people are upset that the end result is exactly as pretty much everyone predicted?
Hey righties, quit telling me what I think and how I feel! It makes you look like colossal morons, even more so in light of the fact that a big part of the Trump defense was, “We can’t look inside his head and see his motives. Also, we can’t call eyewitnesses to testify about his motives because we Can look inside their heads and tell that their motives are bad.”
You can’t have it both ways, and you don’t get to tell me who I hate. No wonder the GOP is such a laughingstock.
These are untruths which cannot be substantiated with reliable citations.
Network of impropriety?? Illegal investigation?? Are you suggesting that the President is not supposed to investigate potential illegal activity? After all, I thought that was what supposedly justified Trump’s actions (too bad, isn’t it, that Trump didn’t bother going through US government channels, or it might have even seemed legit?).
Hmmm… I have a Series 5 and it doesn’t have a camera… hmmmm…
Let’s go to the quarry and throw stuff down there! 
Are you a professional comedian, or do you just indulge yourself on the internet?
A general problem in life is that people will think about something, decide it’s stupid, but then their friends will rag on them a week or two, and they change their mind for no reason beyond social cohesion.
This brings you everything from teen drinking to the Holocaust.
Personally, I prefer to stop after the thinking part. If something is bad, it will stay bad. As more reason to find badness piles on, I will believe that thing to be more bad in exact measure to what is supported by that new information. If evidence of goodness comes in, then the meter will move in the opposite direction in exact measure to what is supported by the new information.
Expecting bad information to come doesn’t somehow magically cancel logic. If I predict that I will be murdered and then I am murdered, that’s not somehow exonerating of my murderer. Send that a-hole to jail.
The passage of time doesn’t cancel logic. If running head first into a wall was a stupid idea two years ago, it is still stupid today.
This is sanity. It’s not the norm, but it is the right answer.
Do you watch any sports?
I think something just happened: Alexander proved that the repub party has to go. The best a retiring R can do is sacrifice his reputation in history to protect the special white privilege to commit crimes out of sight?
Hmmm:
"CNN discussion is explaining what’s going on in the Senate:
Due to a mistake in drafting the rules, Senator Schumer now has ability to submit amendments—one implication is it can force GOP to make uncomfortable votes. Gives Schumer leverage he otherwise hasn’t had in the process"
Link to the ‘CNN discussion’?
Sorry, got a client call.
Effectively, what’s happening now is that the procedure contains a “mistake” - if you’re a Republican, that is. The argument is that this part of the process calls for four hours of argument, 2 hours by each party,
(Emphasis mine, JT)
(Link goes to tweet with picture containing the relevant wording)
There are no limits on the motions, nothing, not even wording which allows the Republicans to roll all of them up into one. And each motion is granted four hours of debate. So we could have…
“I move that we call John Bolton!”
(four hours, with the Republicans having to defend, for two hours, why Bolton shouldn’t be called)
“I move that we call Donald Trump!”
(four hours, with the Republicans having to defend, for two hours, why Trump shouldn’t be called)
etc.
… at least, this is my reading of what the legal commentators are saying. IANAL, I don’t play one on TV, and I didn’t sleep well last night, Holiday Inn or not. I am sure this will be clarified as time progresses.
lol, disregard the above, I guess. They’re voting.
… and it’s a wrap. No witnesses, just as the Framers wanted.
Good guess. The motion to allow requests for subpoenas of witnesses and documents was rejected, 51-49.
~Max
So…
The Senate has agreed that the President may violate any law, as long as the President believes he is doing it for the good of the country.
Now the President may decree that the 22nd Amendment is null and void, since he believes that being President for Life is for the good of the country.
L’état, c’est moi. – Louis XIV and Donald J. Trump
They nixed witnesses.
Now they have to vote on whether Congress maintains the power of Oversight or if it has to go to court for each discrete request.
So, whether the Republicans want to throw the Congressional branch into the history bin.
Actually I think representatives tried to impeach both President Bush and President Obama. And, you know, they actually did impeach President Clinton.
I also doubt that the tipping point was an allegation of abuse of power. Mr. Trump was accused of abusing his position to enrich himself before he was even sworn in, what with the hotel in D.C. and refusing to divest and the charity and the schools.
I also disagree with your characterization of a hypothetical precedent. You seem to assume the conclusion that Trump was in fact a “completely corrupt dickhead” and that this fact led to his impeachment (conviction).
~Max
I don’t think the prospect of improving one’s electoral chances amounts to abuse of power unless you can prove there was no reasonable legitimate concurrent motivation. I won’t go so far as to make what has been termed the Derschwitz defense, but if a President makes a win-win decision (official policy win + personal win) I won’t hold that against him.
And regarding stonewalling, while I had previously admitted the legal defenses raised were baseless in the inquiry thread, I did not consider executive privilege at that time.
~Max
Mitch McConnell used the Senate to steal power away from the Presidency during the Obama years. When presented with a politician who openly stole power from the People, McConnell decided he could use this man to steal power from the House.
The Senate and Donald Trump are now openly working to remove our voice from government. That’s the crux of the matter here.
I didn’t vote for Trump in 2016 because I reviewed “years of Trump’s words and actions to judge his character and motivations.” I still wouldn’t chance my life/health/house/job/pretty much anything important to me on Trump’s intent being corrupt, not without hesitation, and personally that is the standard I use for beyond a reasonable doubt.
ETA: (Kent Clark’s hypothetical actually was in a vacuum)
~Max
That’s right, I was all for calling of witnesses. I don’t think the House Managers can prove their case to my personal satisfaction without additional testimony and evidence.
~Max