out, and this seemed to be the thread to put it in.

For which Senators? Certainly not for Trump supporting Senators? I think they are full tilt exoneration jurors. So there is no chance of getting the requisite number of Republicans to convict. O and the very thought of never filling an office in the future is the equivalent of death sentence for a Trump supporter. To silence the voice of their bigotry ... their anger ... their delusions ... will never fly.

But thanks for the flight of fancy. It is an intriguing idea. In the real world a push for censure is far more likely. All Republicans could live with the idea, they didn't like what he did and would lie to protect him, but if they could come close to doing the right thing, they may vote for censure.

Should Bolton testify, he almost certainly would say Mr Trump violated his oath of office i.e. abused the public's trust. Would that be enough to change minds or would Republicans continue to lie?

We will never get a conviction. But we can impeach the bastard repeatedly. Even if he doesn't die of apoplexy, it will at least keep him busy enough to minimize harm.

The Supreme Court is scheduled to rule on those subpoenas in June. I doubt they would vote to change the entire balance of power in the Republic just for one crappy little 6 month more term in office. These guys are not Senators looking only to the next election. They know anything they decide applies to future Democratic Presidents as well. They are NOT going to decide the President is all-powerful just before a Democrat wins the office.

So there may well be another House investigation when we get all those insiders spilling the beans. Just in time for the General Election, too!

I suspect the politics of an investigation just before the election will not fly with Rep Pelosi. Remember, should Mr Trump win another term and there are "high crimes & misdemeanors" floating about with willing witnesses, she will simply file articles of impeachment again.

Don't confuse the voters!!!

It's possible. But I don't belong to either party and outside of thoroughly disliking Trump as a person, the individual, I'm in neither the pro or anti Trump camps. I personally don't care if he goes or stays. Now this impeachment stuff could effect the upcoming election, so I'm paying attention to it.

I also think most independents are basically ho hum about impeachment and removal, just thinking that this shows the out right hostility both political parties have for each other and for Trump. When you have 46% of independents saying they have no interest in watching the trial along with 30% saying not sure. I think that proves the ho humness most independents are giving this thing.

I could be wrong, perhaps most independents are just tired of all of it all. Of course Democrats think Trump needs to go because of all his criminal and anti constitutional actions while Republicans will tell you Trump didn't do anything wrong and he is completely innocent. This is all a political vendetta against Trump, revenge for Trump winning an election.

So let the two major parties battle it out. Perhaps this whole thing will taint both parties so bad that we might get a viable third party out of it. I certainly hope so. I'm tired of the monopoly the two major parties have on our electoral system.

So far, I would say this whole thing has been a wash.