Opinion - Impeachment

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Publius

I didn't have time to read every news outlet that exists for this topic myself. Maybe someone else did. I do know I watch the major news stories from several of the major outlets, and I have not seen an article of this nature on CNN, The Hill, MSNBC, BBC or Al Jazeera. I have also only seen one article about it on Fox.

Perhaps you could provide some links if you feel there are articles we should be taking into consideration but that we're currently unaware of?

I wanted to give the benefit of the doubt here, so I went ahead and looked.

There are a couple of articles I found about it:

Politico
Politico again
NPR

Let me say that if someone wants to make an assertion, they should provide links that support that assertion. A point is best substantiated with evidence, after all.

Not just because it's the proper thing to do, but because it prevents anyone from feeling like someone has slighted them without a good reason.

There is a lot of news in our world. Not everyone is going to be scanning every sight for every possible story.

In this case, it still seems likely that the Senate won't even hold a real trial. It also seems like the needle has not moved on Iowa for two years, and that the last three weeks are unlikely to see much change either.

This is particularly true of the candidates who really probably ought to be gone already, such as Booker or Klobuchar who aren't even in the discussion, really.

A Senate impeachment might take some of the time from some of the candidates. So do accusations about illegal cover-ups in Ukraine for the non-senate candidate (Biden). I think it would take a lot to substantiate that this was a case of intentional sabotage and not a case of actual impeachment.

[Kitsune9tails]

If it is said that President Trump committed these acts for self benefit and not for the benefit of the American people, could it be perceived that all those that voted for him do, in fact, benefit from the alleged actions? His actions may reflect the will of those that voted for him while opposing those that didn’t.

Absolutely it could be perceived that way.

I still wouldn't want a President that I voted for committing those acts for those reasons (I did not vote for Trump, I disliked him decades before he became nominee), and I would not vote for a candidate that I believed would abuse his power or interfere in a Congressional investigation, even if I thought that would ultimately benefit me personally.

A(nother) President does something unethical but it's okay because it helps me out? If it was bad when Obama or Bush or whoever allegedly did that, then it is bad now.

Even if such acts were not worth removing the President over, they would be worth investigating and probable Impeachment.

So, my conspiracy: Passing a strictly partisan impeachment through the House, knowing the Senate is going to shut it down seems asinine.

Maybe so, but it is also their actual job, if I understand correctly. If even one Democrat in Congress believes the President has acted in a way that should, in principle, result in the President's removal, it is their oath and their duty to bring that before the Chair. I may be legally wrong about that, but it should be true in my opinion.

More cynically, the one thing Democrats cannot have the President doing is signalling to foreign and domestic actors that interfering in our Presidential election is okay. The Democrats have to signal that this is not okay with them, even if they cannot remove the President for it.

...and yes, even if they secretly plan to do the same thing themselves. Not attempting to remove (or at least investigate) the President when he is accused of trying to manipulate the election in his favor would be the same as saying voter suppression is okay.

[Kitsune9tails]

Here is an honest question about the Impeachment trial.

Should it be an honest trial?

I have the impression that a plurality of Republicans think the trial should be a sham because the President is obviously innocent of wrongdoing, or his wrongdoing isn't bad enough to be impeachable, or because the trial is partisan, or some combination of all three.

I have the impression that a plurality of Democrats think the trial should be a sham because the President is obviously guilty of wrongdoing, or abuse of power is impeachable even if it isn't a crime, or they think the President is actively harmful to America and should be removed on any pretense, or some combination of all three.

However, both of these groups seem to agree on one very important thing: that the President will be acquitted, regardless of the evidence, regardless of the question of any possible guilt, regardless of whether or not his actions regarding Ukraine or anything else is something you might want some future President from some other party to do.

Is it even possible for the Senate to put country ahead of partisan politics on this? Should they? ARE they? If they cannot, should politicians from both parties face penalties for not being able to do their jobs?

Or should they speed through a sham trial and acquit the President so he can get back to <investigating corruption and/or soliciting election interference> thus avoiding spending more taxpayer money and mental bandwidth on what seems like a foregone conclusion?

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails

Should it be an honest trial?

Yes.

However, both of these groups seem to agree on one very important thing: that the President will be acquitted...

Is it even possible for the Senate to put country ahead of partisan politics on this?

No.

Should they?

Yes.

ARE they?

No.

If they cannot, should politicians from both parties face penalties for not being able to do their jobs?

They would argue that they are doing their jobs. Their jobs are to represent their constituents. Their constituents might also believe they are doing their jobs. We don't actually have that strict of a definition of what the job of a Senator is.

Or should they speed through a sham trial and acquit the President so he can get back to <investigating corruption and/or soliciting election interference> thus avoiding spending more taxpayer money and mental bandwidth on what seems like a foregone conclusion?

It certainly is worth investigating. It's setting a lot of dangerous and arrogant precedents that will have important implications down the road, for sure. What they're doing right now is important. Not patriotic. Not honest. Not in our best interests. It's important though.

So was the Bolshevik Revolution.

[Kitsune9tails]

A question: have we proven that Impeachment doesn't work or have we proven that two Presidents were innocent of what they were accused of?

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails

A question: have we proven that Impeachment doesn't work or have we proven that two Presidents were innocent of what they were accused of?

As far as I am aware, all of the Presidents that have been impeached were guilty of what they were accused of.

I think this is a case of impeachment no longer working.

They didn't call witnesses. The evidence was plain as day, and even many Republicans said so.

Impeachment is broken.