Trump Impeachment: Public Hearings Have Begun

[cots]

No. People do not have to respect all of those things. People should respect the flag, what our democracy means, and the constitution. History is not to be respected. it is to be learned from, if you fail to learn the mistakes of the past they are doomed to repeat. There is no need to respect leaders as the states is supposed to be a democratic republic the people we choose is meant to represent us (therefore, that respect is earned through trust). Not the other way around. We aren't meant to pick people for us to represent them. It is meant for them to represent us. Something I take great issue with is a lot of people think you have to conform to what party you consider yourself in says. To agree with their ideals, when really it should be the people, the majority. Most of the time, it doesn't. And worst of all. Partisanship.

Talking about learning from History is pretty comical coming from someone who agrees with Liberals, seeings as they take any chance they get to hide, destroy, alter and rewrite it. You're also wrong about not respecting who we are and where we came from and making excuses for people that are spitting on people who fought and died for you including our great founders graves is pretty below the belt. People selflessly sacrificed more than you ever could image so you can sit on your computer and talk shit about them. You should be ashamed of yourself.

You've demonstrated your lines clearly. I must ask, do you think attacking a group of people are going to make them less secure with their position and to some, a identification marker as a liberal?
By personally attacking them, you are damning your own chances to convince them.
People latch onto their beliefs harder when you come out throwing a fist.
"Only little entitled Liberal brats"
This line alone, makes everyone discredit you. It could be anything replacing liberals, and you will still be discredited. Insert any noun into that subject, and you will most likely guarantees to get a negative response to it forcing everyone to move closer into their corners. You lack professionalism in your statements above. Now let me make clear. What I've said applies to what you said. Not who you are.

I have a better chance of teaching a 3 legged cat how to do back flips than to make a Liberal realize that they are destroying themselves and society along with it. The only people discrediting me are the intolerant people who wouldn't allow me to think for myself or make my own choices and are hell bent on controlling everyone else. You do realize that anyone who says certain things is automatically attacked? Imagine if you started asking your own friends questions you're not allowed to or making comments that they disagree with. You'll find out very quickly that they aren't your friends. I don't care what they say or do and I can't be discredited by them. It's like a rapist trying to talk shit about someone that helps disabled kids cross the street. One thing I learned a long time ago that has helped me greatly is that you cannot control other people. You can't reform them. You can't help them. That is, unless they want to be helped. Frankly, it's not my job to help others and I'm sure as not going to waste time putting myself out there to help a Liberal destroy themselves.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Support for impeachment and removal hit as high as 55%, which is well above its highest point during the process for either the Nixon or Clinton. Any notable "backlash" certainly would've affected the state-level elections in Kentucky, Louisiana, and elsewhere, but Dems won those races while the impeachment inquiry was ongoing. So at best you're speculating here, there's no evidence to back what you're saying.

The percentages don't matter. Those were different President at different times with different members of society. Democrats and Republicans lose and win all sorts of elections all over the country all of the time. That doesn't represent what the voters will do in 2020.

Trump abused his power out of fear for one of the weakest Democratic candidates, so yes, in a way this has always been about the election, and Trump is the one that made it so. When the Senate acquits him, they'll be signaling that foreign influence in US elections is welcome, and it's sure to turn the 2020 cycle into even more of a shitshow than it would've been anyway.

Still no proof of "quid pro joe" and the charge isn't even going to be included in the official impeachment anymore. That angle is a lost cause.

 

[Xzi]

The percentages don't matter. Those were different President at different times with different members of society. Democrats and Republicans lose and win all sorts of elections all over the country all of the time. That doesn't represent what the voters will do in 2020.

The 2018 and 2019 elections included a lot of candidates who Trump personally endorsed and campaigned for. Ignoring the results of those elections as if they don't point to any sort of trend is foolish, but you do you.

Still no proof of "quid pro joe" and the charge isn't even going to be included in the official impeachment anymore. That angle is a lost cause.

Extortion and/or quid pro quo are covered by abuse of power in the articles being drafted. If you had read the news article you posted in its entirety you'd know that.

 

[cots]

The 2018 and 2019 elections included a lot of candidates who Trump personally endorsed and campaigned for. Ignoring the results of those elections as if they don't point to any sort of trend is foolish, but you do you.

I'm not ignoring anything. Endorsements alone don't win you elections (at least they shouldn't).

Extortion and/or quid pro quo are covered by abuse of power in the articles being drafted. If you had read the news article you posted in its entirety you'd know that.

Yeah, I linked to an article I didn't read. Sure. Seeings as there was no quid pro joe and no extortion Trump should be okay then.

 

[Xzi]

Endorsements alone don't win you elections (at least they shouldn't).

They shouldn't, but individual Republicans have proven over the last few years to have no spines or free wills of their own. Trump is the party now, for better or worse. Libertarians, fiscal conservatives, social conservatives, etc have all bent the knee, and as a result, Trump has staked his own reputation on the outcome of a number of these elections. And ultimately lost.

Yeah, I linked to an article I didn't read.

I figured as much.

Seeings as there was no quid pro joe and no extortion Trump should be okay then.

Oh Trump will be fine. He's a millionaire in a country where the only true god is money, and people like you are all too willing to worship him for that reason alone.

It's the rest of us who will have to deal with an uncertain future in a banana republic where foreign countries get to pick our leadership for us.

 

[cots]

I figured as much.

Clearly you're on a level of a 12 year old that needs a /s inserted into my text. Oh wait, you excluded the "sure" comment after my text. Typical Liberal excluding the full quote to push a fake narrative.

Remind me again of the Liberal motive for the impeachment? It's to remove Trump from office because he won the 2016 election and it's to prevent him from winning the 2020 election. You do realize that the motive speaks volumes about what's actually taking place.



(Make sure to read the Youtube video comments)

 

[Taleweaver]

This thread is pretty hard to follow if everyone's replying to what someone I'm ignoring has said.


But if you ask me, that's also something that could be said for the democrats and even the media in general. After Sondland's testimony, all new information was just cementing what was clear from the beginning (okay, okay: the fact that not all of the assigned money was assigned also sank the already halfbaked "what's the problem if Ukraine got the money in the end?" argument some more).
But Trump is good at having people outraged, and republicans follow that plan very well (printing Shiff's head on a milk carton and implying that you can't impeach Trump because it's just his first term come to mind). When it's a given that that isn't going to stop - and that is very much a given - then why hesitate? What's with all the "release the articles of impeachment"? Why have a vote on that next week? Just do that all in a day and have it voted on in the senate an hour later, the next day at the most. Face it: nobody's going to change their minds here. Trump will be impeached (the first vote) but not removed from office (republicans hold the majority in the senate). It's a pipe dream to think enough republicans will vote against their leader in a month from now, so you might as well get it over with.

Why? Because Trump NEEDS this polarisation. News papers only have one front page, and as long as he can fill it with meaningless words or hypocrisy (admit it: you're outraged by the thought that you gave him a shred of benefit of the doubt when he said he'd defend himself legally when he could...he was setting YOU up for being enraged) that front page isn't filled with some alarm bells.


Remember the Kavanaugh situation? Half the country was up in arms with the other half because he might or might not have sexually harassed someone a couple decades ago. Remember? Yeah...now Donnie nominated a judge (Pitlyk) with zero legal experience.

Remember this: sooner or later Trump is not going to be president any more. It's only then that you'll learn what it has cost you...

 

[notimp]

I have a better chance of teaching a 3 legged cat how to do back flips than to make a Liberal realize that they are destroying themselves and society along with it.

Yeah, not a healthy attitude. Think of it like a spectrum.

And btw, civilizations that got flattened because of a certain political believe prior to engaging in violent confrontation has to be almost none. (Once we got past famines.)

We have to talk about democracy at some point. So basically how its supposed to work is, that everyone can try to talk openly about political convictions, then you hold open elections and power shifts over a spectrum, over time. Basically like a pendulum.

For it to work though - everyone should be able to have the feeling, that things will turn out ok, even if the other side is in power for a while. Thats kind of important.

Because what democracy allows in principal is nonviolent transition of power. Thats pretty much the whole concept.


So the entire 'holy war against unjustness' (of the opposing political fraction) thing some people might try to pull actually isnt necessary or even wanted.

And you have another out, and that is, that regardless of what you might believe - societies as a whole don't change as fast as you seem to fear on a regular basis. There will always be trendsetters, and followers, and laggards, and subgroups and...

So there is no need to actually extinguish other believe systems.

Thats something that basically everyone agrees on (- in the west). You should too at some point. Would make you less radicalized. And again, that judgement of yours seems to be an emotional certainty on your part, if you can dial in emotional response a little to those things annoying you, it helps.

The way much of the conversation currently is going is, that you can accept or agree to certain logic you might not agree with in principal. But at the point where someone might say - now put yourselves in the shoes of your 'opponents' for a minute - you freak, and resort to the the 'but if not confronted, they will destroy' pattern of thought.

Democracy has many flaws - one of which is it being fairly slow moving on structural change - if a majority is still somewhat ok with the status quo. But on the other hand - that thing, that one fraction will outright destroy society - because of lack of information, also doesnt really happen.

In case this wasnt just hyperbole.

Also at some point, shift to happier topics as well - we are talking about politicians screwing over parts of society in one way or another in here mostly again. There is the possibility to not focus on that as a pattern, because despite this probably being a historical contingency - humanity always has grown, evolved, and had fun doing it.. Never forget that. Even if currently resorting back to doomsday prophecy is on trend again (climate). (And for all we know the real big systemic risk during our lifetime should still be manageable - looked at it pragmatically.)

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Why? Because Trump NEEDS this polarisation. News papers only have one front page, and as long as he can fill it with meaningless words or hypocrisy (admit it: you're outraged by the thought that you gave him a shred of benefit of the doubt when he said he'd defend himself legally when he could...he was setting YOU up for being enraged) that front page isn't filled with some alarm bells.

I've thought about what you've said and actually found it really profound. When we think about how a candidate like Trump even became viable, like it or not, he's not a popular leader. Most who I've come to understand to support him do so because of alternative rather than agree in his leadership.

If there isn't strong partisanship, us vs them, its like a fire w/out oxygen. We don't have many republicans who speak against Trump, they quietly say, yea he is wrong, I ignore his tweets, I just want fair trade (these are the same people who I've come to know in my life that were for Trade without governmental influence and thought tariffs were abominations), or point to some other policy that happened to align with their short-term goals but they are resigned that this is what the party has chosen and don't see anyone else stepping up to move the party in a sustainable direction yet. So they sit silently and wait.

What we hear from the vacuum are people like @cots (while he/she claims to be an independent), people who parrot every conspiracy theory that reinforces their bias. They built a mindset of us vs them so they can conquer 'evil' and 'bad', that dissociation allows them to openly resist attempts to compromise, after all, why should you compromise with 'evil'. That partisanship is something that is dangerous and destructive, they claim the other side is trying to destroy america and they are claiming to save it.

But at what cost will people like @cots be willing to 'save' America. By torching every moderate who so happens to disagree with them and their partisanship?

It isn't sustainable. The majority of people do not think like that, despite the bias that has deepened into politics. The majority will have to find a way to move the country forward. I think that will be the big decision of 2020. We'll see.

 

[cots]

This thread is pretty hard to follow if everyone's replying to what someone I'm ignoring has said.

But if you ask me, that's also something that could be said for the democrats and even the media in general. After Sondland's testimony, all new information was just cementing what was clear from the beginning (okay, okay: the fact that not all of the assigned money was assigned also sank the already halfbaked "what's the problem if Ukraine got the money in the end?" argument some more).
But Trump is good at having people outraged, and republicans follow that plan very well (printing Shiff's head on a milk carton and implying that you can't impeach Trump because it's just his first term come to mind). When it's a given that that isn't going to stop - and that is very much a given - then why hesitate? What's with all the "release the articles of impeachment"? Why have a vote on that next week? Just do that all in a day and have it voted on in the senate an hour later, the next day at the most. Face it: nobody's going to change their minds here. Trump will be impeached (the first vote) but not removed from office (republicans hold the majority in the senate). It's a pipe dream to think enough republicans will vote against their leader in a month from now, so you might as well get it over with.

Why? Because Trump NEEDS this polarisation. News papers only have one front page, and as long as he can fill it with meaningless words or hypocrisy (admit it: you're outraged by the thought that you gave him a shred of benefit of the doubt when he said he'd defend himself legally when he could...he was setting YOU up for being enraged) that front page isn't filled with some alarm bells.


Remember the Kavanaugh situation? Half the country was up in arms with the other half because he might or might not have sexually harassed someone a couple decades ago. Remember? Yeah...now Donnie nominated a judge (Pitlyk) with zero legal experience.

Remember this: sooner or later Trump is not going to be president any more. It's only then that you'll learn what it has cost you...

Sonland testified under oath to Congress that the main reason he couldn't remember things, put things together or give more precise testimony was because the State Department wouldn't give him access to his records. The State Department claimed he was lying and always had access to his own records thus giving any less credibility to the already completely uncredible list of "assumptions" or "presumptions" he made. If he lied about his primary source of knowledge that what good is any testimony based on any of that knowledge? Even if he wasn't lying what good are "assumptions" or "presumptions" you can't prove to begin with?

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

I've thought about what you've said and actually found it really profound. When we think about how a candidate like Trump even became viable, like it or not, he's not a popular leader. Most who I've come to understand to support him do so because of alternative rather than agree in his leadership.

If there isn't strong partisanship, us vs them, its like a fire w/out oxygen. We don't have many republicans who speak against Trump, they quietly say, yea he is wrong, I ignore his tweets, I just want fair trade (these are the same people who I've come to know in my life that were for Trade without governmental influence and thought tariffs were abominations), or point to some other policy that happened to align with their short-term goals but they are resigned that this is what the party has chosen and don't see anyone else stepping up to move the party in a sustainable direction yet. So they sit silently and wait.

What we hear from the vacuum are people like @cots (while he/she claims to be an independent), people who parrot every conspiracy theory that reinforces their bias. They built a mindset of us vs them so they can conquer 'evil' and 'bad', that dissociation allows them to openly resist attempts to compromise, after all, why should you compromise with 'evil'. That partisanship is something that is dangerous and destructive, they claim the other side is trying to destroy america and they are claiming to save it.

But at what cost will people like @cots be willing to 'save' America. By torching every moderate who so happens to disagree with them and their partisanship?

It isn't sustainable. The majority of people do not think like that, despite the bias that has deepened into politics. The majority will have to find a way to move the country forward. I think that will be the big decision of 2020. We'll see.

Blah, blah, blah. Evil is just fine. We should overlook and allow it. Screw the country. Let's ruin it with socialism by electing a lying sellout in 2020. Bias against evil is wrong. Partisanship is bad unless you're on a certain side. Something about rules and going offtopic. Blah. Blah. Blah.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Sonland testified under oath to Congress that the main reason he couldn't remember things, put things together or give more precise testimony was because the State Department wouldn't give him access to his records. The State Department claimed he was lying and always had access to his own records thus giving any less credibility to the already completely uncredible list of "assumptions" or "presumptions" he made. If he lied about his primary source of knowledge that was good is any testimony based on any of that knowledge?

I think the biggest mistake people could make is to think Sondland isn't on the President's defense team. He was and is a clear supporter of the President. Despite that, in fear of perjery, he has given information that supports the case given before us. This view is clearly supported if you read his deposition, then watch his public testimony. One without the other it would not be as clear.

Few pieces of information were given uniquely by Sondland that some other witness didn't implicate him a part of already. He was forced to clarify his view, 'to the best of his recollection'. Those few pieces if separated were given in a light that attempts to downplay the case by providing the best light possible for a situation. I have essays of material with him and the testimony that he provided but definitely do not have that amount of time as it would be a nearly complete retelling of the entire testimony.

--------------------- MERGED ---------------------------

Blah, blah, blah. Evil is just fine. We should overlook and allow it. Screw the country. Let's ruin it with socialism by electing a lying sellout in 2020. Bias against evil is wrong. Partisanship is bad unless you're on a certain side. Blah. Blah. Blah.

Articulate arguments are much easier to dismiss than refute. @cots 2019.

 

[cots]

I think the biggest mistake people could make is to think Sondland isn't on the President's defense team. He was and is a clear supporter of the President. Despite that, in fear of perjery, he has given information that supports the case given before us. This view is clearly supported if you read his deposition, then watch his public testimony. One without the other it would not be as clear.

Few pieces of information were given uniquely by Sondland that some other witness didn't implicate him a part of already. He was forced to clarify his view, 'to the best of his recollection'. Those few pieces if separated were given in a light that attempts to downplay the case by providing the best light possible for a situation. I have essays of material with him and the testimony that he provided but definitely do not have that amount of time as it would be a nearly complete retelling of the entire testimony.

Nice play, prop up the man and his testimony until you find out he lied about it and then try to downplay your failure. So now you're trying to tell someone who watched the entire length on Sonland's testimony, in which he clearly stated he couldn't recall things or give an accurate deposition because he was being denied access to his records and then continued to answer "I don't recall", "I assume" and "I presume" based on his lack of access to his records and his poor memory while the entire time he had access to those records. The only thing remotely honest about this entire thing was the testimony from the other witnesses (excluding this liar, anything he said that can actually be considered evidence is based on a lie and should be questioned). Do you remember what the other witnesses testified when asked "Do you have any information/evidence about Trump doing anything illegal? Quid pro joe? Bribery?" and they all answered "No". Those witnesses were by far more honest than this entire proceeding has been.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Nice play, prop up the man and his testimony until you find out he lied about it and then try to downplay your failure. So now you're trying to tell someone who watched the entire length on Sonland's testimony, in which he clearly stated he couldn't recall things or give an accurate deposition because he was being denied access to his records and then contained to answer "I don't recall", "I assume" and "I presume" based on his lack of access to his records and his poor memory while the entire time he had access to those records. The only thing remotely honest about this entire thing was the testimony from the other witnesses (excluding this liar, anything he said that can actually be considered evidence is based on a lie). Do you remember what the other witnesses testified when asked "Do you have any information/evidence about Trump doing anything illegal? Quid pro joe? Bribery?" and they all answered "No". Those witnesses were by far more honest than this entire proceeding has been.

You forget you are speaking to someone who has both read his deposition and watched his public testimony?

Do you remember what the other witnesses testified when asked "Do you have any information/evidence about Trump doing anything illegal? Quid pro joe? Bribery?" and they all answered "No". Those witnesses were by far more honest than this entire proceeding has been.

Those were fact witnesses. We discussed the difference between fact and expert witness already but your memory is failing again @cots. Please go get some rest.

 

[cots]

You forget you are speaking to someone who has both read his deposition and watched his public testimony?

Those were fact witnesses. We discussed the difference between fact and expert witness already but your memory is failing again @cots. Please go get some rest.

Good. Since you watched it you heard him say he was being denied access to his records and that his entire testimony that was based on "assumptions" and "presumptions" because of the fact he was being denied those records. Now you know he wasn't being denied access to his records. Trying to deflect with bringing up the "experts" who used to reinforce the case the facts from "fact" witnesses previously made? I shouldn't bite, but your choice in tactic was lousy. Seeings as the facts coming from all of the witnesses other than Sonland were "We have no evidence of any corruption, bribery or quid pro joe" and since Sonland was full of shit exactly what good were the "expert witnesses"? What are they solidifying? "We're justifying impeachment based on the facts that don't implicate the President". Yeah, good move. Besides the deflection your propped up smoking gun has failed you. Remember the almost daily coverage of Sonland and the value of his testimony for almost a week in the Liberal media? Now where's the coverage and apologies for misleading the public because that he was lying? So what do the Liberals do? The normal thing they do. Their solution, which is the common Liberal solution, once something or someone is no longer any use to you then it's proper to throw it or them under the bus. Their solution never admits to being wrong. You'll never hear a Liberal apologizing or admitting they made a mistake. That would require taking personal responsibility for their actions. That'll never ever happen.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

Something about rules and going offtopic.

Nice edit, What I stated is ontopic in relation to how aspects of the impeachment attempts to polarize the public further. Partisanship has pushed people into silence because they think if I support policies of a party I have to support everything even if I think it is wrong.

I went on to describe how Trump needs this polarization to survive because he isn't a moderate, he has a small base of republicans who are highly vocal, he doesn't have the majority of the country behind him. Without an us vs them.

To go further:
He wouldn't have the support needed to survive impeachment given this evidence as if enough republicans pressured his administration to send related documents and witnesses of cabinet officials and if congress wasn't obstructed we would have had that to the public. They choose party over country, that will be the statement used against them 2020. The public should know what the full account of this situation is before they vote in 2020. It is concerning that the public was denied that from Trump's administration. Perhaps we will get more information in the trial but given the activity of republicans in the house, I don't expect that to be the case.

I shudder at the precedent that this makes because the appearance of impropriety of the president despite a formal impeachment inquiry wasn't enough to overcome partisan politics to ensure the public had access to the full truth.

Good. Since you watched it you heard him say he was being denied access to his records and that his entire testimony that was based on "assumptions" and "presumptions" because of the fact he was being denied those records. Now you know he wasn't being denied access to his records. Trying to deflect with bringing up the "experts" who used to reinforce the case the facts from "fact" witnesses previously made? I shouldn't bite, but your choice in tactic was lousy. Seeings as the facts coming from all of the witnesses other than Sonland were "We have no evidence of any corruption, bribery or quid pro joe" and since Sonland was full of shit exactly what good were the "expert witnesses"? What are they solidifying? "We're justifying impeachment based on the facts that don't implicate the President". Yeah, good move. Besides the deflection your propped up smoking gun has failed you. Remember the almost daily coverage of Sonland and the value of his testimony for almost a week in the Liberal media? Now where's the coverage and apologies for misleading the public because that he was lying? So what do the Liberals do. The normal thing they do. Their solution, which is the common Liberal solution, once something or someone is no longer any use to you then it's proper to throw it or them under the bus.

I never said he directly lied. His entire testimony isn't based on assumptions or presumptions either, but if you are satisfied with a republican talking point then I'm not going to continue to debate it. Especially not with someone who doesn't even read his deposition when I was demonstrating a point when the two are viewed together.

I also was stating that expert witnesses can give opinions on legal conclusions (ie bribery) and it will hold weight, fact witnesses can not. If they did it wouldn't matter for much because they are fact witnesses. They risk appearing biased if they did and they aren't there to give conclusions, only facts. You don't look up terminology and persist in your ignorance. This is problematic when having a discussion.

 

[cots]

If anyone is interested in the actual articles of impeachment Congress came up with you can find them on the site below (no watching the Democratic grandstanding and showboating while stating how "sad" this is the nation required).

"Do what we say not what we do".

https://www.scribd.com/document/439195910/Articles-of-Impeachment#download&from_embed

“The evidence is overwhelming that the president abused his power” by trying to get Ukraine to help his prospects for re-election by announcing an investigation into a political rival, former Vice President Joe Biden,” said Barry Berke, counsel to House Judiciary Democrats.

He and Daniel Goldman, counsel for Democrats on the Intelligence Committee, also cited numerous instances of the Trump administration withholding documents and other evidence sought by Congress in connection with the Ukraine probe.

The panel’s Republican counsel, Steve Castor, reiterated one of the chief defenses of the president that’s been put forward by Trump allies: "The impeachment inquiry’s record is riddled with hearsay, presumptions and speculation."

He accused Democrats of pursuing an "artificial and arbitrary political deadline" to overturn the 2016 election and impeach Trump’s before the Christmas holiday.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

If anyone is interested in the actual articles of impeachment Congress came up with you can find them on the site below (no watching the Democratic grandstanding and showboating while stating how "sad" this is the nation required).

"Do what we say not what we do".

https://www.scribd.com/document/439195910/Articles-of-Impeachment#download&from_embed

I don't actually agree with serving the articles of impeachment yet but I also understand the politics involved. I also agree with the logic of both articles. I've predicted the Senate will not convict and stand by that prediction.

Democrats have two choices, let the courts fight it out, mcgahn took 8 months and is being appealed. Let that sink in. We wouldn't have this information before 2020 election anyways as Trump's administration would appeal all the way to the supreme court to ensure the public can't see for themselves the evidence.

It's an arguable 'they picked their battles' and I'm a purist for public transparency of our government. I think the people should be informed to make the best decision, others disagree.

Let's say they did, Trump won the 2020 elections. Can the actions of one term impeach another? I don't even know? It could be argued that the people have already spoken, whether or not full evidence was presented?

 

[cots]

I don't actually agree with serving the articles of impeachment yet but I also understand the politics involved. I also agree with the logic of both articles. I've predicted the Senate will not convict and stand by that prediction.

Democrats have two choices, let the courts fight it out, mcgahn took 8 months and is being appealed. Let that sink in. We wouldn't have this information before 2020 election anyways as Trump's administration would appeal all the way to the supreme court to ensure the public can't see for themselves the evidence.

It's an arguable 'they picked their battles' and I'm a purist for public transparency of our government. I think the people should be informed to make the best decision, others disagree.

Let's say they did, Trump won the 2020 elections. Can the actions of one term impeach another? I don't even know? It could be argued that the people have already spoken, whether or not full evidence was presented?

I think it would make sense to allow a President to be impeached regardless of what term they are in.

What doesn't make sense is of sustaining a months-long quest to find an issue on which to impeach Trump solely on the fact the other side refused to accept the results of an election. Seeings as after Mueller’s investigation didn’t deliver the results they wanted the Democrats now are focusing on Trump’s interactions with Ukraine.

So after this attempt what'll be the next reason to impeach Trump? Is that why you're asking if it would be legal to try again?

Cannot you just accept you lost and work for the betterment of the country?

What happens if the Democrats win in 2020 and the Republicans impeach based solely on the fact they won't accept they lost?

 

[arcanine]

If you honestly believe that trump is being impeached purely because the democrats lost the election then you are completely delusional.

 

[RationalityIsLost101]

annot you just accept you lost and work for the betterment of the country?

Stop projecting your 'us' vs 'them' on me @cots, I work for the betterment of my country either financially via my wages from employment, through my own time in volunteering, and through the legacy of my children. I've never had issue accepting the results of any US election. Even 2000 which was by far much more conflicted than 2016 ever could be but people all but forgotten history of that election over the years.

The democrats have bills in the house that that senate needs to take up, USMCA needs to be finalized and I understand democrats will be pushing to do that in the house before the end of the year. The country has continued to be governed in the house. Go talk to the senate if you have issues. I have many there.

What happens if the Democrats win in 2020 and the Republicans impeach based solely on the fact they won't accept they lost?

I've answered this before. If the public believes there is abuse by congress in impeachment then the public will vote to rectify it. You really have a memory issue, do you need to get more sleep?

What does make sense is of sustaining a months-long quest to find an issue on which to impeach Trump solely on the fact the other side refused to accept the results of an election. Seeings as after Mueller’s investigation didn’t deliver the results they wanted the Democrats now are focusing on Trump’s interactions with Ukraine.

Republican narrative does not equal reality. It can be argued that they are providing public transparency and there was sufficient cause for both inquiries. I support public transparency. As long as an investigation can be presented and supported with enough basis then I'll support it for public transparency. That IG report released yesterday supported such as well, until something said otherwise, I don't know why you assert false narratives of the Mueller investigation.

I've been consistent in my position for public transparency. Refer to my comments about Biden's bipart senate investigation if needed.

 

[notimp]

Let's say they did, Trump won the 2020 elections. Can the actions of one term impeach another? I don't even know? It could be argued that the people have already spoken, whether or not full evidence was presented?

Full evidence having to be present is a theoretical, right? I mean, have you read up on what hoops Daniel Ellsberg had to jump through to get imformation published? Have you heard the methods of retaliation used on William Binney? Chelsea Manning ring a bell?

Ehm. All for what? To present that information to a public that then shrugs and finds rationalizations on why - oh well, we live in totalitarian times then? (Scroll, scroll, facebook feed, scroll, scroll -) Or the new hottness, what do I care what happens in a foreign country. You see I'm firmly in the 'an informed public making rational choices is an illusion' camp then. I believe that whistleblowing still very much is needed to create an aura of accountability, even though any need for reform will entirely be spun away in any context anyhow.

I mean - have you heard fox news?

"Isnt it odd, that one of the consultants in this case spoke mainly ukranian" fed to the public as a factoid it eats up with the religious certainty of a cots, because the program host is female and blonde?

Do you still think, that public discussion cancels out misinformation? Because I dont.

Not sure on the initial question either - btw. (Impeachability of past (election cycle) administration, if reelected.)