Impeachment: The Process Begins

I listed the evidence we have so far, point by point. If there is more evidwnce I have left out, please say so.

There is no court... this is a political process. You could view the Senate as a court, but it isn't at all the same. In a real court, the jury is shielded to make a decision based on the facts independent of public opinion.

In the impeachment the Senate will base their decision on political considerations. Public opinon is everything.

If there is a court, we are the court.

Evidence of an activity that is not in any way wrongdoing is pretty pointless.

If I were to produce evidence of Nancy Pelosi crossing a street (not jaywalking either; I mean crossing the street legally), would that be grounds for censuring her and expelling her from office?

It would be evidence.

Neither confused nor angry, but you might want to console your strawman if he is.


It was built into your statement that you were not for impeachment until the whistleblower stuff came out. You imply that you and every other anti-Trumper hasn't been looking for any and every way to obstruct and thwart Trump since he got elected (and before). You guys have been wanting to get back at the Republicans since they started obstructing and harassing Obama. Face it, you can't be objective because you feel the need and almost obligation to return mistreatment 'eye for eye.'

Note: I'm not making any value judgment about about Democrat bias to return negativity that was done to Obama during his administration; but I'm just pointing out that it causes Democrats to obstruct and attack Trump in any way they can, and so it would be a lie for you to say that you and all the other anti-Trumpers weren't already primed for impeachment, investigations, and/or any other form of political attack, witch hunt. or inquisition you could muster using legitimate governmental means to obstruct and chip away at Trump's presidency.

I don't even think the anti-Trump hate is so much about Trump as it is about how Republicans treated Obama, although people do attribute the birth-certificate crap to Trump, because he led it. Anyway, the point is that it's vengeance-driven and not neutral politics devoid of pre-judgment and political motivation/factionalism.


Being allowed to do so doesn't make it good to. Free speech also allows you to yell racist/sexist insults at people, but it is not responsible use of your freedom, so harassment laws that are probably ultimately unconstitutional are still warranted, even though they shouldn't be necessary because people should just use their freedom of speech constructively.

Likewise, you don't have to fall in line with a leader to interact constructively with him/her the same as with any other person. Multiparty democracy means that different POVs must interact constructively to find policy positions they can consent to despite ideological/value differences.


Yes, just as pulling someone over is a legitimate policing process, yet that doesn't prevent racist police from pulling someone over for 'driving while black.'

Face it, legitimate governmental processes can be abused to harass and persecute people. Just because they are legitimate doesn't mean they can't be abused by malicious people. How many lawsuits are filed just to legally harass the defendant and not because the plaintiff actually seeks truth and justice?


Does the Ukraine have rights the way an individual citizen receiving aid does? If a foreign state has rights that obligate US government to honor, then why not all people everywhere regardless of citizenship? In fact, why can't all governments then be held accountable to respect and honor rights of everyone else on Earth, including foreign states and corporations?

If everyone would have rights and entitlements with every government everywhere, governments would all have to go to war with each other to enforce anti-discrimination because they would all find ways to discriminate non-citizens and/or demand responsibilities from them, such as obligatory military service.

If the Ukraine is entitled to aid by some contract/treaty, then what are the terms of the contract and what obligations does it have in exchange for aid? Is the relationship voluntary and mutual, or is it defined and contractual with consequences stipulated for breaches of contract?

The Democrats don't need to win a conviction in the Senate. The investigation make the impeachment worthwhile even of the Senate pulls another Merrick Garland.

For the next several months, the news will be focused on Trump's abuses of power. The Democrats in the house will drive the narrative... and they will have more legal powers, no court is going to want to be seen as interfering in this Constitutional process.

Sure, there is a big risk to the Democrats. If this is seen as a political stunt by the majority of the electorate, they will be punisbed.

But I think the facts give the Democrats the upper hand.

We will see I am correct over the mext few months.

The charge is that Trump used his presidential power, acting as head of state with a foreign powwr, for personal political gain. Then administration officials took specific steps to cover up that this happened.

Convincing the American public that this is OK os going to be a hard sell.

All the Republicans need to do is point out how the Democrats do the same thing only a hundred times worse.

My understanding is that Senate Republicans do not intend to just ignore an impeachment. Instead they are planning to have a quick vote of acquittal without any speeches if the House impeaches (perhaps even on the same day as the impeachment).

That way the matter will be over and done with, and the Democrats will not be able to grandstand on a demand that the impeachment be addressed.

Trump can then use the acquittal (and the way the Republicans treated the impeachment so dismissively) to claim that he was vindicated and there was nothing to the charges to begin with.


It's a good plan, but I do hope that the Republicans are also drawing up plans to impeach the next Democratic president.

No matter how far in the future it may be before we see another Democratic president, we still need to impeach that sucker.

That's an argument that works very well in kindergarten. I don't think most Americans will see it that way.

This plan only works if Republican Senators don't defect. I personally would love to see them try it.

It means that every single Republican Senator is going to need to go on record as being either for or against impeachment. Imagine the Republicans doing that without so much as a single hearing.... I imagine 30 Republican Senators would object to being put into that position. I can't imagine Joni Ernst, or Mitt Romney or Rand Paul or Susan Collins or Mike Lee or Lisa Murkowski or a at least dozen other Senators going along with with that stunt.

A Republican Senator might be willing to tacitly go along with shelving the impeachment. It means that they won't have to put their name alongside a vote. Asking them to put their name alongside vote for acquittal before having a single hearing is a different thing altogether.

We'll see.

I think it's funny the way progressives expect everyone to let them be above the law while they harshly condemn all of their rivals.

The charge against Trump is that he abused his presidential power for personal political gain. This is far worse, in my opinion, than anything any other president has done since Nixon.

We will see if most of the American public agrees.

Nixon didn't do anything wrong either.

The problem here is progressives and their endless witch hunts against people who don't agree with them.

Progressives really do need to be removed from society.

The why did he get on a plane and leave?

Because he was lynched by a bunch of nasty progressives.

AHHH yes, revisionism at it best. Just accept the big lie and your worldview is well served.

No revisionism. Just facts. That facts are inconvenient to progressives is beside the point.

It has NOT YET been offered up. Then it must be verified, not just offered. Right now its mostly ALL hearsay.

I worry that it will be provable fact and when offered, as case-in-chief, as evidence in the proceedings of "bringing charges against the president" (Which is what impeachment really means) it will be ignored .
To me, that would be the end of the Republic .
Oralloy may be right in that his mantra of obsession includes a prediction that a Democrat wont be elected president for many years. It would be more likely that this would occur as the Republic is gradually effaced, and the plutocracy begins. we would become a milder form of China.
I feel thats what the "Conservatives " really hope for. The co-equal branches of government would be eliminated in favor of a "mussolini style" strong man executive .

"Evidence of an activity that is not in any way wrongdoing is pretty pointless" , says Oralloy.

The Constitution is not silent on the limits of power TO THE PRESIDENT. He is also bound by the law.
Your problem ,Oralloy, is that you are believing that what Trump says is actual fact, and hes shown, time and time again that he rarely speaks out of his mouth. He is falsely emitting sounds of his belief in his grandioity of intelligence. As the information being considered as evidence against him suggests, he is really not that bright and that fact, coupled with his grand narcissism affliction, he has actually presented the best "Evidence against himself" .
When he went from "I didnt do it" to "So whats wrong wit dat ?" In a Constitutional arena, and he did it totally information-ally disarmed, we would all agree that he is acting quite a fool.

Nixon was political, so was Clinton . Both wre brought on charges of a cover up because the Constitution is rally SILENT on both their acts. NOT SO with Pres Trump. The Constitution, to repeat myself, is quite vocal about abuse of power.

We are going to be living in interesting times no matter hat the outcome.

Fascist states gradually destroy their constitutions as they arise. Hes tuning up the wrecking ball, yes he is.

Here's one of the many examples where oralloy can be shown to be wrong.

He agreed to authorize the payment of blackmail to the burglars (future Watergate defendants) on August 1st, 1972:

This is considered obstruction of justice and would have been sufficient evidence to bring charges even in the absence of his other abuses of power.

Conservatives and liberals alike voted to impeach Nixon. Only eleven senators would have likely opposed his conviction.