Why Bother With the Charade?

[idav]

This is not about whether or not to impeach, it is about swaying public opinion and managing the political fallout of the already decided upon impeachment.

It's about the president abusing their powers. Trump is pretty much the scenario that the founders were concerned about when they included impeachment in the Constitution. People should decide very carefully. The same document that grants the branches power also checks them for very good reason.

 

[Shad]

It's like when you catch someone with a smoking gun. Just dispose of the trial and move immediately to a verdict and sentence. All that 'due process' baloney is such a waste of time.

Those type of case rarely go to trial due to having a smoking gun. Typically the accused will plea out due to the advice of their lawyer. The lawyer will tell them the chances of an innocent ruling is slim. The prosecutor will lighten a sentence for a plea but will threaten to throw the "book" at the accused if there is a trial. Trials are most often cases with marginal evidence.

 

[Howard Is]

Is there anyone here who doesn't believe that the decision to impeach or not has already been made? Do you honestly believe that anyone in that hearing will change their mind?

Whatever happens next, it was essential to reveal to the public that Trump’s quid pro quo offer to the Ukraine was not only unconstitutional, but a dangerous abuse of power.

The record shows that he acted to prevent the Ukraine from receiving Congressionally approved military aid. Apart from attempting to get dirt on Biden, this action had military geopolitical implications. The Russians would have been very grateful.

 

[Stevicus]

Is there anyone here who doesn't believe that the decision to impeach or not has already been made? Do you honestly believe that anyone in that hearing will change their mind?

Who can say for certain? Considering the composition of the Senate and the extreme unlikelihood that they'll vote to convict, it does appear to be a waste of time.

I doubt it will change many people's minds. Those who were against Trump already will still be against him, and those who were for him will still be for him.

What I've noticed these past few years is that a lot of people have made Trump himself into the issue, but there's been very little discussion or attention paid to the issues facing the country as a whole. This tells me that their argument with Trump is not really political.

That is, those who oppose Trump ostensibly agree with his politics, for the most part. If they didn't, then they would say so, but in essence, all they're really talking about is what he did wrong and allegations of criminality (along with being offensive and obnoxious). There has been very little attention or any meaningful public discussion about actual political or philosophical differences throughout all this.

I don't think these proceedings are a "charade," but it just reinforces the perception that Democrats are afraid to take any real political stance. That's their main problem, but instead of looking inward, they've fixated on Trump as some kind of "Anti-Christ," which may very well be true, but it plays right into the hands of those who think that Trump is the Second Coming.

 

[idav]

Who can say for certain? Considering the composition of the Senate and the extreme unlikelihood that they'll vote to convict, it does appear to be a waste of time.

I doubt it will change many people's minds. Those who were against Trump already will still be against him, and those who were for him will still be for him.

What I've noticed these past few years is that a lot of people have made Trump himself into the issue, but there's been very little discussion or attention paid to the issues facing the country as a whole. This tells me that their argument with Trump is not really political.

That is, those who oppose Trump ostensibly agree with his politics, for the most part. If they didn't, then they would say so, but in essence, all they're really talking about is what he did wrong and allegations of criminality (along with being offensive and obnoxious). There has been very little attention or any meaningful public discussion about actual political or philosophical differences throughout all this.

I don't think these proceedings are a "charade," but it just reinforces the perception that Democrats are afraid to take any real political stance. That's their main problem, but instead of looking inward, they've fixated on Trump as some kind of "Anti-Christ," which may very well be true, but it plays right into the hands of those who think that Trump is the Second Coming.

The Democratic House has sent over 300 pieces of legislation regarding a whole range of political issues that the Republican Senate keeps in a grave yard. If anything it's the Republican Senate waisting time and not standing for anything not even their own Constitution.

 

[Stevicus]

The Democratic House has sent over 300 pieces of legislation regarding a whole range of political issues that the Republican Senate keeps in a grave yard. If anything it's the Republican Senate waisting time and not standing for anything not even their own Constitution.

I was referring more to the public debate and the rhetoric from both sides. Sure, there's been some discussion of issues, but it's largely been overshadowed by the issue of "Trump" himself.

 

[SkepticThinker]

It is very unlikely that this impeachment will change voter's minds. This story conveys that. If the constituents have their minds made up, there is no political reason for their representative to change their minds.

Poll: Most voters remain unmovable in impeachment views

It's alarming how many people are impervious to facts and evidence.

 

[lewisnotmiller]

Those type of case rarely go to trial due to having a smoking gun. Typically the accused will plea out due to the advice of their lawyer. The lawyer will tell them the chances of an innocent ruling is slim. The prosecutor will lighten a sentence for a plea but will threaten to throw the "book" at the accused if there is a trial. Trials are most often cases with marginal evidence.

Yep. I'm pretty sure if both sides here agreed on a deal, this process would stop too. But we can't have a situation where due process is halted without universal agreement.

 

[Shad]

Yep. I'm pretty sure if both sides here agreed on a deal, this process would stop too. But we can't have a situation where due process is halted without universal agreement.

I am just saying it is rare for a smoking gun case to get to trial unless the accused is stupid

 

[Shad]

The Democratic House has sent over 300 pieces of legislation regarding a whole range of political issues that the Republican Senate keeps in a grave yard. If anything it's the Republican Senate waisting time and not standing for anything not even their own Constitution.

That is how Congress worked for decades down party lines for the most part. Dems didn't impeach Clinton even though he tried to influence a witness in a civil case against him.

 

[fantome profane]

I am just saying it is rare for a smoking gun case to get to trial unless the accused is stupid

We are talking about the Trump impeachment, correct?

The accused is incredibly stupid.

 

[Shad]

We are talking about the Trump impeachment, correct?

No. This was about general criminal trials with overwhelming evidence. Video, the weapon, dozens of witnesses within feet, etc.

The accused is incredibly stupid.

Just wait until he goes senile.

Most politicians are morons in my view. He still tops a lot of Dems in Congress. I do not mean well known members. A lot of GOP during the Obama years made by eyes do loops. This is why I think the whole US party system needs to collapse.