Banjo,

That is a stupid example as anyone that was on a ship knew that the earth curved, and there is no underlying factor that would indicate that the impeachment was anything other than partisan on both sides.

That Bill Clinton committed a crime is not in dispute. That Trump abused his position is highly likely but unproven. That this was an all stakes impeachment that had zero chance of success was entirely due to the democrats trying to use this process to smear Trump.

That it failed miserably is also not in doubt.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« That is a stupid example as anyone that was on a ship knew that the earth curved, and there is no underlying factor that would indicate that the impeachment was anything other than partisan on both sides »
.

Here is an article on the belief that the earth was flat :

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Flat_Earth

Also, allow me to remind you, once again, that I already indicated many times that there is no evidence that the Democrat votes were partisan. Whereas, there is evidence that the Republican vote in the Senate was.

To save you looking it up, here it is again :

« The Republicans all voted against indictment – as one man. But not all Democrats voted in favour of indictment. Three voted against it. What does that signify ? That it was a partisan vote ? On the Republican side, perhaps. On the Democrat side, perhaps also – though there is no tangible evidence of a partisan vote by the Democrats.

How can we decide for sure if it was partisan or not ? Is it possible for a vote to be unanimous or quasi-unanimous without it being partisan ?

Yes, it can. Even in politics, votes can be unanimous without being partisan, e.g., in 2003, George W. Bush signed the Prison Rape Elimination Act, passed with unanimous “bipartisan” support. So if it is not the unanimity or quasi-unanimity of the vote that distinguishes partisanship (“partisanism” in the US), then what does ?

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

For the OED, the adjective “partisan” means “prejudiced in favour of a particular cause”. The Merriam-Webster adds : “… if you're accused of being too partisan, or of practicing partisan politics, it means you're mainly interested in boosting your own party and attacking the other one”.

In other words, expression of “political prejudice” can reveal partisan behaviour – in this case, partisan voting.

This is clearly the case in the voting intentions of the Republicans in the up-coming Senate trial. The Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, declared that Trump will be acquitted by the Republican-led Senate: "We will have a largely partisan outcome", he said and added :

« I'm not an impartial juror. This is a political process. There is not anything judicial about it. Impeachment is a political decision ».

There was no such declaration on the part of the Democrats in relation to the House inquiry vote – nor in relation to the up-coming Senate vote.

However, it’s not difficult to imagine that the Democrat vote in the House (where they hold a comfortable majority), in favour of indictment, was, perhaps, partly in reaction to the fact that Trump withheld documentary evidence and prevented key witnesses from testifying at the inquiry. This could only have had a negative effect on even the most impartial of voters.

Please correct me if I am wrong, Shadow Minister, but I honestly don’t think there is any tangible evidence of partisan voting by the Democrats – which, of course, does not mean that there wasn’t any, but simply that there is no evidence of it. »

.

Banjo,

That the democrats in the house and senate voted almost to a man to impeach and the republicans voted almost to a man against impeachment is as close to absolute proof as you will ever get. Virtually nothing goes through either chamber with the vote so clearly delineated along party lines.

If you chose to reject the incontrovertible evidence right in front of you, you are convincing no one either of your logic or ability to reason.

The end result of this show trial is that Trump's approval ratings have shot up and Pocahontas and Biden are crashing out, and the leading dem candidates are Sanders who will get thrashed by Trump and Buttgrabber who is the mayor of a one horse town.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« That the democrats in the house and senate voted almost to a man to impeach and the republicans voted almost to a man against impeachment is as close to absolute proof as you will ever get. Virtually nothing goes through either chamber with the vote so clearly delineated along party lines »

As I have argued and explained so many times, Shadow Minister – the truth of which you have never denied – numbers, even unanimity, alone, is not “proof” of partisan vote.

The fact that you are inclined to think that it is “proof” is no more than your own wishful thinking. It is simply a sign that it may, perhaps, be partisan vote. More precise information is required in order to determine if it is partisan vote or not.

I commend you, once more, to my previous detailed explanation.

.

Banjo,

The "proof" of the pudding is in the eating. 100% bipartisan would be where all parties vote exactly the same and 100% partisan would be where parties vote differently strictly according to party lines. However, it is not a binary option.

Given that 100% of republicans voted one way and 99% of democrats voted the other way, perhaps you would be happier if I said that the vote was 99% partisan?

However, it is clearly a long long way from being bipartisan.