[rockdoc123]

The House procedures were clearly more than just an accusation, but the Senate does get the final say and I look at it as sentencing. Trump may just get a slap on the wrist (already delivered). I doubt if the Senate has a real trial as Republicans won't want to rehash the basis of all the accusations. Does anyone remember how it went for Clinton?

apparently you don't understand the way this works. At this point in time there has been no trial, hence the Senate can't "sentence". A trial, if it were to take place requires first that the House delivers the impeachment documents and then the Senate reviews them. They can decide to toss the impeachment out the door as being without merit and not worthy of a trail (which is quite possible) or they can have an actual trial which is something completely different from what the House conducted. If the House doesn't deliver the impeachment documents then officially there is no impeachment. Something the Democrats don't realize is that if there is a trial and Trump is found innocent (100% chance of that happening given the makeup of the Senate and what is being said by the various members) then he has the right to run for 2 additional terms according to a couple of legal analysts. The point they make is the impeachment process nullifies his first term so he is effectively starting from scratch come fall of 2020 (i.e. a maximum of 2 terms in office).

[Cog]

The Trump trial, assuming there ever is one, will follow the pattern of the Clinton trial. In that case, Republicans from the House acted as managers, or to simplify as prosecutors. Now the Dems from the House or their lawyers will act as prosecutors.

So now we have the reverse happening with Trump. The only evidence or witnesses that Mitch is going to allow in is what the Dems developed in the House. The Dems are sorely deluded if they think a Dem fishing expedition is going to be allowed.

Trump's defense team though is going to be allowed to call additional witnesses and evidence if they choose to and if they feel the need. A very weak case for the prosecution, with an all but certain outcome. As I recall the Clinton trial lasted about two weeks and this one will be about the same.

The Senate has sole power in how this trial will be conducted. If it's conducted at all.

[careinke]

Whatever he does that goes too far, you don't get to take that back. That's the only problem with someone who comes off as an enemy of the state in such a way. You'd dismiss him, as quickly as any corporation would its own executives, who acted so willfully outside of what was best for the corporation. But you can't dismiss him so easily, using only half measures. This one is too arrogant for half measures. He doesn't get subtlety, nor innuendo. What have people got left?

Then would also admit that Obama was equally corrupt but he just lied nicer?

Summary execution of an American citizen
Authors rise a raid on a country we are not at war with -Ali is
Lie to the American Public about progress in Afghanistan
Allow the corruption of the DOJ/FBI

IF, and only if, you admit that Obama was equally corrupt and impeachable does your argument carry weight. If not then your argument becomes simply a matter of STYLE.

That's simply not true. Obama, being an ex-president, is as thoroughly removed from office as conviction upon impeachment would be for Trump. You have to limit the potential damage. People like Trump take nations like the US into war, because they don't think before they speak. Trump is the next thing to insane. He is a solipsistic nightmare. He measures the future prospects of his country according to how low he can get the corresponding representative of a foreign country to bow to him. He offers offense to people we will need to rely upon, probably sooner than later. He is not thinking about the best future for the country, unless that has something to do with rewriting school books, so that he can come off as the best president since sliced cheese.

Excuse me??? What wars have Donald Trump got us into??? Now if you want to talk about the last four presidents........ And he dam sure doesn't deliberately target American citizens for execution like some presidents I know...

[Cog]

@rockdoc123

An impeachment does not nullify a president's term of office whether sucessful or not in removing him. No president can serve more than two terms since the 22nd Amendment prevents that.

[Cog]

Although we call it an impeachment trial it's not really any such thing. For instance several of the "jurors" are senators running for president and have declared their desire to remove Trump from office. Such a jury would never be allowed in any sort of real trial.

Also the Chief Justice presides but is not a real judge as we would know one. The Senate as jurors decide what evidence they will hear and not the Chief Justice.

Basically an impeachment of a president is a raw exercise of political power with no real attempt to ascertain justice or truth.

[Cog]

People who live in the "intellectual" centers on the east and west coast dismissively refer to the rest of us in fly-over land as ignorant hayseeds who don't know what is best for us. Those of us who do live in fly-over land, resent the implication that we are somehow inferior to the rest of self-declared "intellectual" class and we responded in our deplorable fashion by rejecting your candidate.

Given the preview of the 2020 election so far, I see the Democrat party still has not learned why they lost in 2016.

That's complete bullshit Cog and you probably know it, but you enjoy flinging the shit. Ignorance and willful ignorance knows no bounds. And, don't you live on the West coast?

My Lord no. If I had the nuclear football I'd order a immediate nuclear strike on California and the country would be much better off.

But I'll settle for keeping their ilk out of the White House.

[Cog]

Something the Democrats need to ask themselves. If the House impeachment articles are so convincing why do they want more witnesses and documents in the Senate trial? Should they not have obtained that before they voted to impeach? Does their articles of impeachment and sworn testimony in the House proceedings not speak for itself?

The court system was available to the Dems to compel documents and testimony. Why the rush to vote but now no rush for the trial? I was told repeatedly by House Dems we could not delay because Trump was a clear and present danger to democracy. So why delay getting this rogue president out of office if that is your feeling about him?

[jedrider]

My candidate of choice, Tulsi Gabbard declined to vote to impeach President Trump. She may have a good reason, supposedly, that it is inflammatory and serves no real purpose, which I can actually agree with, but I'm glad Trump was impeached, because I think no President should have operated how Trump did in this case and a clear message was needed to be sent, or this behavior would just escalate.

[asg70]

Trump has in effect been LESS militaristic than his immediate predecessors.

Trump is not a foreign policy genius. What he's been up until now is lucky, nothing more, nothing less.

[jedrider]

Trump has in effect been LESS militaristic than his immediate predecessors.

Trump is not a foreign policy genius. What he's been up until now is lucky, nothing more, nothing less.

SNAFU

Yes, it's difficult to mess up further an already completely messed up system, but Trump will surely find a way. Where's Guiliani when he needs him?

[Tanada]

I just love how people deep in tribalism conclude any President of a different party from their own is stupid, inept and only succeeds through lucky circumstances.

Reality check folks, you don't rise to the top of the political infighting mess that is American politics without a great deal of skill and raw intelligence. Just because you disagree with someone does not make them mentally ill, weak minded, or unintelligent.

I have not particularly liked any of the last four presidents but I am not so foolish as to think they were ill equipped to lead when manifestly they all won their way into office one way or another.

[jedrider]

Reality check folks, you don't rise to the top of the political infighting mess that is American politics without a great deal of skill and raw intelligence. Just because you disagree with someone does not make them mentally ill, weak minded, or unintelligent.

I have not particularly liked any of the last four presidents but I am not so foolish as to think they were ill equipped to lead when manifestly they all won their way into office one way or another.

I think you are confusing the skills required to win an election and to be an adequate President. They are certainly not the same. Trump is quite unique, obviously.

In my estimation, he has even run out of skill set for the next election cycle as well.

[asg70]

I just love how people deep in tribalism conclude any President of a different party from their own is stupid, inept and only succeeds through lucky circumstances.

Just because you're on the opposing party doesn't mean we can't call a spade a spade. Objectively speaking, Trump IS dumb. The only thing he is good at is employing cheap and transparent bullying tactics (small hands, period blood jokes, etc...). He has been a benefactor of an equally dumb voterbase who are easily swayed by same bullying tactics and appealing to emotion.

Don't believe me? Ask ex Trump cabinet members (all otherwise loyal FELLOW REPUBLICANS) who have worked toe to toe with the guy and can attest to his gross incompetence, or those who may still be on the inside who were part of this expose' to the NYT.

I know that cheap name-calling is too often used as a substitute to forming a cogent argument, but in this case, the negative labels ascribed to Trump are all accurate.

[Cog]

Referring to 63 million Trump voters as dumb is a surefire way to get them to vote against your candidate. Hillary's deplorable comment if you need a clue.

But maybe open border socialists have a different thinking process than I do. Jill Biden is celebrating her Christmas by handing out food to refugees in Mexico who aretrying to get our across our border. Great optics with that. LOL

https://mobile.twitter.com/thehill/stat ... 4501626881

[jedrider]

Don't get me wrong. Trump is a genius in his our little hands sphere. Some people will study his tactics for the obvious reason that they worked so well on some group of people, and included the ability to grap the spotlight in our sensationalist culture, no doubt. Perhaps, the sensationalism is working in reverse now.

Don't also get me wrong that Trump was elected for the specific reason to destroy our political culture and I applaud him for that. However, I think his time is up. Why can't everyone see this?

[asg70]

Because the US is, by and large, a conservative country. Even people here who presumably give a crap about limits to growth are still coming from that gods-and-guns deplorables flyover-country vantage point, hence constructing any and every excuse to protect a president who is a one-man wrecking ball to causes that should matter to doomers.

[Newfie]

Don't also get me wrong that Trump was elected for the specific reason to destroy our political culture and I applaud him for that. However, I think his time is up. Why can't everyone see this?

Why people can’t see that is beyond me. But they can’t.

Looking back on what has so far been exposed of the FBI/DOJ corruption its a good thing Hillary did not win. My sense is that Comey and company would have expanded their power even further and who knows where that would have ended.

You are correct Trump served a useful purpose by disrupting the festering corruption, and now its time to move on. The Democrats need to put up a credible candidate who can beat Trump by 50 points. Which, from the way you hear the press, should be a no brained, almost anyone should be able to beat him. (Sarcasam off)

I still think the correct reaction to the current situation is a move to reform the Presidential selection process, to remove the influence of the political parties.

[Tanada]

I just love how people deep in tribalism conclude any President of a different party from their own is stupid, inept and only succeeds through lucky circumstances.

Just because you're on the opposing party doesn't mean we can't call a spade a spade. Objectively speaking, Trump IS dumb. The only thing he is good at is employing cheap and transparent bullying tactics (small hands, period blood jokes, etc...). He has been a benefactor of an equally dumb voterbase who are easily swayed by same bullying tactics and appealing to emotion.

Don't believe me? Ask ex Trump cabinet members (all otherwise loyal FELLOW REPUBLICANS) who have worked toe to toe with the guy and can attest to his gross incompetence, or those who may still be on the inside who were part of this expose' to the NYT.

I know that cheap name-calling is too often used as a substitute to forming a cogent argument, but in this case, the negative labels ascribed to Trump are all accurate.

As a MODERATE LIBERTARIAN I love how you tribalists see me oppose some portion of the D plan and insist I must be a true blue R who hates every D idea. This still happens despite the fact that over the last 14 or so years on this board I have defended D ideas I agree with and defamed R ideas I am opposed to. It seems the saying "None so blind as those who refuse to see" is holding true.

[Cog]

Most voters do not pay attention to issues or are hard left or right in the same way we do here. I'm a nationalist and belive in US supremacy at any cost. I vote that way since Trump is that way philosophically. The left believes in a type of global socialism and hates capitalism.

The majority of voters fit comfortably in the middle of all of that.

[asg70]

MODERATE LIBERTARIAN

Libertarians may as well be the Koch brothers as far as their approach towards energy and the environment.