Having voted for impeachment and having only boosted Trump's chances for re election, Pelosi and the democrats are faced with a catch 22 situation of their own making.

Does Pelosi send the articles of impeachment to the senate where the kangaroo court impeachment process is likely to be ridiculed and trump exonerated, or will she hang onto the articles of impeachment and face continuous ridicule from Trump who has some basis to claim that impeachment hasn't yet occurred due to the lack of faith by the democrats in their case.

In the United States, no president has ever been convicted in an impeachment proceeding, even if he was guilty. In 1998, Bill Clinton almost certainly committed at least two high crimes (perjury and obstruction of justice), but even he was acquitted. And that was with Republicans in control of the Senate. The idea that Donald Trump would be convicted on vague charges of ‘abuse of power’ by two-thirds of a Senate where his party controls an absolute majority is preposterous. Even Donald Trump isn’t that unpopular.

The Republican Senate will acquit him.

Donald Trump will be re-elected because of his success with the economy; he is always campaigning; he has the advantage of incumbency; and the quality of the Democrat candidates is very poor.

Shadow Minister time for a truth, you are my best combative verbal tennis player
I TRULY respect you because you get near the truth more than some.
Yes, the whole thing is useless, very very bad for democracy because the Republics have a verdict in hand.
No intention of letting witnesses be called
Know the outcome.
Yes, again Trump has every chance, of being reelected.
Now even you, I believe know Warren is the wrong person at any time, to lead pet dogs on their daily poo walk.
Berni's supporters too want a bloke who can not stand for one single hour without nearly dying, to tell us about his policies.
Biden, if he lives long enough, will be the candidate.
But Bernies lost left Warens just lost, supporters may vote Trump.
Just for spite
Time is against mad Donald, even the sleeping hill billy Americans wake up someday.
No country, not one, should ever consider the B Grade Movie America is AS WORTH COPYING, EVER

It appears that all lefties, but especially US democrats are so unhinged in their hate, [or is it fear], of Trump they will try ridiculous moves to attack him on less than any real evidence.

His huge success with the economy, employment & wage increases has them terrified at not only will he uncover their illegal activities, but will destroy the myth that the Democrats are the workers friend.

Their irrationality is destroying any credence they might still have had. A bunch of frazzled ratbags are not a good election prospect.

Hasbeen walk with me, think about your words.
See to me every time you use [miss use] the term lefty you give all the evidence needed, to claim you do not understand what you are talking about.
Let us swap sides, this is what I see in your words, true,
I see a determination to CLAIM all who are not right of reality are wrong, always.
That they waste the air they breathe.
Than ONLY THE SIDE THE AUTHOR OF THOSE WORDS IS ON, are ok, are worth feeding
That a shrinking pool of thought is the best outcome for humanity, no more bleeding lefties, even if no such lot ever existed, should exist
China has a plan, it like your view of OTHERS is getting close to demanding only one type of person should exist

Belly,

While I understand your feelings, the Democrat controlled impeachment process was a systematic abuse of the democratic process. The star chamber hearings of which many were in secret allowed hearsay evidence and excluded many of the witnesses the Republicans wished to call in a spectacle that if held in a normal trial court would have been thrown out almost immediately, that not a single Republican voted for the impeachment or even abstained shows that this was entirely a democratic hissy fit.

That this has been exposed repeatedly means that the impeachment process has seriously backfired to the point where Pelosi after rushing the impeachment is now holding back the articles in an attempt to control the senate trial.

This is becoming more of a circus every day.

all who are not right of reality are wrong, always.
Belly,
Right of reality ?? The reality is that so many have no sense of reality & that's the frightening part.
There's no left or right of reality, there's only left/right of centre. Reality is everything, good & bad. Reality is also that Left is negative & Right is positive just like a battery with dead flat cells being Left or partly charged being Centre. In economic & political management Left means social mayhem & Right means less social mayhem. So, if there where no Left there would be social harmon. But, the Left won't allow that because that would prove that they're wrong.
Being a Leftist means being anti harmony, an elitist accusing others being elitist !
This is particularly at trait of Academia.

probably the greatest abuse of power in history by the lying liberal media and the democrats. What a bunch of anti democratic sooks who just can't handle the deplorables not voting for the establishment. In just a couple of years Trump has exposed just how pathetic and corrupt the fbi, democrats and media are. Nancy actually prays for the president daily while heading off to planned parenthood meetings. You could not write a book on the hypocrisy, deceit and lies of the democrats. Instead of being humbled they keep digging in deeper and deeper. Idiotic networks like abc and cnn keep preaching to virtue signalling regressives but are being ignored by anyone half interested in truth and facts.

Dear Shadow Minister,

What absolute rot.

All the Democrats are saying is have a fair dinkum hearing. The Republicans don't want to call any witnesses, review any documents, nor have the President give evidence. This would be such a departure from what happened to Bill Clinton it rightly earns the phrase kangaroo court.

Pelosi is saying respect the process. If the president has done nothing wrong then it shouldn't be an issue.

However his impeachment is entirely valid and no one thinks he didn't do the things he is charged with unless they are mentally challenged.

The Republicans are running cared and rightly so. Pelosi is doing a great job of holding them to account.

Dear runner,

The bulge in your pants you get when defending your president is now an embarrassment. Time to tone it down a notch and gather yourself. Very unbecoming.

Shadow Minister I understand your view and disagree totally.
Yes, it was and is a sideshow, after all that is what Americas is a circus sideshow, B Grade Movie, not closely related to truth.
Its electorial system is a product of all that.
But Trump's crimes/mistakes/lack of concern for truth/judgment, are all real.
Only in America could such a man get elected.
Do not look for better, not yet, it takes a generation to turn a mess like this around
Out there now, a kid the age of that much-hated climate change Girl, will one day truly honestly bring about true honest reform.
Or America will be just a victim of generations that bred truth out of its politics

Steelredux others are far further from the truth
Shadow Minister is unlikely to ever find a non-conservative did any wrong, even with the knife in his hand
Others are trapped under a massive heap of FAKE NEWS FAKE VIEWS and no longer understand the truth is their team invented it
Use it and are often unaware they too no longer know truth from lie

Again I see some ignorant posters here who have not watched the trial, just read the leftist media. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=O4b44dOyrVk
The Democrats try to seek anything that might suggest crime from the day of election.

Donald Trump has an IQ of 145 the highest of any American President. It
gives him the ability to succeed over the low life and makes them most afraid. Democrat Jeff Van Drew has left the Party to join the Republicans because of injustice; and three Democrats Jared Golden, Tulsi Gabbard, Colin Peterson voted against impeachment. These Democrats heard the sham accusations and could see there was no evidence of crime.
ihttp://time.com/5753135/trump-jeff-van-drew-republican/

SR,

I am glad that you admit that the congressional impeachment process by blocking republican witnesses was a kangaroo court. As the impeachment process does not actually require any evidence, the impeachment itself was "valid".

However, the congress does not any power over the senate trial and is perfectly entitled to base the judgement on the articles of impeachment and the evidence presented. Pelosi's attempt to try and control it by forcing it to call additional witnesses shows emphatically that Pelosi knows that the evidence generated by the enquiries is not worth a pinch of bullcrap.

Anyone that thinks that the hearsay evidence presented by a "prosecution" controlled selection of witnesses would not be thrown out of any normal court is mentally retarded.

The fact that the proceeding of the impeachment happen behind closed doors is a red flag. (Though potentially justifiable if it's national security issues. I don't think these impeachment accusations qualify). The next red flag is not following through giving the process directly to the senate to delegate through as well.

What happens next will show how corrupt the system is and if there are real safeguards against that corruption.

Belly,

As both you and SR believed that Trump was guilty before any evidence was produced forgive me if I don't give it any weight.

The impeachment process is meant to be a "trial" of the president for high crimes and misdemeanours, which means that:

1- The rules of evidence need to be followed, and any opinion, hearsay or conjecture are not only inadmissible but its admission into the process creates grounds for a mistrial,
2- The president has the right to cross examine any evidence meaning that secret witnesses and depositions are not admissible
3- The president has the right to call any witnesses relevant to his defence.

In breaking every one of these cardinal rules not only have the democrats made their impeachment a complete joke, but in failing to get even one republican to accept their case, this has all the markings of a political lynch mob.

Being called a liar by professional liars does not automatically make a liar !

'Dear runner,

The bulge in your pants you get when defending your president is now an embarrassment. Time to tone it down a notch and gather yourself. Very unbecoming.'

typical regressive grubby comments from a mob bereft of any answers or decency.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You wrote;

“I am glad that you admit that the congressional impeachment process by blocking republican witnesses was a kangaroo court.”

I obviously didn't and I don't, so stop being so slippery mate. Attempting to call Joe Biden's son as a 'Republican' witness was hamfisted and plain stupid.

The senate now trying to exclude any witnesses which are central to the case but prejudicial to Trump is utterly contemptable and it is being rightly condemned even by select Republican senators.

And are you really that idiotic to think that the message to suspend aid to Ukraine being delivered just 90 minutes after Trump's call was purely a coincidence?

Stop trying to obfuscate on this. He did it, we all know he did it, it is just whether it warrants his removal.

Dear runner,

You make out that you are an Australian but I do not know a single Aussie who would so prostitute themselves over a foreign nation's leader. Your lip-pucking love for your president borders on treason. Why the hell do you take it so far? We normally only see behaviour like this from those worshiping someone like Jesus. News flash mate - Trump is not Jesus.

Belly, "Hasbeen walk with me, think about your words.
See to me every time you use [miss use] the term lefty you give all the evidence needed, to claim you do not understand what you are talking about"

Now Belly just what do you think I don't understand.

It is totally obvious that anyone on the left hates [fears] Trump. There is no question about it. The Democrats have been desperately trying to find something, anything they could pin on Trump, & have come up with zero, zilch. We could almost use hatred of Trump as defining who is a lefty.

That does not stop them trying. It probably does prove that Trump is the cleanest president, ever. You call him petty names which diminishes you not Trump, then try to tell me I don't understand. The problem is I understand too well, & so do far too many yanks for the lefties liking, hence these witch hunts. Using the full resources of the FBI & justice department they still got nothing.

Irrational hatred can do great harm, particularly to the hater, & it is destroying the Democrats, & their fellow travelers. Just look at the ratbag policies of much of the democrats & this is totally obvious.

SR,

In any "trial" the defense is entitled to call anyone relevant to their case, and as the call Trump made for which he is on "trial" was about the Bidens, calling Joe and Hunter Biden is entirely within his rights and blocking the calling of these witnesses made the congressional impeachment as much of a kangaroo court as you claimed the senate trial would be.

In the same thread, the senate is entitled to call both both Bidens, the whistleblower, Adam Schiff and pretty much anyone else.

Secondly, if the evidence and witnesses brought forward in the impeachment produced evidence so damning that the case was a slam dunk (as you claimed that anyone that thought otherwise was retarded) and impeachment was urgently needed to remove Trump,then calling additional witnesses would be pointless, and a waste of the senate's valuable time.

Either way the left whinge democrats are left logically twisting in the wind.

Either way the left whinge democrats are left logically twisting in the wind.
Shadow Minister,
We have the exact same problem here !

.

As I understand it, the House of Representatives majority leader, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are satisfied that Donald Trump will go down in history as having been impeached by the House of Representatives of the United States.

Pelosi declared that the black mark of impeachment on Trump’s record will not be erased – despite the declaration by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that Trump will be acquitted by the Republican-led Senate: "We will have a largely partisan outcome", he said.

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

So there you have it : in the eyes of the Republican, Mitch McConnell, the up-coming Senate trial of the President of the United States has nothing to do with justice. No need for impartiality. It is simply a question of partisan politics.

It appears that the elaborate mechanism of checks and balances written into the American Constitution by the founding fathers of the world’s leading democracy is not as water-tight as they imagined : it is open to interpretation.

If that proves to be the case, then representative democracy is clinically dead. And the artificial life-sustaining mechanism that allows it to suvive will be switched off definitively sometime in January.

With best wishes to all for a happy and successful Year, 2020.

.

Banjo,

Congress made this impeachment a mockery by running it as a partisan star chamber / kangaroo court where the democrats have been calling for impeachment since Trump was elected and didn't manage to convince all their own party let alone not a single republican.

The "stain" on Trump's reputation will have all the impact of being slapped with wet lettuce and Trump may even end up wearing it like a badge of honour.

Banjo,

From the wall street journal:

https://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/the-wall-street-journal/us-speaker-nancy-pelosi-delivers-democrat-base-a-circus/news-story/dc1536e22c7a4335f98bb22d01a06200

"Speaker Nancy Pelosi now insists she won’t send the impeachment articles to the Senate until its majority leader, Mitch McConnell, agrees to her conditions for Trump’s trial. She’s threatening to raise the acrimony to a new level...Article one gives the house “the sole power of impeachment” and the Senate “the sole power to try all impeachments.” By attempting to prevent the process from proceeding unless McConnell acquiesces to her demands for additional witnesses and documents, Pelosi is attempting to intrude on the Senate’s constitutional prerogatives and create a role for herself in the trial that the Founders didn’t intend.

Pelosi presumes to be the arbiter of whether the Senate has a “fair process.” She told reporters: “So far, we haven’t seen anything that looks fair to us.” This is more than an invitation to McConnell to hear her out — it’s a demand that he clear his plans with her before proceeding. She imagines herself as Ulysses S. Grant at Fort Donelson in February 1862, and while McConnell is a Kentuckian like Simon Bolivar Buckner, his position is stronger than that of the surrounded Confederate general — strong enough to beat back Pelosi’s demand of unconditional surrender."

I wonder if the venom charged Pelosi & her leftist cohorts ever gives a single thought how many resources are withheld from really needy people just because of her insane jealousy is wasting millions if not billions.
I hope there's a clause in Australia's Constitution that prevents such insanity at the expense of its Citizens !
Or, is that only possible in a Republic ?

I am just wondering about the IQ of people who think that voting for a racist, self-confessed rapist white privileged male who inhered all his wealth is going to act in the interests of ordinary people?how does that work

Rob H, It is a pity you cannot act intelligently and post debate. You demonstrate your hostility and racist bigotry in your post, so beware of pointing the finger. Being President does not identify skin colour, which you seem to hate. President Trump has done more for Afro-Americans than any President in the last 20 years. Their employment rates http://www.whitehouse.gov/briefings-statements/americans-backgrounds-experiencing-economic-success-trump-economy/

http://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2019/nov/08/donald-trump-black-voices-african-american-voters

Rob H, when you can take the position of President of the Greatest economy of the World and decide not take a cent of taxpayer taxes as income, then you might just be intelligent enough to have earned your wealth. When you look at Kennedy and Clinton who had sexual affairs I suppose that is Ok with you as they hid it or lied about it to Congress.

Debate why Trump should or should not be impeached as their personal affairs are not the discussion here.

Rob H,

Trump is definitely the weirdest president in American history.

But presidents come and go. What really determines outcomes is the American political culture which in itself is tied to historical circumstance and international externalities that wax and wane across the Republican-Democrat divide. To understand what is unfolding one should look to what is happening at the ideological levels driven by historical Republican and Democratic underpinnings.

Maybe it's time you caught up on de Tocqueville's Democracy In America, if you haven't already read it.

You write;

“Either way the left whinge democrats are left logically twisting in the wind.”

What? Don't be an idiot. One only needs to read the absolute fury in Trump's tweets to know the Democrats are very much calling the shots here.

As to witnesses I would absolutely love to see Rudi be forced to give evidence in front of the Senate. So far Trump has refused to let any of those who work him to testify which makes the who process a farce.

But I don't have any idea why you have so much invested in this cretin. Perhaps you could enlighten us.

Dear Josephus,

You write;

“Donald Trump has an IQ of 145 the highest of any American President.”

Absolute bulldust.

Trump has never released a IQ figure so you most certainly are pulling this out of your arse.

SR, Scores taken from his school days.
http://www.iq-test.net/Donald-Trumps-IQ-Score-pms19.html

Josephus, did you read the document you linked to? Trump's test results are not on record, and Trump was a transfer student so the very high entry requirements did not apply to him.

Dear Josephus,

I'm tickled pink you linked to that particular meme. It was completely debunked by Snopes.

http://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trumps-intelligence-quotient/

But further than that it reveals much about your own intelligence. My God mate, how on earth have you read that article without a single drop of comprehension or critique?

Are you really that lacking in normative intelligence that not a single red flag came up?

I thought runner was the most enamoured of OLO posters toward Trump. Now I am not so sure. You fetish for the orange buffoon is on that kind of level.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

Article 1, Section 3 of the JUS Constitution states :

« The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments. When sitting for that purpose, they shall be on oath or affirmation. When the President of the United States is tried, the Chief Justice shall preside: And no person shall be convicted without the concurrence of two thirds of the members present.

Judgment in cases of impeachment shall not extend further than to removal from office, and disqualification to hold and enjoy any office of honor, trust or profit under the United States: but the party convicted shall nevertheless be liable and subject to indictment, trial, judgment and punishment, according to law. »

Article 2, Section 4 states :

« The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors. »

The incumbent Chief Justice is John Roberts who was appointed by George W. Bush in 2005. Roberts is one of 14 Catholic justices—out of 114 justices—in the history of the Supreme Court.

In November 2018, the Associated Press approached Roberts for comment after President Donald Trump described a jurist who ruled against his asylum policy as an "Obama judge". In response, Roberts asserted that "We do not have Obama judges or Trump judges, Bush judges or Clinton judges. What we have is an extraordinary group of dedicated judges doing their level best to do equal right to those appearing before them." Robert's remarks were widely interpreted as a rebuke of President Trump's comments.

And, as I am sure you are aware, only Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton were impeached in 1868 and 1999 respectively but were acquitted by the Senate and both served out the rest of their terms. Donald Trump was impeached by the House of Representatives in 2019.

So far, no president has ever been removed from office through impeachment. Richard Nixon arguably came the closest, but he resigned midway through the impeachment process.

.

.

Dear Armchair Critic,

.

Here is Trump’s approval index history as per Rasmussen Reports :

46% approve – 53% disapprove (as at 27/12/2019) :

http://www.rasmussenreports.com/public_content/politics/trump_administration/trump_approval_index_history
.

A CNN poll back in September 2019 found that 47% of Americans approved of the impeachment of President Trump – including an increasing number of republicans, especially young republicans :

http://www.realclearpolitics.com/video/2019/09/30/cnn_poll_47_of_americans_now_support_impeachment_removal_of_president_trump.html
.

Despite all that, it seems the Republican Senators are deeply committed to defending Trump, no matter what he does.

He certainly does not leave anybody indifferent. Either one is for him or against him. He is undoubtedly the most divisive president the United States has ever had.

His style and method probably have as much to do with it as his politics. He is like a bull in a china shop – uncouth, rude, ill-mannered and vulgar – like a typical lower-class American from the Midwest. To cap it all off, he is a narcissistic megalomaniac who lies constantly, flagrantly and blatantly, without the slightest qualm – and accuses everybody else of doing the same. He is the champion of "fake news".

On the political side, he takes the money from badly needed social support for the poor, the sick, the handicapped, the uninsured, the uneducated and the homeless and uses it for increased military clout and for building a “Great Wall of China” along the Mexican border.

It is partly because he overturns the tables of the politically correct that much of Middle-Class-America applauds him and it is partly for that very same reason that the rest of America despises him.

.

.

Sorry, that was meant for Shadow Minister ... !

.

Banjo,

I am fully aware that "The Senate shall have the sole power to try all impeachments." This point seems to have escaped Pelosi and the democrats. However, the impeachment process has virtually no restrictions and requires a simple majority, and a hands the articles of impeachment (like an indictment) to the senate to try the impeachment.

What is clear is that the impeachment process has been blatantly partisan, procedurally biased and one sided and almost entirely based on hearsay.

It is also clear that your distaste for Trump as a person and his policies is your prime motivator for impeaching him which is synched with just about every left whinger.

The impeachment was raced through the congress giving republicans virtually no chance to debate because of its urgency, yet Pelosi is holding onto the articles because she knows that not only will it not succeed in the senate, but the judgement will excoriate the entire impeachment process. The longer she obstructs the senate, the more the democrats hypocrisy will be on display.

SR,
http://www.snopes.com/fact-check/donald-trump-nyma-iq/
Snopes: A document discovered in May 2019 reveals that Donald Trump's IQ was measured at 73 during his high school years.

False
Meme
Trump IQ test results discovered in former NYMA employee’s closet.
The result: 73
The results of an IQ test that President Donald Trump allegedly took during his first year at New York Military Academy have been discovered in a file box in a closet in Brooklyn. According to the test results, Trump’s IQ is 73.
The document, currently in the process of being authenticated, was discovered Thursday by William Askew, Jr. as he was cleaning out his late father’s apartment.
“Dad was the school counsellor at NYMA from 1955 to 1985. He didn’t administer these tests, but he was in charge of collecting them and sending them to the grading office,” said Askew.
Askew produced additional documents and photographs that confirm his father was indeed employed as school counsellor at NYMA at the same time Trump attended the military prep school.
“I don’t think this should be news to anybody,” said Askew. “The guy’s clearly a total moron.”

While we aren’t entirely sure where this story originated, we turned up no mention of it on any credible news website. In fact, we couldn’t find the story published anywhere. The only version that appears to exist is the image version shown above. In other words, it appears that this story was fabricated specifically for the creation of this meme.
Furthermore, the images included in the fake clipping do not show a man by the name of “William Askew Jr.” or Askew’s late father, who was supposedly Trump’s former school counsellor.
The photograph claimed to be that of Askew Jr. was taken from a stock photography website:

The democrats have belatedly realised that any impeachment process in the senate will open up a whole bunch of them to examination & cross examination, which many of them will not survive as politicians.

If there is any justice, it will put a few of them behind bars, so many are now running very scared. They have realised their past can not stand the scrutiny it will be subjected to if the impeachment goes to the senate.

Dear Josephus,

Glad to see you are utilising Snopes. Pretty good isn't it.

For the record I don't think Trump has an IQ of 73 either. However he sure as hell ain't in the league of the more intelligent presidents, Obama included.

Dear Hasbeen,

Rubbish. I should ask the question though, for a proper process should the democrats be able to have Rudi, one of the central figures in this, testify at the impeachment proceedings?

Banjo,

I am aware of what is in the US constitution, and don't believe that it contradicts anything I have said so far or indicates why Pelosi thinks she can or should influence the senate trial?

Secondly, I think that you will find the polls have swung significantly.

SR, Joe,

A standard tactic of the left whingers is to claim that every conservative is stupid. On OLO after claiming that Abbott was an idiot, they couldn't explain how he came to be a Rhodes scholar. Since then every left whinge psychologist has diagnosed Trump for a range of mental illnesses without ever having met him.

As for IQ, any level below 80 would be barely functional, so yet another left whinge feeble smear attempt. However, given that he accepted into and qualified in economics from a prestigious university would indicate statistically that his IQ was > 130. Good but not stellar. (top 2.5%) That he made $bns and won an unwinnable election to be president would indicate that it was higher than just 130, but 156 would certainly be a stretch.

Obama would certainly be smarter, but then IQ is not the sole predictor of performance.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

1. « What is clear is that the impeachment process has been blatantly partisan, procedurally biased and one sided and almost entirely based on hearsay »

The procedure in the House of Representatives was not just blatant partisanry. It included the presentation of documentary evidence as well as testimony under oath of a certain number of witnesses.

However, it would be naïve to consider that the procedure was not tainted by partisanry. This was probably due to Trump forbidding his staff, assistants, advisers, and other key witnesses from testifying. The President himself was also invited to testify but declined the invitation.

The refusal of all these important eye-witness Republican figures to participate in the impeachment inquiry no doubt gave the impression that it was, as you observe, “procedurally biased”.

It could well be for the same reason that you also have the impression that the impeachment process was “almost entirely based on hearsay”. Perhaps you would be kind enough to indicate what exactly it is that you consider to be “hearsay”.

2. « It is also clear that your distaste for Trump as a person and his policies is your prime motivator for impeaching him which is synched with just about every left whinger »
.

Trump is certainly not the sort of person I admire, but I have nothing against him personally and have no problem accepting him as the perfectly legitimate, democratically elected President of the United States.

You are wrong in thinking that I “impeached him”. I am not a member of the House of Representatives of the United States and had nothing to do with it.

Had I been a member I would have voted on the basis of the evidence and on that alone. If I considered it was insufficient, I would have voted against impeachment not for it – even if it meant my exclusion from whatever party I represented. The inverse is equally true.

Also, I have nothing against “left whingers” nor “right whingers”. Both probably consider they have good reason to be “whingers”.

.

Why do ignorant queers misuse the term IQ ?

Dear individual,

Josephus' life style should not be your concern however I will agree an ignorance of what someone's IQ entails is very evident.

Dear Shadow Minister,

You assert;

"A standard tactic of the left whingers is to claim that every conservative is stupid."

No one claimed that here and it was a right winger who raised it in the first place so I could just as easily say it is a standard tactic of them to inflate the IQ of their heroes.

The fact that Trump mentions his IQ often, without ever giving an independent determination of it, speak volumes to his insecurities on the topic.

All I did was dismantle Josephus' sources which I think I did pretty effectively.

I don't understand why people put so much importance on IQ ratings.

I'd much rather speak to someone with an IQ of 100 and four degrees in different fields than speak to someone with an IQ of 200 and no degrees.

SR,

I wasn't just referring to this thread. It was frequent earlier on OLO and is still a common feature in the left whinge media.

Banjo,

It is standard court / senate / congressional procedure for subpoenas for witnesses to challenged if the prosecution or defence believe that the information the witnesses have is privileged. It is upto the "court" to challenge this decision through the courts.

That the congress failed to pursue these subpoenas was entirely their decision.

However, the admission of hearsay evidence any court would be instant grounds for a mistrial, as would the "secret star chamber" depositions and the refusal to call witnesses for the defense.

My assertion is that the democrats were calling for Trump's impeachment from the day he won the election and that ever since obtaining a majority in the congress have engaged in a series of fishing expeditions.

Given the Republican senate majority, the only chance of removing Trump was to convince a significant number of republicans to vote against him, as the flimsy evidence was unlikely to do so, Pelosi and Schiff then attempted to use the process to smear Trump.

However, in doing so tossed any pretense of procedural fairness out the window which was a godsend to the republicans who used this to continually cane the democrats and paint them as essentially corrupting the process which has left the democrats more damaged than Trump.

Which brings me back to my first post where Pelosi is faced with catch 22 where delivering the articles of impeachment to senate is almost certain to be returned with a withering indictment on the articles, whereas holding onto the articles will result in continually mockery and damage all the way to the next presidential and congressional elections.

I'd much rather speak to someone with an IQ of 100 and four degrees in different fields than speak to someone with an IQ of 200 and no degrees.
Mr Opinion ,
Much has been achieved throughout history by people with an IQ of 100 & no degrees & many of these achievements have been ruined & sabotaged to a severe degree by people with an IQ of 200 & multiple degrees !

Dear individual,

You pontificated; "Much has been achieved throughout history by people with an IQ of 100 & no degrees & many of these achievements have been ruined & sabotaged to a severe degree by people with an IQ of 200 & multiple degrees !"

Name one.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

1. « My assertion is that the democrats were calling for Trump's impeachment from the day he won the election and that ever since obtaining a majority in the congress have engaged in a series of fishing expeditions »

I suspect that that’s because some of his opponents – not just among the Democrats, but perhaps a few Republicans as well – had an intimate knowledge of Donald Trump as a person, as well as his business methods and track record.

If, for example, Shadow Minister, you happened to know that somebody was a felon and a shyster (though I’m not suggesting that that is the case of Donald Trump), I could understand any reaction you might have to the election of that person as President of the United States.

Knowing that the person in question was probably up to no good, it would be only natural for you to be constantly on the alert, waiting for his first false move. Perhaps that was the case of some of the members of Congress in their attitude towards Donald Trump.

That said, closely surveying every move of the President of the United States and keeping an eye open for possible (if not probable) misdemeanours is by no means reprehensible. Quite the contrary. It is precisely the role of the congress whose duty it is to instigate the impeachment process as stipulated in the constitution as part of the mechanism of checks and balances established by the founding fathers.

2. « Given the Republican senate majority, the only chance of removing Trump was to convince a significant number of republicans to vote against him, as the flimsy evidence was unlikely to do so, Pelosi and Schiff then attempted to use the process to smear Trump »

If, indeed, the evidence was “flimsy” as you suggest, it was probably due to Trump forbidding his staff, assistants, advisers, and other key witnesses from testifying, in addition to refusing to release relevant documents and testifying himself.

Best to await the final outcome before drawing any conclusions.

.

SR, I see you congratulate yourself for using Snopes and supposedly destroying my suggestion Trump's IQ of 145. Snopes made no claim of any level of his IQ. His ability is the reason for his success and no Democrat comes near his ability or achievement. He has two degrees in business, but degrees do not define ability, his achievements in the field define his ability. Is He a successful business man is the point which demonstrates ability?

Banjo,

To a large extend I don't disagree with you. I don't believe that Trump is a good person and I would not have voted for him (moot point). However, I also could not stomach voting for Hillary Clinton either.

That the democrats have been out to impeach him from his election is no secret and has painted the congressional impeachment process as more a vendetta than constitutional duty. That the impeachment was rushed though ignoring any procedural fairness or laws of evidence and did not garner a single republican vote essentially sunk any last chance in the senate.

The concept of privileged information is the basis upon which a defendant's lawyer cannot be subpoenaed to testify against him. That Trump is using the justice system to block those close to him testifying makes the democrats charge of obstruction farcical.

If the democrats had followed normal procedures and challenged the subpoenas through the courts they would not be in the quandary they find themselves today where the excrement they have been flinging has largely stuck to them.

http://www.com/conservativepoliticstoday/videos/2321892657916557/?t=556
base of a speech in Congress.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« If the democrats had followed normal procedures and challenged the subpoenas through the courts, they would not be in the quandary they find themselves today … »
.

What their strategy was is anybody’s guess. Future developments may shed some light on it.

What we do know is that Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, sent a letter to Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell dated December 15, 2019 calling for at least four witnesses to testify in the Senate impeachment trial – including : acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney, former national security adviser John Bolton, senior adviser to the acting White House chief of staff Robert Blair and Office of Management and Budget official Michael Duffey. Here is the full text of the letter :

http://edition.cnn.com/2019/12/15/politics/schumer-impeachment-trial-letter/index.html
.

We shall just have to wait and see what the result of that will be.

.

Banjo,

The senate trial is entirely up to the majority leader. I would imagine that if he were to call witnesses he would also include Joe and Hunter Biden, Adam Schiff, the whistleblower etc.

Noting that the majority democrats excluded republican witnesses and republicans from the secret hearings, I don't see any moral authority from the democrats for the senate to compromise.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

1. « The senate trial is entirely up to the majority leader. I would imagine that if he were to call witnesses, he would also include Joe and Hunter Biden, Adam Schiff, the whistle-blower etc »
.

I don’t know what the Bidens and Schiff could be witness to as regards the House of Representatives’ impeachment inquiry on Trump attempting to recruit the assistance of the Ukrainian President Volodymyr Zelensky by telephone on July 25, 2019 to discredit the Bidens in the lead-up to the US presidential election.

Please correct me if I am wrong, but I don’t think they ever had any knowledge of that telephone call until the “whistle-blower” revealed it.

However, if there is any contribution they could make to help reveal the truth, on this or any other matter pertinent to the trial, of course, they should be called as witnesses.
.

2. « Noting that the majority democrats excluded republican witnesses and republicans from the secret hearings, I don't see any moral authority from the democrats for the senate to compromise »

That’s strange. I did not note that. The House of Representatives Report indicates :

« The investigation revealed the nature and extent of the President’s misconduct, notwithstanding an unprecedented campaign of obstruction by the President and his Administration to prevent the Committees from obtaining documentary evidence and testimony. A dozen witnesses followed President Trump’s orders, defying voluntary requests and lawful subpoenas, and refusing to testify. The White House, Department of State, Department of Defense, Office of Management and Budget, and Department of Energy refused to produce a single document in response to our subpoenas.

Ultimately, this sweeping effort to stonewall the House of Representatives’ “sole Power of Impeachment” under the Constitution failed because witnesses courageously came forward and testified in response to lawful process. The report that follows was only possible because of their sense of duty and devotion to their country and its Constitution. »

Would you kindly indicate the source of your statement that “the majority democrats excluded republican witnesses” ?

.

Republicans were not allowed to cross examine the supposed whistle-blower under Democrats ruling. So it was natural that Republican witnesses refused, because it was a kangaroo court, not a court of justice.
http://www.aljazeera.com/news/2019/12/trump-impeachment-republicans-ruling-witnesses-trial-191223164940895.html

.

Dear Josephus,

.

You wrote :

« Republicans were not allowed to cross examine the supposed whistle-blower under Democrats ruling. So it was natural that Republican witnesses refused, because it was a kangaroo court, not a court of justice »
.

It was not quite as simple as that, Josephus. President Trump, the accused, as well as his legal advisors and the Republican members of Congress, would, effectively, have had the right to cross-examine the president’s accuser had he or she not received the benefit of both federal whistle-blower laws and the Privacy Act of 1974 that protect the individual’s anonymity within the executive branch.

This is fairly well laid out in the following article that appeared in “The Hill” dated 2 November 2019 :

http://thehill.com/homenews/house/468631-gop-argues-whistleblowers-name-must-be-public
.

The U.S. Court of Appeals for the District of Columbia Circuit, also affirmed in its July 26, 2019, unanimous ruling the right of a whistle-blower to remain anonymous :

http://www.kkc.com/news/appeals-court-affirms-whistleblowers-right-to-anonymity/

.

Banjo,

The Bidens are neck deep in the purpose why the call was made and as such are legitimate witnesses, and if they are as innocent as they claim, then they have nothing to fear, and why did the democrats block them as witnesses in the house impeachment process?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/news/politics/2019/11/10/republicans-want-hunter-biden-impeachment-testimony/2554571001/

Similarly, it also it is fundamental to any "trial" that evidence presented be able to be cross examined, and that procedures exist for cross examining confidential witnesses. In the cases where confidential witnesses fail to give testimony their evidence is inadmissible.

However, if as the house democrats insist, that the evidence from the house impeachment is overwhelming, (which they used to justify a rapid vote on the impeachment), then only rational to call further witnesses in the senate trial is to perpetuate the congressional circus.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« The Bidens are neck deep in the purpose why the call was made and as such are legitimate witnesses, and if they are as innocent as they claim, then they have nothing to fear, and why did the democrats block them as witnesses in the house impeachment process? »
.

The first article, “Abuse of Power”, of the impeachment resolution voted by the House of Representatives states :

« Using the powers of his high office, President Trump solicited the interference of a foreign government, Ukraine, in the 2020 United States Presidential election. He did so through a scheme or course of conduct that included soliciting the Government of Ukraine to publicly announce investigations that would benefit his re-election, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 Presidential election to his advantage. President Trump also sought to pressure the Government of Ukraine to take these steps by conditioning official United States Government acts of significant value to Ukraine on its public announcement of the investigations. President Trump engaged in this scheme or course of conduct for corrupt purposes in pursuit of personal political benefit. In so doing, President Trump used the Powers of the Presidency in a manner that compromised the national security of the United States and undermined the integrity of the United States democratic process. He thus ignored and injured the interests of the Nation. »

The political opponent, former Vice President of the United States, Jo Biden, was, of course, totally unaware of the alleged behind-the-scenes scheming of Donald Trump and obviously played no part in them.

If, indeed, they did take place, and the President of Ukraine had accepted the quid pro quo, the Bidens, father and son, would have simply been the unsuspecting victims.

Trump subsequently denied the attempted quid pro quo that was revealed by the whistle-blower.

The Bidens were not witnesses to this affair. I they did anything illegal they should be brought before the appropriate criminal courts. They had nothing to contribute to Trump’s impeachment inquiry.

.

Banjo,

Perhaps you could refrain from democratic talking points and seriously consider the following.

Joe Biden withheld aid from Ukraine to purportedly force Ukraine to act against a corrupt prosecutor. This in itself shows that using quid pro quo in itself is not illegal and the focus is on the motivation.

That Biden took this action against a prosecutor that had an open investigation against a company that had his son in a highly paid position for which he was not qualified is a clear conflict of interest.

That Trump was asking Ukraine to investigate this possible act of corruption would be entirely legal with the exception of a possible conflict of interest. Calling Joe and Hunter Biden as witnesses is clearly relevant to Trump's defense.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« Perhaps you could refrain from democratic talking points and seriously consider the following »
.

I was not quoting “democratic talking points”. I was quoting the Report of the House of Representatives of the United States of America on the Impeachment of President Donald Trump.

The House of Representatives represents all Americans, not just Democrats. Its members were democratically elected throughout the country by the citizens of whom, according to the latest Gallup poll (2019 Dec 2-15), 41% consider that they are Independent, 28% Republican, and 28% Democrat.
.

« Joe Biden withheld aid from Ukraine to purportedly force Ukraine to act against a corrupt prosecutor … that had an open investigation against a company that had his son in a highly paid position for which he was not qualified is a clear conflict of interest.

That Trump was asking Ukraine to investigate this possible act of corruption would be entirely legal with the exception of a possible conflict of interest. Calling Joe and Hunter Biden as witnesses is clearly relevant to Trump's defense.»

The debate on this has been going on for a couple of years now. But there has never been any evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens, father and son. As I indicated in my previous post, if they did do anything reprehensible or illegal, they should be brought before the appropriate criminal courts – in Ukraine and in the United States.

Trump and his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani, ex-Mayor of New York and ex-Associate Attorney General of the United States, have done everything possible to investigate the Bidens. Giuliani made several trips to Ukraine meeting the president, Volodymyr Zelensky, as well as various officials including Ukraine's chief prosecutor Yuriy Lutsenko (ten times) who said he told Giuliani he found no evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens.

Logically, they will be on the top of the list of witnesses to be subpoenaed by the Republicans to testify at the up-coming impeachment trial in the Senate.

They are, as you say, “clearly relevant to Trump's defense” !

.

Banjo,

"I was not quoting “democratic talking points”. I was quoting the Report of the House of Representatives of the United States of America on the Impeachment of President Donald Trump."

Literally a democrat partisan political document without the contribution of a single republican.

"The House of Representatives represents all Americans, not just Democrats." Bollocks the house is firmly controlled by the democrats with their majority.

"The debate on this has been going on for a couple of years now. But there has never been any evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens, father and son. As I indicated in my previous post, if they did do anything reprehensible or illegal, they should be brought before the appropriate criminal courts – in Ukraine and in the United States."

So Trump is justified in investigating them?

If Giuliani and others could not investigate the Bidens fully due to lack of access, your argument for them to be witnesses is weak.

Given the democrat declaration that the evidence produced by the house is overwhelming, there is no need to call further witnesses.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« "The House of Representatives represents all Americans, not just Democrats." Bollocks the house is firmly controlled by the democrats with their majority. »
.

That’s correct, Shadow Minister. The sad reality is that in the United States, as elsewhere in the world where it exists, “representative democracy” has long been hi-jacked by the political parties – for their own benefit as well as for the benefit of the elite oligarchy that controls and influences them.

As you rightly point out, the elected representatives in both the House and the Senate do not represent the citizens of the United States as they are supposed to. Instead, they represent their own political parties and elite oligarchies : powerful private individuals, corporations and organisations (including religious organisations) on whom they depend and to whom they are held accountable. The elected representatives are just puppets on a string.

The ruling elite operates behind the façade of our democratic institutions in complete impunity. Our representative democracy is, in reality, an oligarchy, a largely invisible oligarchy that we neither choose nor know anything about.

As I indicated in my previous post, according to the latest Gallup poll, in the United States 41% of respondents declare that they are Independent, 28% Republican, and 28% Democrat. What this means is that whoever happens to be in power, Democrats or Republicans, there are always 72% of Americans who are not represented by anybody.
.

Apart from that, you ask if Trump is justified in investigating the Bidens. I doubt it, but that’s his business. Apparently, he has targeted the father, Joe Biden, as his principal opponent in the run-up to the 2020 presidential election and is waging a vendetta against him.

Knowing Trump as we do now, the fact that there is no evidence of any wrongdoing on the part of the Bidens is not a problem.

That is why I expect that the Bidens will be on the top of the list of witnesses to be subpoenaed to testify at the impeachment trial in the Senate.

.

Banjo,

The impeachment process has been a partisan effort by the democrats to smear Trump sufficiently to ensure that he does not win the next election.

The next part of the process will go to the republican controlled senate who are so disgusted with the corrupt handling of the process by the democrats, that the republicans are certain to not only not convict Trump but exonerate him and excoriate the articles of impeachment.

Trump would like the Bidens on the stand as Joe is unlikely to walk away not looking corrupt which will sabotage his chances in November. However, I believe that the senate will simply call no witnesses and kill the process.

However, I do not share your complete cynicism of the democratic process just of the politicians.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

1. « The impeachment process has been a partisan effort by the democrats to smear Trump sufficiently to ensure that he does not win the next election. »

I commented on this in my post on page 4 of this thread :

« As I understand it, the House of Representatives majority leader, Nancy Pelosi and the Democrats are satisfied that Donald Trump will go down in history as having been impeached by the House of Representatives of the United States. »
.

2. « The next part of the process will go to the republican controlled senate who are so disgusted with the corrupt handling of the process by the democrats, that the republicans are certain to not only not convict Trump but exonerate him and excoriate the articles of impeachment. »

In the same post (page 4), I continued :

[ Pelosi declared that the black mark of impeachment on Trump’s record will not be erased – despite the declaration by Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell that Trump will be acquitted by the Republican-led Senate: "We will have a largely partisan outcome", he said.

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

So there you have it : in the eyes of the Republican, Mitch McConnell, the up-coming Senate trial of the President of the United States has nothing to do with justice. No need for impartiality. It is simply a question of partisan politics.

It appears that the elaborate mechanism of checks and balances written into the American Constitution by the founding fathers of the world’s leading democracy is not as water-tight as they imagined : it is open to interpretation.

If that proves to be the case, then representative democracy is clinically dead. And the artificial life-sustaining mechanism that allows it to survive will be switched off definitively sometime in January.]
.

(Contunued …)

.

.

(Contunued …)

.

3. « Trump would like the Bidens on the stand as Joe is unlikely to walk away not looking corrupt which will sabotage his chances in November. However, I believe that the senate will simply call no witnesses and kill the process. »

In addition to the Bidens, I wouldn’t be at all surprised if Trump decides to take the stand himself in the Senate. It’s too good an opportunity to miss. I don’t think he will be able to resist the temptation – even if his personal attorney, Rudy Giuliani and others are against it, considering it too risky.
.

4. « However, I do not share your complete cynicism of the democratic process just of the politicians. »

Aristotle wrote quite extensively on various forms of democracy in the eight books of his treatise “Politics” in 350 B.C. In seeking to define the best possible political regime, he evoked the limitations of democracy and its potential drift towards oligarchy. In fact, he considered that the best possible regime would be a mixture of oligarchy and democracy, which he called a “polity”.

It was not until 1689 that John Locke produced the second of his “Two Treatises of Civil Government” in which he introduced the concept of “representative government”. Though he was probably aware of Aristotle’s political philosophy, Locke's “representative government” was not a “polity” as conceived by Aristotle. It was not intended to be a mixture of oligarchy and democracy but simply a form of democracy without any oligarchic content.

History records that Locke’s ideas and model of “representative government”, heavily influenced both the American and French revolutions and their subsequent "democratic" regimes.

.

Banjo,

The point I have been making and Mitch McConnell is that the impeachment process in the house was such a partisan circus devoid of impartiality and having nothing to do with justice that the entire process has been a F-You to the president.

The blame for constitutional bastardry falls entirely on the democrats.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.
You wrote :

« … the impeachment process in the house was such a partisan circus devoid of impartiality and having nothing to do with justice that the entire process has been a F-You to the president.

The blame for constitutional bastardry falls entirely on the democrats »
.

I already replied to that argumented opinion, Shadow Minister, in my post on the bottom of page 7 of this thread :

«The procedure in the House of Representatives was not just blatant partisanry. It included the presentation of documentary evidence as well as testimony under oath of a certain number of witnesses.

However, it would be naïve to consider that the procedure was not tainted by partisanry. This was probably due to Trump forbidding his staff, assistants, advisers, and other key witnesses from testifying. The President himself was also invited to testify but declined the invitation.

The refusal of all these important eye-witness Republican figures to participate in the impeachment inquiry no doubt gave the impression that it was, as you observe, “procedurally biased”.

It could well be for the same reason that you also have the impression that the impeachment process was “almost entirely based on hearsay”. Perhaps you would be kind enough to indicate what exactly it is that you consider to be “hearsay”. »
.

This is the second time you have repeated an argument to which I have already replied, Shadow Minister. I’m afraid we’re turning in circles.

Unless you have something new to express on the subject, I suggest we leave it at that.

.

Banjo,

Any court system works on verifiable evidence.
Eye witnesses can cross examined and the truth verified.
People reporting what eye witnesses said cannot establish the truth of what they said, and as such in all courts this is not allowed to be submitted as evidence.

Many of the witnesses allowed by congress eventually admitted that they had seen no direct evidence, such as the ambassador.

Similarly, the evidence of the "whistle blower" is inadmissible unless he can be cross examined.

And finally the refusal to allow the republicans to call witnesses or attend the deposition of some secret witnesses goes against every fibre of the legal justice system.

In short, if the articles of impeachment were taken to a criminal court, the vast majority of evidence would be rejected, or if the senate acted as an appellate court, it would simply be dismissed.

What we have here from Pelosi is a clear indication that she knows that the case is feeble and is trying to repair the damage in the Senate.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

The House of Representatives is not empowered to conduct a trial of the President for acts of “Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors” as prescribed by the Constitution.

Its role is limited to a preliminary investigation to determine if there are sufficient grounds for referring him to the Senate for trial on such matters. If so, it brings charges in the form of “articles of impeachment”. Members of the House judiciary committee are then appointed to act as prosecutors at the Senate trial.

The Senate trial is presided by the Chief Justice and usually proceeds along the lines of a regular criminal or civil trial. The following broad principles apply :

1. Trial procedures are established before the trial commences
2. The Senate hears the full case before voting on the President’s removal
3. The trial is open to the public – transparency only being sacrificed to advance compelling interests such as the sanctity of Senate deliberations, the need to protect legitimately classified information, or the recognition of a whistle-blower’s right to anonymity (at least from the general public)
4. Senators (who constitute the judge and jury) are held to respect their oath to “do impartial justice” and to “support and defend the Constitution”

You wrote :

1. « … the evidence of the "whistle blower" is inadmissible unless he can be cross examined »

That’s up to the Senate to decide. Perhaps some compromise solution can be agreed to preserve his or her anonymity.
.

2. « … if the articles of impeachment were taken to a criminal court, the vast majority of evidence would be rejected, or if the senate acted as an appellate court, it would simply be dismissed »

No doubt that is why the Senate Minority Leader, Chuck Schumer, wrote a letter to the Senate Majority Leader, Mitch McConnell, calling for those witnesses and documents at the Senate trial that Trump refused to allow for the preliminary inquiry of the House.

Trump's action gives the impression that he considers that obstruction of justice is his best defence.

.

The smarter Democrats have woken up to the fact that they have sweet Fanny Adams on Trump, & all the rubbish they have dreamed up is going to look really stupid when confronted by a few smart Republicans.

Then there is the fact that quite few senior Democrats have a lot of dark matter in their closet. They have realised a bit belatedly that their closets could be torn open by the Republicans in a Senate hearing.

More than half of them have realised it was a very bad idea for them, very poorly thought out right at the beginning.

For the Democrats it just might be the old Chinese curse, "may you live in interesting times", & very unpleasant times indeed for them.

Banjo,

The three things that you have essentially conceded is firstly that the Congress did not follow the basic rules of evidence, secondly that the impeachment process was entirely partisan, and thirdly that the evidence gathered in the impeachment hearing was insufficient to obtain a conviction.

That the rules of evidence have to apply to the most basic hearing such as a worker being disciplined, means that the abandonment of the principle in Congress is a dire indictment on the process.

That the members of congress are also expected to be impartial goes without saying, and that they weren't is blatantly obvious.

Finally, any defendant is perfectly entitled to prevent people that have privileged information about them prevented from testifying. For example, a person's spouse or lawyer can be legally prevented from testifying. Trump has used this legal instrument, which is no more a crime than brushing your teeth.

Pelosi has painted the democrats into a corner in claiming that the impeachment provides overwhelming evidence of Trump's guilt. If so then there is no need for further witnesses.

.

Dear Has been,

.

You did not provide any details of what you were alluding to when you wrote your comments, but I guess it was just out of plain decency :

• “all the rubbish they [the Democrats] have dreamed up”,
• “quite [a] few senior Democrats have a lot of dark matter in their closet”,
• “they have realised a bit belatedly that their closets could be torn open by the Republicans in a Senate hearing”.

It all sounds pretty subtle and mysterious to me, but I’m sure you must be on to something. Whatever it is, it must be fairly serious I suppose – otherwise, I’m sure you wouldn’t have even mentioned it. No doubt there’s probably a lot of truth in it too. As they say, “where there’s smoke, there’s fire” !

As a matter of fact, I’m willing to believe that it’s not just the Democrats but every single political party – without exception – that has skeletons bulging out of its closets. There’s probably not one single party that can honestly claim to be more virtuous than any of the others.

Nor is it just the individual politicians who are the source of the problem. It’s the political system of representative democracy that fosters and facilitates corruption in all its forms – to such an extent that the whole system has become seriously gangrened. As we have seen in the US, it has now reached the stage where representative democracy needs to be amputated and implanted with a finely measured dose of direct democracy, if it is to survive.

It’s not just a question of “draining the swamp” (as Runner likes to say), I think we need to regenerate “the swamp” completely with some good, fresh, wholesome spring water.

.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

Thanks for your résumé, but you seem to have attributed most of your own ideas and opinions to me.

I note with satisfaction that we agree on most of the basic facts but I’m afraid we often do not interpret them in the same manner nor draw the same conclusions.

Judging from our exchanges on this thread, I think it is true to say that your interpretation of the facts generally tends to favour Trump and the Republicans.

Also, I have noticed that you remain silent on facts that can only be considered unfavourable to your own particular line of thought.

I personally have no political allegiances nor preconceptions of an ideological nature and do my best to keep my beliefs to a strict minimum as they tend to cloud my vision.

My vision of the Trump impeachment process is necessarily very limited but I can’t say it resembles yours – or should I say, the vision you attribute to me.

.

Banjo,

Judging from our exchanges on this thread, I think it is true to say that your interpretation of the facts undeniably favours the democrats. I have also noticed that you remain silent on facts unfavourable to your own particular line of thought.

That you claim to have no political allegiances is farcical.

I personally have no love for Trump and consider him to be somewhat unscrupulous and driven primarily by self interest and while personally a conservative have trouble with much of the republican agenda.

However, while not a lawyer, I have had enough legal training to sniff out a stitch up and this impeachment stinks. If these articles of impeachment were submitted to a court of law by a prosecutor, not only would the case likely be summarily dismissed, but the prosecutor would likely face disbarment.

Having abandoned any pretense of impartiality the democrats have abandoned the moral high ground and have shown them to be even more perfidious than Trump.

People are entitled to any opinion about Trump. What is 100% clear is the democrats hate truth and facts. Their hatred of such a successful man has left them with egg splattered all over their faces. From day 1 they have tried to invent, make up lies and find a way by any devious means to get rid of him. The more they have tried the more they have exposed their hatred of truth, facts and decency.

Many Trump haters here in Australia can't even tell you why they hate him but they do. I suppose haters will continue to be haters and if its not directed at Trump it will be the next one to expose the slimy swamp.

.

Dear Shadow Minister

.

You wrote :

« That you claim to have no political allegiances is farcical »
.

I’m sorry if I have given you that impression.

Please be assured that if Trump and the Senate majority had been Democrats, Libertarians, Greens or anything else, my comments would have been the same. I have no à priori judgment for or against the various actors and political parties caught up in this political drama.

I do my best to follow events as closely as I can and evaluate the evidence as it becomes public as rationally and as impartially as possible – being careful, naturally, to cross-check the information, interpretations and opinions via contradictory media sources.

Though Trump is a fascinating personality, who by no means leaves me indifferent, to be quite frank, I am more interested in the pros and cons of representative democracy as a political regime than in the apparent impulsive character of Trump and his political philosophy.

There is, for example, an obviously incoherence in a political regime that allows a president to withhold documentary evidence and prevent key witnesses from testifying at a House of Representative’s Inquiry on his own possible impeachment. And it is a flawed democracy that reduces the judicial role of Congress to pronouncing decisions that are forgone conclusions because of partisan voting.

That hardly qualifies as an equitable system of Justice in a democratic political regime.

.

.

Dear Runner,

.

Welcome to the discussion, though I think I have just about exhausted my ideas on the subject of the “Democrats impeachment dilemma” proposed by Shadow Minister.

Thank you for that brief dissertation on “hate”. It is quite enlightening – particularly as regard your own personality and “weltanschauung”, if you don’t mind my saying so.

Dare I suggest that you might like to do one on “love” just to balance it off – seen from the Republicans’ point of view, of course (to make it easier). I imagine they are the living image of “truth, facts and decency” to which we all aspire, n’est-ce pas ?

As a matter of fact, some of us actually practise it – on a daily basis, believe it or not !

By the way, Runner, you may, perhaps have already noticed that I am a fervent reader of your brief (though frequent) missives her on OLO and am a great admirer of your consistency and tenacity.

Also, allow me to take this opportunity to confirm that I, personally, have never seen a single Republican “with egg splattered all over his or her face” – and you’re absolutely spot on when you say they’re great at “exposing the slimy swamp” – almost as good as frogs !

.

Banjo,

At last you have recognised that Congress's decision was a forgone conclusion because of partisan voting, and that this largely happened because of the partisan nature of the impeachment process.

The point is that because the impeachment process to date has been so flawed, that any calls by Pelosi to run an impartial senate trial is both blatantly hypocritical and unlikely.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

You wrote :

« At last you have recognised that Congress's decision was a forgone conclusion because of partisan voting, and that this largely happened because of the partisan nature of the impeachment process »
.

Not exactly. The United States Congress is the bicameral legislature of the federal government of the United States and consists of two chambers: the House of Representatives and the Senate.

The House of Representatives has voted only in favour of the indictment (impeachment) of Donald Trump. He has yet to be referred to the Senate for trial.

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 ?

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.

.

(Continued …)

.

.

(Continued …)

.

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,

When roughly 97% of democrats voted for the impeachment and 100% of republicans voted against it is about as partisan as one can get on both sides, and was a process run by the dems for the dems only and anyone claiming otherwise is delusional.

The chances of the impeachment getting through the senate even with a simple majority is slim. The process has been so badly handled by the democrats that no sensible person would touch it with a barge pole.

.

Dear Shadow Minister,

.

As I explained in my previous post, a unanimous vote in Congress, e.g., the Prison Rape Elimination Act, passed with unanimous “bipartisan” support in 2003, does not necessarily signify that it is a partisan vote.

You choose to ignore that and stick to your convictions. That’s fine with me.

However, there’s obviously no point in continuing this discussion.

Until we meet again, on some other thread of mutual interest …

.

Banjo,

I suggest you look up the definition of partisan, I think you will find the impeachment vote a textbook case.