Quote Originally Posted by jp1 View Post
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.