Impeachment?

[jp1]

Trump and Mulvaney admitting what they did is speculation?

[Alan]

Trump and Mulvaney admitting what they did is speculation?

If I'm not mistaken Mulvaney said there were always conditions to be met in order to receive funding, without admitting to anything improper, and Trump admitted to asking for an investigation but without any admission of it being a pre-requisite to financial aid. Those are important distinctions that must be resolved properly, but have not.

Because this is a political investigation rather than criminal, there's obviously a lower standard for proof than I feel comfortable with, YMMV.

[jp1]

So I guess you’re in favor of witnesses at the trial to get to the bottom of this?

[Alan]

So I guess you’re in favor of witnesses at the trial to get to the bottom of this?

Since the Senate adopted the same rules and procedures that governed the Clinton impeachment trial I believe there's no reason witnesses can't be called if 51 Senators would like to hear from them. That consistency is fine with me.

[jp1]

So you’re more concerned with consistency than actually finding out what happened?

[LDAHL]

So you’re more concerned with consistency than actually finding out what happened?

But if you were correct when you said earlier that there was no real question of what happened, shouldn’t the focus be on whether the two articles are for impeachable offenses or not? If they don’t rise to that level, what would be the point of confirming what has already been established beyond putting points on the political board? What is so sinister about rules that allow the Senate to call witnesses as the Senate sees fit?

Personally, I think the bar for overriding elections should be set pretty high.

[jp1]

But if you were correct when you said earlier that there was no real question of what happened, shouldn’t the focus be on whether the two articles are for impeachable offenses or not? If they don’t rise to that level, what would be the point of confirming what has already been established beyond putting points on the political board? What is so sinister about rules that allow the Senate to call witnesses as the Senate sees fit?

No, there's lots of speculation, opinion and second hand information out there. If this were a criminal proceeding it would be thrown out of court. I think the country deserves better.

Apparently there are people out there who won't be convinced until Guiliani, Pompeo, and Mulvaney testify in person to confirm what we already know.

It seems somewhat odd that they refuse to testify and clear things up if what we've already learned about their actions is inaccurate.

[LDAHL]

Apparently there are people out there who won't be convinced until Guiliani, Pompeo, and Mulvaney testify in person to confirm what we already know.

It seems somewhat odd that they refuse to testify and clear things up if what we've already learned about their actions is inaccurate.

I donÂ’t know that anything needs to be cleared up. IÂ’m convinced that Trump did what they say he did. IÂ’m convinced that is certainly an issue for the voters to consider. IÂ’m not convinced that it rises to the level that makes it the SenateÂ’s constitutional duty to remove him from office.

I think that at this point it is the SenateÂ’s job is to decide the matter of law rather than the facts of the case. Much like the Clinton case: there was no question that the President lied under oath, but the issue the Senate had to decide was whether that was sufficient grounds to remove him. I think it made sense for the founders to set the bar for removing a president so high because otherwise impeachment would become a routine vote of no confidence.

Had the House worked a little harder and pursued getting their subpoenas enforced, they would have eventually gotten their show trial. But for whatever reason they elected not to do so. All the somber civics lectures, funereal garb and stately marches seem to be calculated to distract from that. The weird withholding of the articles in an attempt to impact Senate rules seems like another distraction. So to me the question becomes whether the President obstructed Congress more than is normal for presidents to do so, and whether the President abused his powers more than is customary for presidents to do so.

[jp1]

So you think it’s acceptable for a president to extort foreign countries for personal benefit. Duly noted.

[bae]

I think that at this point it is the SenateÂ’s job is to decide the matter of law rather than the facts of the case.

Yet the Constitution specifies that there is a trial. Often trials involve examining the evidence, deciding which evidence constitutes useful facts, then applying the law to the facts discerned.

So let's have that done. So far all we've had is the impeachment from the House, but no actual trial.

"The Senate shall have the sole Power to try all Impeachments. When sitting for that Purpose, they shall be on Oath or Affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no Person shall be convicted without the Concurrence of two thirds of the Members present."