Trump impeachment,would witnesses have made a difference?

[Revoltingest]

I realize it’s not a criminal trial. But it has a purpose that is intended to protect the Constitution and the powers of Congress in our system of checks and balances. The Trump Party has decided merely to protect their shabby demagogue - and themselves. They could have made a different choice.

One caveat: what I’m saying here would have to change if the Senate does take some kind of action. Such as censuring Trump, or continuing an investigation into the holdup of the aid. I.e., imposing consequences for bad executive behavior, but without removing him from office.

Unfortunately it appears the plan is to just completely cover up for Trump and not do their jobs as Congress to control the purse and oversee the executive.

Censuring Trump looks to have been made impossible.
With Dems pursuing impeachment from the git go, Pubs
early on circled the wagons.

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Censuring Trump looks to have been made impossible.
With Dems pursuing impeachment from the git go, Pubs
circled the wagons, enhancing the tribalism.

That’s a pretty convenient and tortured line of reasoning. If Congress hadn’t pursued an impeachment inquiry, we probably wouldn’t even know there was, in fact, a quid pro quo. Which Lindsay Graham originally said would be “highly disturbing” if there was evidence for it. It turned out to be so disturbing to Lindsay that he didn’t want to hear more evidence of it.

 

[Revoltingest]

That’s a pretty convenient and tortured line of reasoning.

Convenient for whom?
It's my reasoning, & it doesn't serve my interests at all.
I'm just speculating about how things proceeded, &
could've proceeded.

If Congress hadn’t pursued an impeachment inquiry, we probably wouldn’t even know there was, in fact, a quid pro quo. Which Lindsay Graham originally said would be “highly disturbing” if there was evidence for it. It turned out to be so disturbing to Lindsay that he didn’t want to hear more evidence of it.

With 20/20 hindsight, I'd say that investigating wrongful acts without
making it about impeachment would've made censure easier. You're
free to disagree....but it would be silly to say that this is "convenient".

 

[England my lionheart]

So why do people keep referring to Trump as elected?
Why do they think that the USA public support his policies when he lost the election quite decisively?
Tom

I'm confused,didn't he win the presidential election and formally elected by the electoral college?,I'm asking as you say "he lost" and I'm trying to understand the politics.

 

[columbus]

I'm confused,didn't he win the presidential election and formally elected by the electoral college?,I'm asking as you say "he lost" and I'm trying to understand the politics.

Here's the politics.
USA doesn't elect POTUS. POTUS is appointed by state legislatures.
Trump lost the popular vote by millions, but the votes of the American people don't matter. What matters, nowadays, is the partisan goals of state legislatures.
Tom

 

[Revoltingest]

I'm confused,didn't he win the presidential election and formally elected by the electoral college?,I'm asking as you say "he lost" and I'm trying to understand the politics.

You're not the one confused.

 

[Watchmen]

So why do people keep referring to Trump as elected?
Why do they think that the USA public support his policies when he lost the election quite decisively?
Tom

He didn’t lose the election. Sorry you don’t understand why the popular vote is completely irrelevant.

 

[Watchmen]

Here's the politics.
USA doesn't elect POTUS. POTUS is appointed by state legislatures.
Trump lost the popular vote by millions, but the votes of the American people don't matter. What matters, nowadays, is the partisan goals of state legislatures.
Tom

Wrong. The popular vote is irrelevant. As I’ve explained I’m these forums numerous times is that had the rules of the election been “win by popular vote,” the campaigns would have campaigned much different and the people would have voted differently. We don’t know who would have won.

 

[columbus]

He didn’t lose the election. Sorry you don’t understand why the popular vote is completely irrelevant.

It's totally obvious that you simply don't know what the word "election" means.

No big surprise. I've read a lot of your posts. There's lots of things you don't understand.
Tom

 

[Mr Spinkles]

Convenient for whom?

For those who prefer not to admit that the Trump Party is responsible its own actions / inactions.

With 20/20 hindsight, I'd say that investigating wrongful acts without
making it about impeachment would've made censure easier. You're
free to disagree....but it would be silly to say that this is "convenient".

I do disagree. The Constitution gives Congress the "sole power of impeachment". Therefore it is even more critical - not less - to comply with a subpoena in an impeachment inquiry. To say the president doesn't have to comply with an impeachment inquiry because it's an impeachment inquiry, is tortured reasoning that defies key separation of powers made explicit in the Constitution.

George Washington and his advisers, for example, in one case resisted providing Congress with relevant documents because it was not an impeachment inquiry. Washington recognized that complying with a Congressional inquiry was most important when Congress' "sole power of impeachment" was being exercised.

The witnesses who defied the White House's obstruction and testified, did so because they recognized this importance and were trying to do the right thing. If not for the inquiry, there would be nothing to censure - just an unconfirmed whistleblower complaint. That would have been the Trump Party's preference. This president makes doing their jobs inconvenient.

 

[Watchmen]

I realize it’s not a criminal trial. But it has a purpose that is intended to protect the Constitution and the powers of Congress in our system of checks and balances. The Trump Party has decided merely to protect their shabby demagogue - and themselves. They could have made a different choice.

One caveat: what I’m saying here would have to change if the Senate does take some kind of action. Such as censuring Trump, or continuing an investigation into the holdup of the aid. I.e., imposing consequences for bad executive behavior, but without removing him from office.

Unfortunately it appears the plan is to just completely cover up for Trump and not do their jobs as Congress to control the purse and oversee the executive.

There is no “cover up.” What Dems went after was insufficient to remove Trump from office. Summary judgment granted.

 

[Watchmen]

It's totally obvious that you simply don't know what the word "election" means.

No big surprise. I've read a lot of your posts. There's lots of things you don't understand.
Tom

You’re incapable of critical thinking, but I’ll give you a chance, Tom. If the election was to be decided by popular vote, who would have won and why?

 

[Subduction Zone]

There is no “cover up.” What Dems went after was insufficient to remove Trump from office. Summary judgment granted.

No wonder we see so many nonsensical posts. Kool-Aid, so refreshing!

 

[columbus]

You’re incapable of critical thinking, but I’ll give you a chance, Tom. If the election was to be decided by popular vote, who would have won and why?

I don't know.
It's like asking me if Trump were caught in bed with Putin the day before the voting, what would have happened? I don't know that either, because I'm not a prophet. It didn't happen.

But tell me this.
If the USA elected POTUS, and had done so for 50 years, who would be in the White House today?

You don't know either, and you can't possibly. Bush II wouldn't have been POTUS. Obama wouldn't have been stuck with the disastrous aftereffects of a Republican government. He probably wouldn't even have become POTUS if it weren't for the Republican Recession.

Nobody knows where might have happened if things were completely different a few years ago.
Tom

 

[dianaiad]

Sure we did.

The problem is that you seem to think POTUS is an elected position. It isn't. Many people are unable to grasp that simple fact.
Tom

Excuse me?

We 'elect' the representatives of the electoral college, and they elect the president, using their votes (usually) according to the popular vote of the state they come from.

Works fine....rather the way Congress does. You know, in order to maintain fairness, the House is comprised of people elected by popular vote, and assigned according to population, and the Senate is comprised of two Senators from each state, thus ensuring that those states which have smaller populations are not run completely over by the heavily populated (and larger) coastal states?

Perhaps you could explain how my mention of the electoral college...and approval of it...logically morphs into my thinking that POTUS is an elected position. I mean, it IS...but not a directly democratic elected position. The USA is not a democracy, after all. It is a representative democracy, or republic. Are you aware of the differences here?

 

[Watchmen]

No wonder we see so many nonsensical posts. Kool-Aid, so refreshing!

Nice. A non-substantive reply.

 

[dianaiad]

I am sorry, but the other side has been repeatedly refuted.

You want to think it has. You are wrong.

Did you forget how your claims about the Republicans that stormed a meeting during the House impeachment process were shown to be wrong?

Where were they 'shown to be wrong,' precisely?

 

[Watchmen]

I don't know.
It's like asking me if Trump were caught in bed with Putin the day before the voting, what would have happened? I don't know that either, because I'm not a prophet. It didn't happen.

But tell me this.
If the USA elected POTUS, and had done so for 50 years, who would be in the White House today?

You don't know either, and you can't possibly. Bush II wouldn't have been POTUS. Obama wouldn't have been stuck with the disastrous aftereffects of a Republican government. He probably wouldn't even have become POTUS if it weren't for the Republican Recession.

Nobody knows where might have happened if things were completely different a few years ago.
Tom

You don’t know. I don’t know. That’s the point! The popular vote was irrelevant because we don’t know! Thanks for proving my point.

 

[dianaiad]

The supposed reason was not why Trump won the race. Look at the results. The small states that were overly represented played a very small part in the process. What happened was that Trump was a better campaginer. He won by a narrow margin in more "toss up" states that Hillary did. That was not the purpose of the framers of the Constitution.

Because Trump campaigned better and won more electoral votes? Your opinion is that the framers of the constitution meant that modern day 'progressive' Democrats should always win, and when they don't, it's because someone else cheated?

Frankly, with all the accusations of someone wanting to be a monarch and all, what I see are a bunch of people yelling at mirrors. Trump will (mostly thanks to the idiocy of the Democrats) win the next election, serve four years, and then we will see a different person be president.

We conservatives have had to put up with eight years here and there of different people doing stupid stuff...and the only person who managed to have more than eight years of service as POTUS was a DEMOCRAT, please remember...you can put up with four more years of increased economy, decreased unemployment especially among minorities, etc.

Then term limits will kick in and, well...unless you Dems can figure out a way to have a constitutional convention to repeal the 22nd amendment so that YOU can have another FDR, I don't see Trump being king.

But you rant all you want to if it makes you feel better.

 

[columbus]

We 'elect' the representatives of the electoral college,

This isn't true.
Oh well. I don't expect reality to impinge on your beliefs.
Tom