Does anyone actually have evidence?

No Patricio, you don't understand what feathering one's nest is. At least you have convinced yourself you don't understand....

 

Pelosi could have included much more, dems certainly wanted her to, but she deemed that there wasn't enough time, that dragging it on until Nov 3, which is what would happen given that Trump taking every little thing to court, thus to include more in the articles of impeachment would not have been prudent.
She resolved to list only two, the salient items. However, it's all a moot point because the Senate had made up their minds before the trial,and alas, there was no trial, not in the true sense of the word, so the 'trial' was a sham, owing to republican senators complicit with Trump's crimes.

Well, it is relevant to refute the charge that it was an democrat versus republican investigation, as is often asserted by Trump, and the right.

With a rigged senate, nothing is proven or disproven, as republicans have corrupted the process.

 

I go by evidence. You have none.

 

You ignore evidence, and have convinced yourself you "go by evidence" Textbook behavior.

 

Says who? You? I don't think so.

Success is not even possible when the Senate is in bed with the president. The process is corrupted by partisanship.

 

I go by evidence, you have none.

NONE.

 

I'm waiting for you to produce evidence.

You haven't produced it.

 

Saved by semantics.

 

Oh? Do tell. How is it inaccurate?

 

That is just a cop out. The "excuse" given to justify one of the quickest impeachment hearings ever. Don't you say that Mueller had proved obstruction? They could have at least added that charge. But they didn't. The whole thing was a sham and the Republicans didn't fall for it.

Mueller had nothing to do with the impeachment hearings. As such, it was Democrat vs Republican. But again, that doesn't matter and is irrelevant for anything. Except scoring political points. What matters, again is proof.

 

Impeachments are supposed to be bi-partisan. Where the proof of misconduct is so overwhelming that it will naturally be bi-partisan. Trump is the second President to have a partisan impeachment. And each time the partisan impeachment has failed. You claim that it is all Republicans fault. But you fail to acknowledge history and you refuse to hear anything that might even possibly be evidence against your side. The impeachment process worked as it was intended by the founding fathers. In fact they warned against partisan impeachments. Republicans are not the ones that brought forth that impeachment. It was Democrats. And they started the proceedings before they had even heard from the accuser...but just on the rumor of what the accuser claimed.

 

Semantics is what rules the Law. Just ask any lawyer.

 

Emotional reactions aside, I don't like Trump either. His broken promises are still better than the Dems kept promises. Higher taxes and fewer rights is all dems have to offer.

 

Nah, I don't think so
No one likes to be indicted, so naturally they are not going to go along with it, they lost their spine when they elected Trump.
Once upon a time, they had a spine, back in the days of Nixon. Now they are a bunch of invertebrate cowards.

I stand by my comment. The only thing that is a sham is the runaway criminal enterprise called the GOP and fake president Trump

Republicans are criminals, history proves it


Paling around with pedophiles


Hires the 'very best people'

 

The fallacy of your comment is that it doesn't factor in that the Senate is corrupt in that they are cowards, they fear the wrath of Trump, noting that Trump has 64 million twitter followers, he can unseat just about anyone with the power of his wrath, which means the senate is a corrupt as the president. Trump, a master manipulator, understands the power of his base, and uses it to bully his senate like the wet noodles they are.

Because of this fact, your point is moot.

 

Many Democrats wanted Mueller to be included in the articles. IIRC, the final decision to exclude Mueller was because they didn't want the impeachment to be overly broad. They wanted to focus on the infamous "perfect call."

 

Every impeachment that was partisan ended in failure. The rest of your post is just partisanship.

 

That's the excuse they gave. What's the real reason?

 

I don't frequent infowars. I'll stick to reality. But I'm curious, what is the real reason?

 

There have been three impeachments, and none were unsuccessful. Nixon resigned before he was impeached, so that would have been successful as well. Which partisan impeachments are you talking about?

 

I don't frequent infowars either so not sure what your point is.

As for the real reason? Kind of obvious. They couldn't actually prove intent. A requisite to prove obstruction of justice.

 

Andrew Johnson, a purely partisan impeachment that failed because one person realized what was going on and didn't want to set the precedent for frivolous impeachment hearings.

Clinton's impeachment was also partisan, but at least grounded on an actual crime of perjury.

And yes, they were unsuccessful. Impeachment is about removing a government official from office. If they weren't removed from office then it is considered a failure. The charge of impeachment is only one step in the process. There have been plenty of successful impeachments. John Pickering, West Humphreys, Robert Archbald, Halstead Ritter....all impeached and removed from office just to name a few.

I get it though. If someone is impeached by the House then its considered "successful". Even though the intent of the impeachment...removal from office...wasn't achieved. At least in some peoples eyes. Impeachment by itself means nothing. Its like a normal civilian being charged with a crime...means nothing if they aren't found guilty by a jury of their peers. Well, it means nothing to people that use logic and believe in innocent until proven guilty.

 

Impeachment and trial are two different things. No president has been removed in the three impeachments that were each successful. The trials failed, not the impeachments.

Finding someone not guilty doesn't erase the fact they were indicted, and it doesn't mean the indictment failed.

 

An indictment is worthless without a conviction. An impeachment is worthless, without removal from office. Innocent until proven guilty is what this country is about.

 

The value of an indictment is to bring charges against a defendant. It doesn't extend beyond that.