Will Impeachment End...

[Mountain Man]

The evidence of Trumps guilt, as Lamar Alexander admitted, was overwhelming.

Alexander said he thought it was wrong but not impeachable.

In other words, it's what we've been saying since the beginning: it's a mere policy disagreement, not a crime.

[JimL]

Alexander said he thought it was wrong but not impeachable.

In other words, it's what we've been saying since the beginning: it's a mere policy disagreement, not a crime.

What he said was that the prosecution proved it's case, that he thought that what trump did was wrong, that he didn't believe it was impeachable, and that it should be left to the American people to decide. That of course is political hogwash. As the prosecution pointed out, if this wasn't impeachable, then nothing is. Soliciting interference through extortion, and being susceptible to blackmail and or influence from foreign countries is exactly what the founders were concerned about at the time of the founding. Treason, bribery, interference and influence of foreign countries is the main purpose of the impeachment clause. So, now that the Senate has failed in it's responsibility to uphold and protect the Constitution, it is left up to the people. Let's hope Trump doesn't cause any more damage to the country and the institutions of democracy here and around the world before the American people get their chance to stop him.

[Mountain Man]

What he said was that the prosecution proved it's case, that he thought that what trump did was wrong, that he didn't believe it was impeachable...

That's exactly what I said. It's a policy disagreement, not a crime.

[JimL]

That's exactly what I said. It's a policy disagreement, not a crime.

An anti-corruption policy in Ukraine was what the Obama Administration was pushing by sending Biden there to publicly admonish the President Poreshenko to fire the corrupt Prosecutor General who was not doing his job. That's not what Trump was doing, he was secretly and corruptly extorting the newly elected Zelensky to publicly announce on CNN an investigation into his political rival, never once mentioning corruption in general. That's a crime, not a policy disagreement, has nothing to do with policy, unless of course you want to call aiding Russia in its agreesive war against Ukraine while corruptly abusing your power in an attempt to smear your political rival, a policy.

[Cow Poke]

Alexander said he thought it was wrong but not impeachable.

In other words, it's what we've been saying since the beginning: it's a mere policy disagreement, not a crime.

It has been interesting seeing some of the talking heads on CNN bemoan the fact that Trump refused to follow the advice of CAREER DIPLOMATS, therefore, "subverting US Foreign Policy".

Who, exactly, DETERMINES Foreign Policy?

[Cow Poke]

An anti-corruption policy in Ukraine was what the Obama Administration was pushing by sending Biden there....

Stay tuned, Jim, cause I suspect we're going to be hearing a LOT MORE about Biden's "let's swap their corruption for MY corruption" sham.

[Mountain Man]

It has been interesting seeing some of the talking heads on CNN bemoan the fact that Trump refused to follow the advice of CAREER DIPLOMATS, therefore, "subverting US Foreign Policy".

Who, exactly, DETERMINES Foreign Policy?

Exactly. It seems some of our diplomats have forgotten their place. It's the president's job to establish foreign policy, and it's the diplomat's job to follow orders. That's how it has always been.

[Cow Poke]

Exactly. It seems some of our diplomats have forgotten their place. It's the president's job to establish foreign policy, and it's the diplomat's job to follow orders. That's how it has always been.

I think it's likely that, in the past, a "career diplomat" may have been much more capable of keeping politics out of their job performance, but - just like the FBI and Intelligence Services - politicization of these institutions has become rather clear.

[mossrose]

Is it over yet? I haven't been following it, and I refuse to wade through pages and pages of poop to get to the answer as to whether it's all over.

If it's over, can we get on with the regular hate-ism?

[Cow Poke]

Is it over yet? I haven't been following it, and I refuse to wade through pages and pages of poop to get to the answer as to whether it's all over.

If it's over, can we get on with the regular hate-ism?

Supposedly, the official vote will come on Wednesday. I'm sure the Democrats are scrambling to see what they can do to prolong the agony, but, no --- not quite over yet.

I was flipping channels earlier, and the Democrats were still grandstanding and spewing forth nonsense.

[mossrose]

Supposedly, the official vote will come on Wednesday. I'm sure the Democrats are scrambling to see what they can do to prolong the agony, but, no --- not quite over yet.

I was flipping channels earlier, and the Democrats were still grandstanding and spewing forth nonsense.

Thank you.

[Cow Poke]

Thank you.

I think if the incredibly partisan Democrats had any smarts, they'd just conclude their "closing arguement" this morning with something like....

"Even though we have put on an incredibly powerful case with absolutely overwhelming proof, it's clear to us that no further testimony is going to bring 2/3rds of the Senate to convict, therefore, in the interest of the American people, we rest our case, and will turn our attention to focusing on the upcoming election".

But, no --- they have to continue grandstanding KNOWING they won't get the votes, but.... hey, we can't admit we failed.

[JimL]

I think if the incredibly partisan Democrats had any smarts, they'd just conclude their "closing arguement" this morning with something like....

"Even though we have put on an incredibly powerful case with absolutely overwhelming proof, it's clear to us that no further testimony is going to bring 2/3rds of the Senate to convict, therefore, in the interest of the American people, we rest our case, and will turn our attention to focusing on the upcoming election".

But, no --- they have to continue grandstanding KNOWING they won't get the votes, but.... hey, we can't admit we failed.

You can bet the democrats aren't going to let the unprincipled republican Senate of the hook so easily. The evidence is going to continue to leak out and those republicans who rejected witnesses and evidence are going to hear about it in their upcoming elections. They took a big risk in covering up for Trump.

[DivineOb]

Impeachment isn't going to "end" before the election. The democrats are relying on the impeachment investigation as part of arguments in a number of lawsuits.

[Mountain Man]

Impeachment isn't going to "end" before the election. The democrats are relying on the impeachment investigation as part of arguments in a number of lawsuits.

Which is part of the reason Nancy tried to sit on them, but once the Senate votes to acquit, that leverage goes *POOF*!

(If it hasn't already.)