“Horse trading” IS politics.
Yes, the Democrats acted differently. They only questioned witnesses they wanted to question and blocked all others.
The Senate is a model of evenhandedness.
Unless you’re aware of a witness relevant to the matter who they refused, then you’re being silly.
If two crimes took place then those are two separate investigations. And you might note that the Republicans control the Senate and have free reign - ain’t no one one stopping them - from investigating Biden. If they believe that they’ll expose real, factual information that is harmful to Joe Biden, and they want to keep the White House, then it would be insane for them to not investigate.
Whereas, if they have no belief that there is any genuine merit to the story, then the best way to approach the Biden allegations is to leave them as allegations, believed but unproven.
It’s really easy to find no crime if you refuse to investigate. It’s also real easy to believe in a crime if you don’t investigate.
And if you did investigate, we would note that Biden lived in the White House and was communicating in at least part on government provided devices and he was constantly being monitored by people, who were often taking notes, all of which got labeled and filed away in boxes now owned by the Donald Trump administration when he left.
And at that time, when he would have been arranging with his son to perform corrupt acts, his son lived in the USA. Any nefarious communications that they might have had would have been over American networks, around American people. The company, Rosemont, which they were using as a financing front (supposedly) is here in the country known as the USA.
If there is any evidence of criminal actions or intent, there would be little to none in Ukraine. Joe and Hunter are not going to fly to Ukraine, grab some local Ukrainians, ask them to wear a wire, talk about crimes, and then ask those Ukrainians to send that recording to a Russia-backed Ukrainian politician with no relation to any of them.
Should there be some evidence in Ukraine, it is significantly harder to get.
Did Hunter and Joe hold strangely frequent phone calls just previous to Joe getting Shokin fired? Were there similar strangely frequent phone calls around the time Rosemont received money from Ukraine? Has Rosemont received money from Ukraine? Has Rosemont sent money to Joe or anyone related to him?
One might note that usually you want to use a shell company in Cyprus or somewhere, if you’re giving money to Americans under the table, not in America, because the American authorities can knock on their door and ask. Congress can subpoena them and throw them in jail for contempt.
If you think that Roger robbed the bank here in town and your answer to that is to send your biker friend to Nigeria to talk to some scam artists, never stopping at the police office here in town, then I’m not real sold on the idea that you genuinely believe in Roger’s guilt.
Free REIN.
That is all.
Lamar Alexander basically said that Trump did everything he’s accused of, but it doesn’t matter. It’d be remarkable if the GOP senators hadn’t proven again and again that they are dishonorable minions of Trump.
Name one relevant witness that the House blocked.
Lamar Alexander essentially said, “sure, he did what was alleged, but it doesn’t matter because he’s in my party”. This from a guy who will never face the voters again. What a putz.
Hey, Rand Paul- if you want to reveal the whistleblower so badly, call a news conference and blurt it out. No need for this childish trick of trying to force the Chief Justice to do it. And by the way, do something with your hair.
On the other hand, in the two other modern impeachment inquiries, the executive branch did their job and conducted an investigation as part of their own internal oversight of the president. Both Elliot Richardson and Janet Reno acted with integrity, honor and the best interests of the nation over party. Barr. Well, not so much. That’s why the whistleblower came forward in the first place. If Barr had done his job and started an investigation with the cooperation of the White House staff (note the people who testified at the Nixon inquiry versus the people blocked by Trump), then the House investigation would not have been needed.
Democrats can’t block witnesses. The Biden thing was a ruse. Republicans had enough votes to call Biden whenever they wanted without any Democratic votes.
In his own words:
So, according to Lamar!, extortion is merely ‘inappropriate’ but doesn’t meet the Constitutional standard for an impeachable offense. Given that the Constitution specifically mentions bribery, and extortion is essentially the same crime, just with a stick instead of a carrot, I’d love to know how he justifies that position.
But I know how he came to that position: he’s a fucking coward, that’s all.
Here we are indeed. 
It’s weird that in an election year, Republican presidents gain the benefit that they can’t be impeached while the only unique attribute about Democratic presidents in election years is that they lose the ability to nominate Supreme Court justices.
The reasonable next step would be: OK, for all Republicans who don’t like what Trump did but think it doesn’t rise to the level of impeachment: here’s a motion to censure the President. Defend your vote against that, bastards.
Of course McConnell will never let that happen. But the idea of Trump crowing about “total exoneration!” starting with the State of the Union and continuing through November makes me gag.
It basically is saying that politicians these days are so scared of having an opinion that they’ll use any excuse that they can to pass the buck on to the voters.
Are you arguing that Republicans called no witnesses in the House? That’d be news to Kurt Volker and Tim Morrison.
Perhaps the reason you are mistaken is because they gave such damning testimony.
Donnie Two Scoops has purchased two thirty second spots for the Super Bowl. One he released, but one is secret. I’m guessing that if he is acquitted before Sunday, the second one will be about vindication / exoneration.
And until the Democrats learn how to smile and say “fuck you” while actually fucking someone over they’ll continue to be doormats and losers.
And also that the false claim that the house rejected all witnesses has been repeated by the Trump defenders ad nauseam.
They debated whether or not to have impeachment at all. They compromised with “treason, bribery, and other high crimes and misdemeanors.” Like any law, it is a result of compromise and may leave some areas out where some think impeachment would be desirable. That is not a nuanced interpretation of this. You can take the Civil Rights Act and be outraged that it doesn’t prohibit discrimination against fat people. Surely that is the type of invidious discrimination that should be prohibited. But it wasn’t.
How am I invalidating parts of the Constitution? The argument was that Dersh is clearly wrong because at the time of the Constitution’s ratification there were no federal crimes at all to be charged with. Dersh said common law crimes which is bolstered by the fact that the Constitution talks about what treason is and how it is proven. It didn’t enact a law that said treason shall be punishable by death or life in prison. It was a constraint on future congresses so that treason would not be a free for all.
But the point remains. If the founders did not believe that there were any federal crimes at that point, then why mention that a president could be impeached for treason or bribery or other high crimes? What crimes? The common law ones.
Yes, indeed it was. I was referring to other quotes by Hamilton and did not read yours fully. Federalist 65 does far more to support my position that yours. It mainly discusses the reason why the Senate instead of the Supreme Court sits as a court of impeachment. It notes that it would be unfair to have someone convicted of an impeachment crime and then sit before the same body to determine his criminal punishment.
But if a crime is not required, then why would that be an issue? Why does the Constitution specify that punishment shall only be removal from office but the person can go on to be tried? In short, every mention in the Constitution and indeed Federalist 65 assumes a criminal act in which the convicted party will go on to be tried after removal.
I’m not engaging in such a loaded question. The House hasn’t proven much of this and this is why their case is failing. It is not based on evidence, but assertions. We all know that Trump is so evil that it must have been his sole motive. We just know!
Just like “lawful subpoenas.” We don’t know that until a court decides. Trump like you, me or anyone else can refuse to comply with subpoenas when we have a claim of privilege. Then a court decides that claim. It is outrageous to say that a president cannot use the courts to redress what he deems is an improper subpoena.
Those are the facts. But then I’ll get a wall of posts with similar words like “corrupt” “personal political benefit” “bribe” “extortion” etc. etc. etc. when the underlying facts remain unproven. These words are mere assertions. You just feeel it.
I agree largely with what Lamar Alexander said:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/01/30/politics/lamar-alexander-impeachment-witnesses-vote/index.html
It does not assume a criminal act, because the words Hamilton used very clearly states that the matter at hand is “the abuse or violation of some public trust.”
Since there’s no common law crime prohibiting “the abuse or violation of some public trust,” as a general matter, the literal words Hamilton uses is in direct contradiction to what you’re saying here. I mean, we can navel-gaze all we want, but the “abuse… of a public trust” doesn’t sound like a clear violation of statute or common law. A “violation of public trust,” sure, maybe… but not “abuse.”
In addition, Hamilton did not write that offenders SHALL be subject to traditional criminal proceedings after removal from office. He wrote: “… he will still be liable to prosecution and punishment in the ordinary course of law.” In the event this happens, it is prejudicial to have the Supreme Court reconsider the same charges they already convicted him of to dispose the political matter, and then deal with the same charges in a criminal matter if it came to that. In other words, a criminal violation is obviously something that would bring impeachment to the fore, but Hamilton also describes a general misuse of power that goes beyond this contorted position that the president’s lawyers are advocating.
Alexander basically said that the House proved its case, but the conduct described doesn’t warrant removal from office. That’s a remarkably harmful assertion to our system – that it’s okay if leaders hold back and attempt to trade Congressionally approved aid and political favors with foreign officials in exchange for actions that would harm their political opponents.
Don’t worry, Rubio took it a step further:
“Just because actions meet a standard of impeachment does not mean it is in the best interest of the country to remove a President from office.”