The off ramp

[Merge]

There has been lots of talk/rumors that there are republican congressmen and senators who defend Trump publicly but can't stand him privately.

In regards to the Ukraine aid. We know what happened (Trump withheld foreign aid) and we know why it happened (for help against a political rival). Having testimony from Bolton will likely not change the what and why.

Based on what we know so far it seems that Bolton was very much against our foreign policy running through Giuliani and as I said previously, the timing of Bolton's resignation lining up with the house opening up investigations is probably not a coincidence. Bolton's testimony seems likely at this point and it is hard to imagine there is anything exculpatory to come from him.

The question now is if the conduct warrants removal from office. If there really are republican Senators who think Trump is bad for the party, the off ramp is in front of them. They can call Bolton to testify and pretend to be outraged that they couldn't imagine Trump doing what he did. Public support for removal will start to trend upwards and they can convict him and move on to someone else for 2020.

 

[shu09]

I've been thinking along the same lines for a few weeks now. This makes it a bit more likely.

Republicans don't want to appear to be anti-Trump because they fear his wrath (twitter, whipping up his supporters, primary challenge, etc). That effect is less and less with more and more GOPers turning against him. Strength in numbers.

 

[afghan whigs]

Its not worthy of an impeachment. Censure yes. Democrats got nothing better to do so the sham goes on.

 

[SPK145]

Will be interesting to see Bolton’s cross examination.

 

[Merge]

Its not worthy of an impeachment.

I have enjoyed digging into history a bit to see what the intent of the founders was in regard to what would be worthy. I listened to most of Dershowitz’s argument on my drive home and disagree with a fair amount of what he said based on what I have been reading.

Depending on what else comes out, if all of the evidence is pointing to what is alleged, I do believe it would be in line with the founders intentions of Trump were removed.

 

[HALL85]

I listened to most of Dershowitz’s argument on my drive home and disagree with a fair amount of what he said based on what I have been reading.

I’m shocked!

 

[Merge]

I’m shocked!

I’m sure my views would be about as shocking as yours on this.

While I recognize my bias, I’ve been trying to read up with an open mind to abuse of power not being an impeachable offense. So far, my thought is that it can be based on the circumstances. If there was corrupt intent on an action, it would be. Knowingly acting against US national security interests for example.

Madison argued why we need impeachment and was essentially saying the president may become corrupt and betray the public trust and a limit of a term was not sufficient.

”Mr. MADISON thought it indispensable that some provision should be made for defending the Community agst. the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate. The limitation of the period of his service, was not a sufficient security. He might lose his capacity after his appointment. He might pervert his administration into a scheme of peculation or oppression. He might betray his trust to foreign powers. The case of the Executive Magistracy was very distinguishable, from that of the Legislature or of any other public body, holding offices of limited duration. It could not be presumed that all or even a majority of the members of an Assembly would either lose their capacity for discharging, or be bribed to betray, their trust. Besides the restraints of their personal integrity & honor, the difficulty of acting in concert for purposes of corruption was a security to the public. And if one or a few members only should be seduced, the soundness of the remaining members, would maintain the integrity and fidelity of the body. In the case of the Executive Magistracy which was to be administered by a single man, loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic.“


The phrasing of treason and bribery was added but wasn’t viewed as sufficient enough because it did not include things that would not be considered to be crimes, using Warren Hastings as their example.

”Why is the provision restrained to Treason & bribery only? Treason as defined in the Constitution will not reach many great and dangerous offences. Hastings is not guilty of Treason.”

 

[HALL85]

At least you admit to being bias...lol. I can appreciate that you are reading up on the subject but you can take what Madison wrote and apply it to several Presidents according to your interpretation.

Saw the other day a poll that indicated that the Congressional approval rating is now at 17%.

 

[Merge]

At least you admit to being bias...lol. I can appreciate that you are reading up on the subject but you can take what Madison wrote and apply it to several Presidents according to your interpretation.

Right, but that’s how this works. We try to understand the intent of the founders based on the conversations they were having at the time. Adding the context where they foresaw the potential for foreign influence and were trying to design safeguards to protect the republic, I don't think it is a stretch to say there is a reasonable argument that what Trump did would have been considered impeachable conduct.

Trumps actions also did not occur in a vacuum where he goes and tells Zanensky to investigate Biden the day after Mueller testifies on the same topic of foreign influence in our elections.

From the Madison notes:

Mr. PINKNEY & Mr. Govr. MORRIS moved to strike out this part of the Resolution. Mr. P. observd. he ought not to be impeachable whilst in office

Mr. DAVIE. If he be not impeachable whilst in office, he will spare no efforts or means whatever to get himself re-elected. He considered this as an essential security for the good behaviour of the Executive.

Left unchecked from here without any punishment, what is stopping Trump from doing something worse to win another election? That is exactly what the founders feared and why they added impeachment to the constitution.

I am not saying this is the only argument. Reasonable people can come up with different good faith opinions on the topic, but like I said... if there are republicans looking for an off ramp, they have one.

 

[SPK145]

What Trump did is certainly an abuse of power and worthy of impeachment.

Every other president in modern times (since Wilson) is also guilty of same and should have been impeached.

Too funny, it's sad.

 

[Merge]

What Trump did is certainly an abuse of power and worthy of impeachment.

Every other president in modern times (since Wilson) is also guilty of same and should have been impeached.

Too funny, it's sad.

I don't really agree as I think you will have a hard time finding direct evidence to suggest that other presidents sought out foreign influence against a political opponent in exchange for an official act, which is something the founders wanted to avoid fairly explicitly. I think abuse of power in itself is too vague of a phrase to apply as a standard, so it does matter what the abuse of power was.

In full transparency, I am a little worried about the outcome of a conviction as much as I am of an acquittal in regards to what this means for future presidents. If asking a foreign government to interfere with our democratic process is not impeachable, what is?
and if it is impeachable how do we apply this standard going forward?

I'm still rooting for the senate to call Bolton and a group of senators calls an emergency meeting with Trump and convinces him to resign before the testimony. Odds are slim, but we are all used to rooting for the underdog.

 

[afghan whigs]

Despite the Dems relentless efforts, he will still be our President and will probably be re-elected because the Democrats can't stop acting crazy.

 

[Belluno]

There has been lots of talk/rumors that there are republican congressmen and senators who defend Trump publicly but can't stand him privately.

In regards to the Ukraine aid. We know what happened (Trump withheld foreign aid) and we know why it happened (for help against a political rival). Having testimony from Bolton will likely not change the what and why.

Based on what we know so far it seems that Bolton was very much against our foreign policy running through Giuliani and as I said previously, the timing of Bolton's resignation lining up with the house opening up investigations is probably not a coincidence. Bolton's testimony seems likely at this point and it is hard to imagine there is anything exculpatory to come from him.

The question now is if the conduct warrants removal from office. If there really are republican Senators who think Trump is bad for the party, the off ramp is in front of them. They can call Bolton to testify and pretend to be outraged that they couldn't imagine Trump doing what he did. Public support for removal will start to trend upwards and they can convict him and move on to someone else for 2020.

LoL. Don't you wish

 

[Merge]

LoL. Don't you wish

Yes, I did. That was my hope. I don’t hide that I believe Trump will be remembered as the worst president of my lifetime, and that is inclusive of my next (god willing) 40 years or so.

Any reasonable person, conservative or not should think the idea of Nikki Haley vs whichever democrat would be far more favorable than Trump.

I guess I shouldn’t be, but I am honestly surprised they wouldn’t even allow a single witness. There will be no consequence of something the founders explicitly believed someone should be impeached for.

 

[HALL85]

So I was actually at the KISS concert (Final Tour?), last night which I thought would be far more entertaining than the SOTU, but looks like I missed some fireworks. Last time I saw them was in the 70s and Thin Lizzy was the warmup. Not a super fan, but the show was pretty amazing.

This impeachment never had a chance and has only emboldened trump even more. It was a horrible idea and one that looks like it will ensure a second term.

Now what? I wouldn’t put it past some of these idiots to seek additional investigations. Sadly we will not see members of both parties in Congress try to move forward and work together. The contentious bipartisanship will continue. As bad as Trump behaves and carries on, Congress has lowered the bar well below him.

Too funny? Not.

 

[Merge]

Now what? I wouldn’t put it past some of these idiots to seek additional investigations.

If I were Schiff, I would subpoena Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo immediately after the vote today.

"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments."

He should the senate has abdicated their duty by refusing to hear witnesses and that the American people deserve to hear the truth.

 

[HALL85]

If I were Schiff, I would subpoena Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo immediately after the vote today.

"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments."

He should the senate has abdicated their duty by refusing to hear witnesses and that the American people deserve to hear the truth.

smh

 

[Merge]

smh

As am I.

Zero consequence for impeachable conduct (as Rubio defined it)

We will hear from Bolton one way or another. It should happen under oath.

 

[SPK145]

If I were Schiff, I would subpoena Bolton, Mulvaney and Pompeo immediately after the vote today.

"The Senate shall have the sole power to try all Impeachments."

He should the senate has abdicated their duty by refusing to hear witnesses and that the American people deserve to hear the truth.

Shouldn’t the Senate have subpoenaed Schiff, Ciarmella, and all of their communications as well?

 

[Merge]

Shouldn’t the Senate have subpoenaed Schiff, Ciarmella, and all of their communications as well?

No. Would Schiff's or Ciarmella's opinion of Trump have any impact at all on what Trump did in regards to Ukraine?
Absolutely not and it is rather silly to suggest we should go down that road.

The senate is free to take up any investigation they see fit if they want to investigate the political motivation here... but that has nothing to do with the articles that were sent.

Assume for a moment that Trump was himself a witness to a crime committed by Pelosi.
Is he not allowed to report it because he hates her?

I would have been fine with calling Hunter or Joe Biden as their testimony could provide an insight to Trump's intent.

 

[HALL85]

Shouldn't Congress be more focused on critical issues, like the Coronavirus or global warming? I mean if the world is going to end in ten years, this doesn't strike me as a productive use of time.....

 

[shu09]

Shouldn't Congress be more focused on critical issues, like the Coronavirus or global warming? I mean if the world is going to end in ten years, this doesn't strike me as a productive use of time.....

What is Congress going to do about Coronavirus? This will run its course in due time.

 

[Merge]

Shouldn't Congress be more focused on critical issues, like the Coronavirus or global warming? I mean if the world is going to end in ten years, this doesn't strike me as a productive use of time.....

Congress is holding a hearing today on e-cigarettes. Oversight of the executive doesn't prevent anything else from happening.

 

[HALL85]

What is Congress going to do about Coronavirus? This will run its course in due time.

Potential global pandemic but nothing to worry about...glad you’re not running the CDC.

 

[MBF72]

Why didn't Bolton come forward while the process was still in the House? Did he bet that even after stating his desire(?) to tell his side, the Senate would not call witnesses and the value of his book would remain high?
Supposedly Collins and Mitt told Mitch they wouldn't vote to acquit without a vote on witnesses. If they were really serious, they would have told him they couldn't vote for acquittal without hearing from witnesses. He gave them what they wanted, and now they can't vote to convict the President.(I think that is called a quid pro quo.) I'd be shocked if any Republican senator voted to convict Trump.

 

[Merge]

Why didn't Bolton come forward while the process was still in the House? Did he bet that even after stating his desire(?) to tell his side, the Senate would not call witnesses and the value of his book would remain high?

It's a good question.

Ultimately we will hear from Bolton one way or the other, but I would personally have preferred it to be under oath with a cross examination.

 

[HALL85]

Why didn't Bolton come forward while the process was still in the House? Did he bet that even after stating his desire(?) to tell his side, the Senate would not call witnesses and the value of his book would remain high?
Supposedly Collins and Mitt told Mitch they wouldn't vote to acquit without a vote on witnesses. If they were really serious, they would have told him they couldn't vote for acquittal without hearing from witnesses. He gave them what they wanted, and now they can't vote to convict the President.(I think that is called a quid pro quo.) I'd be shocked if any Republican senator voted to convict Trump.

And now it looks like some Dem Senators might vote to acquit, purely for political reasons, which is what this whole process has proven to be....purely political.

 

[Merge]

Potential global pandemic but nothing to worry about...glad you’re not running the CDC.

What do you envision happening here? The CDC asks for an emergency hearing and congress says no, we're busy?

"Congress should be focused on X instead of Y" is just a political talking point that doesn't reflect reality. Congress passed more than 400 resolutions last year. They respond to what is in front of them whether it is a potential pandemic, e-cigarettes, etc...

 

[shu09]

Potential global pandemic but nothing to worry about...glad you’re not running the CDC.

Stop the crazy fear mongering. And the CDC has nothing to do with Congress. Let's pass a law to prevent the virus, yeah, that's the right plan! The virus will surely listen to that law and abide by it.

 

[HALL85]

Stop the crazy fear mongering. And the CDC has nothing to do with Congress. Let's pass a law to prevent the virus, yeah, that's the right plan! The virus will surely listen to that law and abide by it.

Totally misrepresenting what I said and I'm not fear mongering at all. We are not at any crisis stage at all in this country and shouldn't panic, so not giving that impression. We should however be vigilant, informed and making sure we are being as proactive as possible on understanding exactly what is going on in China and if we are making the necessary preparations/precautions. There are daily updates/bulletins that are being sent to healthcare organizations relating to surveillance, treatment, etc., so I am seeing that. We don't really know the extent of what we are dealing with, but the agencies are working as they should. Numbers have been slow to report from China and there less than great confidence from our own agencies in what is being reported.

If I'm a Congressman, representing my constituents, I would want to be informed and certain that its on my and my colleagues radar each day until we are comfortable that it's under control. Regardless, I brought this up as one example, but intent was that Congress should be working on substantive issues rather than yet another investigation. I would guess most working Americans would agree.

 

[Merge]

I brought this up as one example, but intent was that Congress should be working on substantive issues rather than yet another investigation. I would guess most working Americans would agree.

It's a fake scenario. There is nothing preventing both from occurring.
To suggest otherwise is pure political spin.

 

[SPK145]

No. Would Schiff's or Ciarmella's opinion of Trump have any impact at all on what Trump did in regards to Ukraine?
Absolutely not and it is rather silly to suggest we should go down that road.

The senate is free to take up any investigation they see fit if they want to investigate the political motivation here... but that has nothing to do with the articles that were sent.

Assume for a moment that Trump was himself a witness to a crime committed by Pelosi.
Is he not allowed to report it because he hates her?

I would have been fine with calling Hunter or Joe Biden as their testimony could provide an insight to Trump's intent.

Ridiculous. Schiff and Ciarmella had no first hand knowledge of anything. If you really want a true trial, you get witnesses from all sides. See how those making formal accusations came upon those accusations. Shouldn’t a rape victim testify in the trial of her accused?

The Bidens and their corruption is a separate issue. What Trump did was wrong, corruption or not. You’d want the Bidens cross-examined? Add that to the Too Funny movement.

 

[Merge]

Ridiculous. Schiff and Ciarmella had no first hand knowledge of anything.

Whistle-blower complaints do not require first hand knowledge. A compliant is made and is investigated. The IG found the complaint to be credible, even considering the political concerns and notified the house.

That was all by the book.

If you really want a true trial, you get witnesses from all sides. See how those making formal accusations came upon those accusations.

Whistleblower complaints are not a "side" here.

The sides would be those who provide context to if the president was guilty of what was alleged or not. In that sense, the whisteblower is irrelevant to the facts.

Shouldn’t a rape victim testify in the trial of her accused?

Without the NYT story on Weinstein, he doesn't get caught. Does his case require that the authors of the story be called as witnesses? Of course not.

What Trump did was wrong, corruption or not. You’d want the Bidens cross-examined?

I think if you could prove Biden did something wrong (which I don't believe you would), it would be a good defense as to the presidents motive.

 

[MBF72]

I think Biden's son could have been a reasonable call to give testimony. Don't know how many saw a lengthy _New Yorker_ piece on him in the summer: despite his many personal issues, it made him out to be a very sketchy character.

 

[Merge]

Glad someone still has balls.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4852630/senator-romney-vote-convict-president-trump-abuse-power

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

Glad someone still has balls.

https://www.c-span.org/video/?c4852630/senator-romney-vote-convict-president-trump-abuse-power

Do you believe the other 99 senators or the House of Representatives walked into this with a clear mind and an open heart? America has the greatest people in the world but the worst leaders.

 

[MBF72]

Disappointed again (personally) in Collins. She continues to talk a good fight. She and others, again, cover their butts in the end trying to be all things to all people.

 

[Merge]

Do you believe the other 99 senators or the House of Representatives walked into this with a clear mind and an open heart? America has the greatest people in the world but the worst leaders.

I expect when you swear an oath that it means something that is above the normal partisan noise.

 

[SHUHoopsFan]

I expect when you swear an oath that it means something that is above the normal partisan noise.

That's as political of an answer as there ever was. Try answering the question.

Did only the Republicans walk into this with a partisan agenda? His impeachment in the House was embarrassing and the trial is equally embarrassing. The worst part is we all paid for this crap and they are making a joke of us. We somehow we need to end it.

 

[Merge]

That's as political of an answer as there ever was. Try answering the question.

Did only the Republicans walk into this with a partisan agenda?

Of course not, but on this occasion only one side wanted to walk in and actually hear the facts because the facts were on their side.

Foot on the other shoe, democrats would have been arguing the same arguments that republicans made but I would also praise a lone democrat standing up to their party when the facts demanded they should.