Trump impeachment,would witnesses have made a difference?

[columbus]

Because Trump campaigned better and won more electoral votes?

How do you know Trump did?
Putin has demonstrated prowess at running a rigged game. And Trump was obviously who Putin wanted in the White House.

Tom

 

[Mr Spinkles]

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

The problem is that what you wrote in bold, is not the reason all Senators gave for voting against witnesses. It wasn't a "summary judgment" it was a vote by 51 Senators not to hear witnesses, for varying (sometime contradictory) reasons. Murkowski, for example, explicitly did not say that what Trump was charged with was insufficient to remove him from office. Rubio argued that it was sufficient to remove a President from office, but not in the best interests of our nation to do so at this time.

Let me explain why this matters (please be patient with me).

A number of other Trump Party Senators have been quiet, apparently not disclosing their exact reasons - preferring to keep things vague (or maybe I missed their statements). But some of them appear to hold the position that the prosecution did not prove the charges, and the Senate is simply not obliged to hear more.

So the part you wrote in bold is not really a "judgment" that was rendered. What really happened is 51 Trump Party Senators voted not to hear witnesses, for varying reasons, not that the summary judgment you described was granted.

Why does this matter? Because Senator Alexander (and possibly others), by voting against witnesses for one reason (because he doesn't think the charges were impeachable), provided cover for other Senators. There are other Senators (such as Murkowski, Rubio, probably others) who can't deny it's impeachable, but would rather discontinue the trial or acquit him for various reasons. If those Senators had to listen to even more damning witness testimony, especially from a conservative stalwart such as Bolton, it would have made their positions even more tenuous. This is a slightly different fact pattern than a "summary judgment" that the charges "were insufficient to remove Trump from office".

It is striking to think that at least one Trump Party Senator - Alexander - thought Trump is guilty of doing what he is charged with, and stated this publicly. That is a conclusion which we know some other Trump Party Senators believe is impeachable. And because of that, Alexander voted to prevent witnesses - thereby ensuring the thing Alexander thinks Trump is guilty of would not be proved to any holdouts who think it is impeachable, but not yet proved. Think about that.

No individual Senator is covering things up. But the sum total of actions taken by the Trump Party amounts to, in practical consequences, a cover up. Trump stonewalled any documents or witnesses in the House inquiry. And his toadies in the Senate accepted that behavior and avoided hearing more in the Senate.

 

[dianaiad]

It would take only a small percentage of Republicans changing their mind to make him lose the election. I do not think that there will be large scale desertion. I only want a rather small percentage of people who's morals wake up.

It's more likely that a bunch of Democrats and independent voters will realize what the Dems are attempting to pull here and say 'not in my nation, you don't.' They aren't protecting the Republicans. They are protecting the nation.

They will remember, even if the idiots don't, that what the Dems get away with today, the Republicans will do to them tomorrow, What sort of anguish will happen to us then?

 

[columbus]

They will remember, even if the idiots don't, that what the Dems get away with today, the Republicans will do to them tomorrow, What sort of anguish will happen to us then

That's exactly what's going on now.
The Republicans who impeached Clinton set a precedent. Then, they changed the rules during the Obama administration.

Now they complain about other people using those precedents and rules. Because they're partisan hypocrites.
Like you.
Tom

 

[Mr Spinkles]

It's more likely that a bunch of Democrats and independent voters will realize what the Dems are attempting to pull here and say 'not in my nation, you don't.' They aren't protecting the Republicans. They are protecting the nation.

It is fortunate that protecting the nation, coincidentally, also protects their orange demagogue. And protects them from his (and his followers') wrath.

Lt. Col. Vindman, Bill Taylor, Fiona Hill, Sondland (a $1 million Trump campaign donor) and others, have served the nation and put their careers in jeopardy by testifying. I guess they didn't do that for the good of the nation. I guess the White House tried to block them from testifying because, not knowing what the White House is doing with our taxpayer dollars, and why, is best for us all. It's crazy how so many Republicans appointed by Trump turned on him, and therefore, their nation. All over what was really a "perfect" phone call and nothing to be alarmed about or worth investigating.

 

[dianaiad]

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

What isn't true?

Does the fact that I put 'elect' in quotes bother you? You could use 'appointed,' or some other thing. "They" have been trying to get my father to be a state elector for years. He won't do it. The point is, the electors are supposed to go the way their state does. Most of the time they do.

 

[columbus]

What isn't true?

That Trump was elected.

His supporters keep saying this, over and over. As though his political platform weren't overruled by We The People.
But it was.
Putin obviously likes it. But the USA electorate did vote, and Trump was second place.
Tom

 

[Watchmen]

The problem is that what you wrote in bold, is not the reason all Senators gave for voting against witnesses. It wasn't a "summary judgment" it was a vote by 51 Senators not to hear witnesses, for varying (sometime contradictory) reasons. Murkowski, for example, explicitly did not say that what Trump was charged with was insufficient to remove him from office. Rubio argued that it was sufficient to remove a President from office, but not in the best interests of our nation to do so at this time.

Let me explain why this matters (please be patient with me).

A number of other Trump Party Senators have been quiet, apparently not disclosing their exact reasons - preferring to keep things vague (or maybe I missed their statements). But some of them appear to hold the position that the prosecution did not prove the charges, and the Senate is simply not obliged to hear more.

So the part you wrote in bold is not really a "judgment" that was rendered. What really happened is 51 Trump Party Senators voted not to hear witnesses, for varying reasons, not that the summary judgment you described was granted.

Why does this matter? Because Senator Alexander (and possibly others), by voting against witnesses for one reason (because he doesn't think the charges were impeachable), provided cover for other Senators. There are other Senators (such as Murkowski, Rubio, probably others) who can't deny it's impeachable, but would rather discontinue the trial or acquit him for various reasons. If those Senators had to listen to even more damning witness testimony, especially from a conservative stalwart such as Bolton, it would have made their positions even more tenuous. This is a slightly different fact pattern than a "summary judgment" that the charges "were insufficient to remove Trump from office".

It is striking to think that at least one Trump Party Senator - Alexander - thought Trump is guilty of doing what he is charged with, and stated this publicly. That is a conclusion which we know some other Trump Party Senators believe is impeachable. And because of that, Alexander voted to prevent witnesses - thereby ensuring the thing Alexander thinks Trump is guilty of would not be proved to any holdouts who think it is impeachable, but not yet proved. Think about that.

No individual Senator is covering things up. But the sum total of actions taken by the Trump Party amounts to, in practical consequences, a cover up. Trump stonewalled any documents or witnesses in the House inquiry. And his toadies in the Senate accepted that behavior and avoided hearing more in the Senate.

No matter how many words you use it was still the procedural equivalent of summary judgment.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nice. A non-substantive reply.

Yes, that is what non-substantive posts like yours get.

 

[Watchmen]

Yes, that is what non-substantive posts like yours get.

Nope. I’ve explained the popular vote and variations in campaign styles over and over. You’re just being obtuse.

 

[Subduction Zone]

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.

You probably do not understand the history of the electoral college. It has served its purpose. It is terribly outdated and the supposed reason for its existence is not why Trump won. Yes, Trump played the game better and won. Is that what we want as a country? We will still be a republic if we get rid of that dinosaur and it will end certain injustices. And please, watch the strawman arguments. You know that is a dishonest way to debate.

And I agree that the Democrats were far too heavily invested into HIllary last time around. It left many Democrats with a bad taste in their mouth and they could not get very excited to vote for her. That still is not an excuse to keep using a concept far past its use by date.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Nope. I’ve explained the popular vote and variations in campaign styles over and over. You’re just being obtuse.

No, you gave a faulty opinion. Nothing more.

 

[dianaiad]

That's exactly what's going on now.
The Republicans who impeached Clinton set a precedent. Then, they changed the rules during the Obama administration.

Now they complain about other people using those precedents and rules. Because they're partisan hypocrites.
Like you.
Tom

You can accuse me of all sorts of things, Tom...but not of being a hypocrite.

....and Clinton's impeachment was bipartisan. Mostly. 31 Democrats joined the Republicans in that vote to impeach, and let's face it, Clinton was GUILTY of the crimes for which he was impeached. He not only was guilty of the charges against him, he admitted to being guilty, and he was found liable for doing so elsewhere; he had to pay a rather large settlement and he was disbarred.

What he wasn't, was fired. Had I been a senator at the time, I too would have voted not to fire the guy, because I didn't think that what he did rose, quite, to the level of 'high crimes and misdemeanors' required by the constitution. I felt then, as I do now, that 'elections have consequences,' and that if the American people don't want Trump in office, they will see to it that he won't win in nine months.

As for Trump, I honestly do not see that anything he has done arises to even the level Clinton's actions did. What I DO see is that the Democrats honestly consider the rest of us as 'deplorable,' and stupid, and unable to ...what was that...find "Ukraine if they put a capital U and a picture of a crane next to it on the map."

And you, here, are simply doing what all the rest of your leadership is doing; figuring that if we don't agree with you, that WE are the hypocrites, that WE can't read, that WE are 'deplorable,' and that WE are utterly stupid and unable to walk and read political slogans at the same time.

Y'all are accusing us of all sorts of horrific things...while the Democrats were screaming "IMPEACH HIM" before he even took office, running through streets and breaking windows while y'all do it.

I disagree with your politics. That doesn't make me a hypocrite...and if the only argument you can make against me is to call me names, then you have lost that argument.

 

[dianaiad]

You probably do not understand the history of the electoral college. It has served its purpose. It is terribly outdated and the supposed reason for its existence is not why Trump won. Yes, Trump played the game better and won. Is that what we want as a country? We will still be a republic if we get rid of that dinosaur and it will end certain injustices.

And I agree that the Democrats were far too heavily invested into HIllary last time around. It left many Democrats with a bad taste in their mouth and they could not get very excited to vote for her. That still is not an excuse to keep using a concept far past its use by date.

Why don't you like the electoral college?

Because getting rid of it absolutely ensures that only coastal regions will have any influence in federal politics, in re the office of POTUS?

Because it certainly will do that.

 

[Subduction Zone]

It's more likely that a bunch of Democrats and independent voters will realize what the Dems are attempting to pull here and say 'not in my nation, you don't.' They aren't protecting the Republicans. They are protecting the nation.

They will remember, even if the idiots don't, that what the Dems get away with today, the Republicans will do to them tomorrow, What sort of anguish will happen to us then?

You have to be kidding me. The inability of some to reason at times is amazing. You forgot that all of your claims about the impeachment were refuted. The Democrats are not trying to "pull" anything. Anyone that seriously was trying to protect the nation would Dump Trump.

 

[Subduction Zone]

Why don't you like the electoral college?

Because getting rid of it absolutely ensures that only coastal regions will have any influence in federal politics, in re the office of POTUS?

Because it certainly will do that.

Because it does not reflect the will of the people. Supposedly it was originally designed to give protections to small states, but that is not what happens today. Today it gives excessive power to toss up states. Candidates hardly campaign in states such as mine, or California, or Texas, because who the state is going to support is a foregone conclusion. Now the lack of political ads was a very pleasant surprise last time around, but its implications are not so nice. The needs of solid red or blue states are often put on the back burner. Not because an opponent opposes them, but because they really do not matter in their election. Issues important to such states as Pennsylvania and Florida take precedence even if they are not nearly as important to the country. That is no way to run a republic.

 

[SoyLeche]

Why don't you like the electoral college?

Because getting rid of it absolutely ensures that only coastal regions will have any influence in federal politics, in re the office of POTUS?

Because it certainly will do that.

land and cows have a right to equal representation too!!!

 

[SoyLeche]

I haven’t read the federalist papers much, but I would imagine the electoral college was put in not so much because they thought it was a good idea but in order to get the small states to ratify the constitution. Pretty much the same reason the Senate is set up like it is.

 

[Watchmen]

No, you gave a faulty opinion. Nothing more.

It’s my opinion that we don’t know what the results would have been? Ludicrous. You don’t have a crystal ball. But I’ll give you a chance, just like I gave the equally obtuse Tom. Tell me, if the 2016 election was to be decided by popular vote, who would have won and why? Good luck.

 

[Watchmen]

Because it does not reflect the will of the people. Supposedly it was originally designed to give protections to small states, but that is not what happens today. Today it gives excessive power to toss up states. Candidates hardly campaign in states such as mine, or California, or Texas, because who the state is going to support is a foregone conclusion. Now the lack of political ads was a very pleasant surprise last time around, but its implications are not so nice. The needs of solid red or blue states are often put on the back burner. Not because an opponent opposes them, but because they really do not matter in their election. Issues important to such states as Pennsylvania and Florida take precedence even if they are not nearly as important to the country. That is no way to run a republic.

Do you realize you’re proving my point? Probably not. So obtuse.