It’s telling that there’s no Impeachment thread on VS...

[theflashunc]

Yup, guilty until proven innocent.

That's how it works in the USA, right?

He admitted to it on television. He asked the Chinese to do the same. Mick Mulvaney, his chief of staff, admitted to it on television, saying this is how they did business. His appointed ambassador to the EU said this was the plan. His appointed ambassador to Ukraine, who replaced the one he fired, testified to the same thing.

His national security advisor writes in a book apparently that is what the President told him directly.

And that's just article 1. How much more evidence do you need?

We can talk about the frightening implications of letting him walk on Article II separately.

[Matthew Strongin]

He admitted to it on television. He asked the Chinese to do the same. Mick Mulvaney, his chief of staff, admitted to it on television, saying this is how they did business. His appointed ambassador to the EU said this was the plan. His appointed ambassador to Ukraine, who replaced the one he fired, testified to the same thing.

His national security advisor writes in a book apparently that is what the President told him directly.

And that's just article 1. How much more evidence do you need?

We can talk about the frightening implications of letting him walk on Article II separately.

This. All of this.

And innocent until proven guilty doesn't apply to a bunch of bike nerds discussing politics on a forum. It's a legal concept that applies to the guilt or innocence of indicted criminals. Flash stating that Trump did what he did (which he definitely did do) is not a legal determination that tests the limits of innocent until proven guilty. Trump's innocence or guilt is being determined through a congressional process. The House determined that there was enough evidence to implicate him of impeachable offenses and the Senate is conducting a trial (of sorts) to determine if a punishment is warranted (or at least that's what they should be doing). That's where innocent until proven guilty will apply. Out here in VSalon land, we can all say what we want about his guilt.

[theflashunc]

Acquittal in this trial means two things:

1) President's can request foreign aid against opponents in upcoming elections. It is open season on American election influence peddling.

2) The executive branch can ignore all oversight attempts from Congress. Subpoenas for testimony, requests for documents, all of it.

Congressional oversight, including impeachment, is effectively dead.

This isn't hyperbole, but fundamental to issues the Framers explicitly laid out. Do we want a Congress unable to oversee the executive? Does the GOP want that when we have a Democratic president who, say, pushes through executive orders on climate change?

What's being argued today by the White house defense is a wildly expansive and unaccountable view of executive power. An acquittal will only embolden this and set a dangerous precedent both parties will leverage going forward.

[Blue Jays]

Democrats should certainly look at the bright side of things, though. See the bright upside.
They can start hatching ideas now for impeachment ideas for President Trump in 2021.

[AngryScientist]

Acquittal in this trial means two things:

1) President's can request foreign aid against opponents in upcoming elections. It is open season on American election influence peddling.

2) The executive branch can ignore all oversight attempts from Congress. Subpoenas for testimony, requests for documents, all of it.

Congressional oversight, including impeachment, is effectively dead.

This isn't hyperbole, but fundamental to issues the Framers explicitly laid out. Do we want a Congress unable to oversee the executive? Does the GOP want that when we have a Democratic president who, say, pushes through executive orders on climate change?

What's being argued today by the White house defense is a wildly expansive and unaccountable view of executive power. An acquittal will only embolden this and set a dangerous precedent both parties will leverage going forward.

i agree with all of this, and it's all true and good, but even more fundamentally, it comes down to the basic fabric of our society. law and order. crime and consequences. accountability. honor.

everyone is watching. literally everyone knows that he is guilty of the crimes he is accused of. do we really want the message to be: you have to follow the law, unless you are rich and powerful?

[Corso]

Out here in VSalon land, we can all say what we want about his guilt.

Fair enough. Understood.

If we are playing >>opinion as fact<< here on the Salon, I fully expect in the future my opinion to be treated in the same way. Not challenged for multiple sources, proof, video evidence, etc.

I thank you all for letting me swim against the tide. Murky waters, but somebody's got to do it.

[davids]

Democrats should certainly look at the bright side of things, though. See the bright upside.
They can start hatching ideas now for impeachment ideas for President Trump in 2021.

What's both infuriating and fascinating about this conversation, for me at least, is how clearly it highlights how each side cherry-picks facts to support their preferred narratives. The post I'm quoting is just one of many examples.

And God knows the "clever" name-calling of Trump does no favors for the side favoring the rule of law.

All this in a relatively well-mannered and respectful discussion. I mourn for the United States of America.

[Bob Ross]

As for the 2020 presidential election, perhaps the removal of Trump from office would pave the way for other Republican candidates that would be more appealing to members of that party. I for one would welcome a different Republican candidate as the party's nominee later this year.

^^^This. Shee-it, I've voted straight Democrat in every election over the past ~40 years, yet if Mayor Pete doesn't wind up on the ballot I've got half a mind to vote for Bill Weld come November.

[Matthew Strongin]

If we are playing >>opinion as fact<< here on the Salon, I fully expect in the future my opinion to be treated in the same way. Not challenged for multiple sources, proof, video evidence, etc.

Though I'm not surprised that's your takeaway, that's not what I'm saying. We're not playing opinion as fact with no. We're also not a court of law where presumption of innocence is legally required. But this is getting pedantic.

Question for you that's related but more on topic. I don't want to assume, so do you feel the impeachment proceedings lacked multiple sources, tangible evidence, etc. thus far? And what's your thought on allowing witnesses in the Senate proceedings? As someone who, presumably, values multiple sources, would you like to see Bolton and others sit under oath and share their first hand knowledge?

[HorsCat]

Yup, guilty until proven innocent.

That's how it works in the USA, right?

By this point we have established that it has an orange beak and orange webbed feet, that it waddles and quacks, goes well with jus d’orange and responds to “Donald.” We're just calling it out for the duck we all know it is.

[Corso]

Though I'm not surprised that's your takeaway, that's not what I'm saying. We're not playing opinion as fact with no. We're also not a court of law where presumption of innocence is legally required. But this is getting pedantic.

Question for you that's related but more on topic. I don't want to assume, so do you feel the impeachment proceedings lacked multiple sources, tangible evidence, etc. thus far? And what's your thought on allowing witnesses in the Senate proceedings? As someone who, presumably, values multiple sources, would you like to see Bolton and others sit under oath and share their first hand knowledge?

Hell, yes! I'd love to see this hearing with witnesses, Bolton, whistle blower(s), President Zelenski, the Bidens, Schiff-the-liar on the stand too- everyone-even Trump himself under oath. Unless it's truly a national security issue, get it all out.

But our reality:
I would have liked to see the fairness in the House, but that was one-sided, as run by the Ds.
So tit for tat, the Senate is responding in the same way, run by the Rs.
Congress & Senate both hearings leave me with a bad taste.

I'm not saying the President isn't guilty, as I agree, it appears to be his intention to get the goods on Biden, just like the BS he had to endure with the BS "Dossier".
Even if guilty, I don't believe it's an offense that demands he leave the office.

[Corso]

By this point we have established that it has an orange beak and orange webbed feet, that it waddles and quacks, goes well with jus d’orange and responds to “Donald.” We're just calling it out for the duck we all know it is.

I'll give you that.

So how do the Bidens waddle on all of this? If it smells like a too good to be true family deal...

It started with them, and apparently no one (save David) seem to give a rat's backside about them. Biden was in office when this started.

When I mentioned Obama's use of drones on another thread, it was pointed out by a few that you "can't say that" without linking Bush to it.
So, how can you possibly un-link the Bidens in this case?

You don't have to answer that, we already know.

[guido]

In normal trials the accused doesn't control large amounts of campaign funding that can be withheld from the jury members if the desired vote is not cast...

Yet another benefit of Citizens United...

[HorsCat]

I'll give you that.

So how do the Bidens waddle on all of this? If it smells like a too good to be true family deal...

It started with them, and apparently no one (save David) seem to give a rat's backside about them. Biden was in office when this started.

When I mentioned Obama's use of drones on another thread, it was pointed out by a few that you "can't say that" without linking Bush to it.
So, how can you possibly un-link the Bidens in this case?

You don't have to answer that, we already know.

The Bidens are a distraction. Trump controls the Justice Department and the FBI. If Joe or Hunter Biden committed a crime, he has the wherewithal to go after them (and my support for doing so). But there are no investigations because there is no legitimate basis for opening them. Which is why he had to employ the likes of Lev Parnas, Rudy Giuliani and the US ambassador to the EU for his criminal scheme.

Why isn't the US government investigating alleged Biden corruption through official channels?

[ides1056]

Bingo

He has no problem sending Barr on whatever other legal fool's errand he gins up. So put the dog on Biden and be done with it.

But no, and therefore guilty.

[lumpy]

^^^This. Shee-it, I've voted straight Democrat in every election over the past ~40 years, yet if Mayor Pete doesn't wind up on the ballot I've got half a mind to vote for Bill Weld come November.

Not again.

[mzilliox]

The Bidens are a distraction. Trump controls the Justice Department and the FBI. If Joe or Hunter Biden committed a crime, he has the wherewithal to go after them (and my support for doing so). But there are no investigations because there is no legitimate basis for opening them. Which is why he had to employ the likes of Lev Parnas, Rudy Giuliani and the US ambassador to the EU for his criminal scheme.

Why isn't the US government investigating alleged Biden corruption through official channels?

This... its a whole different case, surely this is quite clear? but deflect deflect deflect. meanwhile in on topic land
https://www.washingtonpost.com/polit...e99_story.html

[jclay]

^^^This. Shee-it, I've voted straight Democrat in every election over the past ~40 years, yet if Mayor Pete doesn't wind up on the ballot I've got half a mind to vote for Bill Weld come November.

There will be two choices in November; Trump or somebody in the Democratic party who's vastly more constructive. Voting for anybody other than the Democratic candidate would be remarkably stupid.

How many object lessons do you, or the electorate at large, need to figure that out?

Right now it doesn't matter how defective the Democratic party or candidate is; Whomever the candidate is will be far better and less destructive to our country than the alternative. It will also keep the ship floating until we can get a meaningful number of bona fide progressives elected and start changing to a much better course; and THAT is far and away the most important consideration.

[gregl]

Right now it doesn't matter how defective the Democratic party or candidate is; Whomever the candidate is will be far better and less destructive to our country than the alternative. It will also keep the ship floating until we can get a meaningful number of bona fide progressives elected and start changing to a much better course; and THAT is far and away the most important consideration.

You're using logic in a situation that defies logic. This is the same logic that was used in 2016. Hilary HAD to win because she was potentially less damaging than Trump. That didn't work so well for the Democrats...

Trump won because he was different from mainstream Republicans and Democrats. He was a megaphone for those who felt un- or under-represented. He told them that they were right, that the system had failed them. He was from outside the system! The key to winning the next election will be convincing undecided or "on-the-fence" voters that the candidate understands and feels their anger and disgust at politics as usual. Until the Democrats figure that out, Trump will win again (unless he is actually found guilty in the senate).

Greg

[jclay]

The key to winning the next election will be convincing undecided or "on-the-fence" voters that the candidate understands and feels their anger and disgust at politics as usual. Until the Democrats figure that out, Trump will win again (unless he is actually found guilty in the senate).Greg

That's all correct but saying you'll pout and take your ball and bat home if your guy doens't get the dem nomination, which is functionally what Bob was doing, is counter productive.

I would like to see, and I think that changing demographics demand, the dem party becoming progressive generally along the lines of Bernie's platforms. In the meantime it is vital to stop the damage that Trump and the Republican Party are doing. If we can do better than that, fine, but if not then vigorously support whomever the candidate is so we can contain the fire. Don't go around pouting and disparaging because your fave candidate didn't get nominated. That's just stupid, nihilistic and there have been more than enough object lessons in recent history to make the stakes in this election crystal clear.