.

Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« 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 »
.

Yes, Shadow Minister, I had imagined that scenario and I gave it some thought. The problem is that in the case in hand, as I already indicated, while there was no tangible evidence of a partisan vote by the democrats against Donald Trump, the Republicans, for their part, clearly announced their intention to make a partisan vote in his favour.

The Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, declared that Trump would 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 – neither in relation to the House inquiry vote, nor in relation to the vote at the Senate trial.

But, as I already pointed-out, that does not mean that the Democrat vote was not also partial. Perhaps it was. Perhaps it wasn’t. We simply have no way of knowing. Numbers alone is not a significant indicator of partisan politics. A partisan vote is a vote in favour of perceived party interests as opposed to a free, conscience vote by each individual voter.

We have no way of knowing which of the two factors, conscience or party, was the motivator of their vote. Perhaps it was both.

Whatever the case, I see no logical reason why a free, conscience vote could not, on some particularly important issues, produce exactly the same number of votes, for either or both parties, as a purely partisan vote (the same or different).

As I see it, the Democrats voted freely or partisanly (or both) to indict Trump and the Republicans voted partisanly not to remove him from office (irrespective of his guilt or innocence of the charges brought against him by the Democrats).

.

Banjo,

Why are you trying to convince me that 2+2=5?

McConnell was merely stating the obvious, as had been stated in many op eds for months.

The definitive proof of democratic partisanship is their voting on the second article of impeachment where Trump was impeached for using entirely legal steps to protect legally privileged information.

You have convinced no one.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

I'm sorry if you thought I was trying to convince you of something.

As always, whatever the subject on this forum, I was expressing my argumented opinion as clearly and as comprehensibly as I am capable.

By bouncing my ideas and opinions off an interlocutor, it helps me to formulate them and adjust or modify them where necessary. Of course, the forum is also often a good source of information.

I have been frequenting this forum long enough to realise that nobody ever changes his or her opinion.

I think we have come to the end of the line on this one, Shadow Minister and, if you don't mind, I shall now sign off.

All the best,

.

Banjo,

To change anyone's opinion one needs to present a cogent argument, simply stating one's opinion never will.