Info PSA- Public impeachments start today- UPDATE 2/5/2020- Trump wins.

[brycejones]

It wasn't incompetence. The White House literally obstructed congress by withholding documents and preventing staff from testifying (which is utter bullshit). The only recourse house managers had was to go to court to fight this. The house wanted a fast process and didn't pursue court cases, and personally, I think that was a mistake.

We also have to acknowledge that the GOP in the Senate decided they didn't want to hear that evidence anyway. Yes the House could have fought it out in the courts, but the GOP in the Senate made an active choice to not call witnesses or ask for evidence. Both things the White House denied the HOR in the first place.

 

[Zivic]

Basically all the witnesses called for the house investigation to the phone call confirmed what the whistleblower said. Do you dispute this?

I'd argue that if the charges don't rise to the level, being guilty or not doesn't need to even be entertained.

 

[Vic]

Maybe just maybe acquitted because of lack of evidence or maybe because he wasn't guilty?

It was the houses responsibility to bring forth a strong case with evidence... They failed to do so.

Is that a failure of the left? Or a failure of the house?

It was a failure of Senate Republicans to even consider the House's case.

 

[akenbennu]

Maybe just maybe acquitted because of lack of evidence or maybe because he wasn't guilty?

It was the houses responsibility to bring forth a strong case with evidence... They failed to do so.

Is that a failure of the left? Or a failure of the house?

How much testimony did you need? Would it require video tape of Trump asking for help? (Oh wait, we have that.)
Saying you don't have enough evidence, then blocking the people who could provide such evidence does not make a strong defense.

 

[Zivic]

What elements of the crime do you think the House's case failed to establish, specifically?

The whole premise that it was a crime.

 

[fskimospy]

The whole premise that it was a crime.

First, it doesn't have to be a crime to be impeached over and the people who wrote the Constitution were VERY clear about that.

Second, the conduct described in the first article is very consistent with the solicitation of a bribe, which is a felony.

So again, what part of the case do you think they failed to make, specifically? Be as absolutely specific as you can possibly be.

 

[TheVrolok]

I wouldn't be surprised if he honestly didn't know. If all you watch/read is conservative media then you'd probably end up thinking the same thing.

Exactly this. They don't get first hand information, they just believe what they're told by pundits.

 

[thilanliyan]

I'd argue that if the charges don't rise to the level, being guilty or not doesn't need to even be entertained.

Withholding the aid for personal political gain IS a crime.

And secondly it actually doesn't have to be a crime to be impeached/removed, but that's besides the point because he actually DID do some criming.

So, do you still dispute that he perpetrated a criminal act?

 

[Vic]

I'd argue that if the charges don't rise to the level, being guilty or not doesn't need to even be entertained.

So if Obama or (hypothetically) Hillary had done any single one of the things that Trump did, you would also agree that the charges didn't rise to level of being guilty or even need to be entertained?

Because I know I would. If Obama had done even just one of those things Trump did, I would have absolutely supported his impeachment and would have voted Republican in the next election.

 

[Zivic]

First, it doesn't have to be a crime to be impeached over and the people who wrote the Constitution were VERY clear about that.

Second, the conduct described in the first article is very consistent with the solicitation of a bribe, which is a felony.

So again, what part of the case do you think they failed to make, specifically? Be as absolutely specific as you can possibly be.

Asked and answered

If you feel so strongly you have the Constitution on your side, why wasn't he convicted? I think your question should be asked to 52/53 senators.

 

[Commodus]

I love the post about the right now going after for the left for all the things the right did... Except the left went after the right for all the things the left did. Full circle? Again, as I posted before. All about what you can prove

Love the posts about how the house did the right thing and the senate didn't... House didn't prove their case. Rammed the impeachment through with little to no substance. We all knew he'd be acquitted if it went to the senate. Now everyone is surprised and upset he was acquitted? Seriously?

I keep saying this.. if Trump is so.bad and doing such aweful things, how the heck can't you get anything of substance on him? How can nothing stick?

I said the left did this to themselves. They did. They do investigation after investigation, ram through an impeachment without having the proof... And all because they can't beat him in an election...

I know I know... He cheats, he colludes, he this, he that... At what point does the left look in the mirror and say, maybe we are the reason we lose and he wins? At what point do they focus on what they can do and control? They are so focused on trump they can't see their own faults and incompetence.

Call me a trumper, that's fine. Calling it how it is makes me a trumper? GTFO. 8 yrs of Obama, 3 yrs of investigations are why we have what we have today. Until the left actual offers something other than Trump is bad they will continue to lose. A dozen candidates all offering trillions in handouts isn't what Americans want. Get off your high horses, and get to work.

There was plenty of evidence during the House phase, and the Democrats were happy to provide more of it through testimony and other additions during the Senate trial. That option was shut down by the Republicans. And of course, the trial itself was a foregone conclusion. The Republicans were always going to cover for Trump unless they had an audio recording him of saying "I, Donald J. Trump, am committing an illegal act" (and if only the Republicans had that recording, they'd still suppress it). When the system is rigged, the primary blame goes to the people who rigged that system, not the people seeking justice in spite of that system.

Have you considered the fact that it's not just sour grapes, but that Trump is so demonstrably corrupt that there's an obligation to take action against him? Imagine doing the right thing... because it's the right thing. What point is there to the checks and balances of American government if you don't at least try to apply them when they're most desperately needed?

This isn't to give the Democrats a free pass. They're prone to theatrics and dreams that aren't always realistic, and there's a clear clash between the old guard (Biden, Pelosi et. al.) versus the new (Sanders, AOC and the like). But right now, if you want a return to a functional and vaguely honest government, you should at least support basic concepts like impeachment... and, of course, vote exclusively Democrat in November.

 

[Aikouka]

No, direct testimony on what they personally witnessed.

I assume they're referring to people recalling what Trump said, and that is hearsay. Albeit, I think it kind of became an awkward debate point mostly tossed around by people that heard someone say "hearsay bad!" and sort of ran with it. I mean... when I discuss the whole matter with people down here, I usually hear "it's all hearsay" brought up at least once in each conversation. LegalEagle has a video just on the topic of hearsay, which includes what's actually hearsay (spoiler: just about everything apart from the person actually admitting it) and when is hearsay typically admitted into court.

 

[Vic]

Asked and answered

If you feel so strongly you have the Constitution on your side, why wasn't he convicted? I think your question should be asked to 52/53 senators.

And now you're trying to argue in circles.

 

[Zivic]

So if Obama or (hypothetically) Hillary had done any single one of the things that Trump did, you would also agree that the charges didn't rise to level of being guilty or even need to be entertained?

Because I know I would. If Obama had done even just one of those things Trump did, I would have absolutely supported his impeachment and would have voted Republican in the next election.

This isn't about either of those people... But I'd say they definitely don't have clean hands. Do I care if either were impeached or charged? Not really. Wouldn't affect my life one way or another.

 

[thilanliyan]

Asked and answered

If you feel so strongly you have the Constitution on your side, why wasn't he convicted? I think your question should be asked to 52/53 senators.

As has been mentioned many times before, the GOP are too drunk on power/liberal tears to actually put the country before themselves or the party...THAT'S why he was not removed.

 

[Zivic]

As has been mentioned many times before, the GOP are too drunk on power/liberal tears to actually put the country before themselves or the party...THAT'S why he was not removed.

Despite all that, the country now doing pretty well.... Hmmm.

 

[Vic]

This isn't about either of those people... But I'd say they definitely don't have clean hands. Do I care if either were impeached or charged? Not really. Wouldn't affect my life one way or another.

So you just conveniently don't care about political corruption now, is that it?

 

[zinfamous]

Maybe just maybe acquitted because of lack of evidence or maybe because he wasn't guilty?

It was the houses responsibility to bring forth a strong case with evidence... They failed to do so.

Is that a failure of the left? Or a failure of the house?

According to whom?

Oh right--the same people that announced the acquittal before the trial began.

why are you being so obtuse?

The evidence was overwhelming and damning. Trump himself has repeatedly admitted to doing the things he is accused of doing. That is an established fact. Why are you on the same team that rejects resoundingly observable fact?

 

[Vic]

Despite all that, the country now doing pretty well.... Hmmm.

Only slaves believe that their well-being depends upon their masters. Free people believe that depends upon themselves.

 

[Zivic]

And now you're trying to argue in circles.

The argument that any actions rose to the level of impeachment can be argues espite how you interpret the Constitution and think you know what the writers intent were.


They lacked direct evidence. They would have to prove motive, they couldn't. They had hearsay like I said before...

What I think or what you think doesn't really matter. 52/53 senators disagree with you and they are the ones you should be having the conversation with.

None of this makes me a trump supporter.
More so it makes me laugh at the left

 

[zinfamous]

I'd argue that if the charges don't rise to the level, being guilty or not doesn't need to even be entertained.

So, your argument here, specifically, is that an attempt to fix the election does not rise to the level of impeachment.

Quisling.

 

[fskimospy]

Asked and answered

It was not answered, like I said whether or not it was a crime is irrelevant. So again, what was the weakness?

If you feel so strongly you have the Constitution on your side, why wasn't he convicted? I think your question should be asked to 52/53 senators.

I'm not asking them, I'm asking you as you expressed the opinion here.

 

[nakedfrog]

The argument that any actions rose to the level of impeachment can be argues espite how you interpret the Constitution and think you know what the writers intent were.


They lacked direct evidence. They would have to prove motive, they couldn't. They had hearsay like I said before...

What I think or what you think doesn't really matter. 52/53 senators disagree with you and they are the ones you should be having the conversation with.

None of this makes me a trump supporter.
More so it makes me laugh at the left

Hm, how does one typically prove motive? Is it through evidence and witnesses?

 

[hal2kilo]

None of this makes me a trump supporter.
More so it makes me laugh at the left

Sure.

 

[Jhhnn]

People the most profoundly affected by right wing propaganda are the least likely to realize that they have been. They've become progressively more fucked in the head since Gingrich, at least. When a billionaire bragged on national TV that he doesn't pay income taxes because he's smart, they called him a patriot & elected him President expecting him to act for the common welfare. It hasn't improved from there, sad to say.

When Russian hackers & propaganda trolls acted to help Trump, they never even asked why. They thought it was for the MAGA, obviously.

When Trump dusted off an old & thoroughly debunked conspiracy theory about crooked Bidens in Ukraine, they fell for that, of course. When Trump tried to strong arm Ukraine into lying for him, they didn't have a problem with that, either. Because crooked Bidens, obviously, in a circular logic pattern they can't recognize as such.

It's all quite purposeful. Hanna Arendt said it well-

The ideal subject of totalitarian rule is not the convinced Nazi or the convinced Communist, but people for whom the distinction between fact and fiction (i.e., the reality of experience) and the distinction between true and false (i.e., the standards of thought) no longer exist.