Let's ask a fundamental question...

Bork was rejected 58-42, the biggest margin any SC nominee had been rejected by, because his positions made him unfit to be a SC judge.

 

He was highly qualified. The first time the dems started the personal destruction game and they haven’t stopped since.

 

The issue is impeachment is a deliberately political process, unaccountable to SCOTUS, and without broad bipartisan support is doomed to fail.

85% of Democrats want it
90% of Republicans don't
Independents are split leaning slightly against

Imo the Dems would have been better off indicting him at the ballot box, claiming the higher ground, all that good stuff - but if they wanted to portray him as borderline dictator in 2020 impeachment was a must.

They should learn from the lessons of the UK and their Labor Party - the people don't want what they're selling at the moment all across the Western world and it will be a big climb back.

Trump is polling around where Obama was on the same day of office, usually around 2% highee on Gallup's Presidential tracker, on par with RCP - and the Democrats have nothing but unpopular options. When Biden is your solid choice you have to wonder.

 

He was the most knowledgeable and qualified Supreme Court candidate of the 20th century. The character assassination from the left worked.

And that began our long, slow decline to where we are today.

 

Here's an interesting question. Of the Repubs who don't believe Trump should be impeached..............how many believe the lies they are told by the Trump admin and right wing media. Like, for example, the lie the articles of impeachment do not accuse the Liar-in-Chief of using his office to his political advantage.

Here is a quote from Article I.................................

"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 reelection, harm the election prospects of a political opponent, and influence the 2020 United States Presidential election to his advantage."

 

Maybe. If he stole from the treasury or killed someone then certainly. If he lied to cover up a sexual tryst like his predecessor then no. Clinton was not convicted of his impeachment charge. The same should be the case with Trump. Impeachment and conviction for political purposes is one of the most dangerous things a congress can do.

 

No! Not for a second,.. Nor is this the end of Trump's presidency. Even if he's again proven guilty, like the Mueller report did.

Now. Do you have an answer to the question?

Honest posters can answer a question as simple as this. But others can't.

 

Pelosi knows she has no leverage whatsoever in the Senate. The only leverage Democrats had was common sense and patriotism. But Moscow Mitch, Lindsey Graham (surprisingly), ... and others, have made it clear that those don't count for them.

So anything she can get is a plus. And it looks like she has managed to gain quite a bit with this delay. Keeping the story alive of Republican's lack of patriotism throughout the holidays and for a week more after that. Not that things always work out for her, but you gotta admit she really knows her stuff.

 

I don't see your answer so... you again have proven me right, and proven yourself wrong.

 

Who is this "everyone" you speak of?

Please quote. And, for heaven's sake, quote somebody of consequence! Not some obscure blogger who nobody has heard of.

"Everyone knew" is a tagline very common among those who don't know what they're talking about.

Of course, Trump has been committing impeachable offenses since the day of his inauguration. But you are making a punctual accusation that seems to imply that Democrats were fatuously actively looking for some way to impeach him since the day he won the elections. Show your evidence.

BTW, why didn't you answer the question? That's what this thread is about....

 

It's accountable only to the American people.

I don't see an answer to the question on the OP. So the rest of your post is irrelevant. If you want to change the subject, open your own thread instead of derailing this one.

 

Which is where proving a "conspiracy" comes into play...and showing how the coordination of different people worked toward the same illegal goal. Deductive inference.

 

Absolutely correct, and you will get the full proof of a conspiracy once Durham’s criminal investigation is concluded.

 

Hahaha. Not the "conspiracy" to which I was referring. Nevertheless, I eagerly await his report. Hopefully, it will be presented before Trump leaves office...whether through conviction on impeachment, or the end of his first or second term.

 

So it is trouble seeing that is your problem.

 

I gave a very specific example on the OP. Can you answer to that one?

 

I get my news from The Economist mainly. great magazine. you should give it a try.

 

Agreed. That's not the case in this impeachment. Abuses of office and obstruction of a lawful congressional inquiry are impeachable offenses and can not be tolerated.

 

So...........how do you explain coming to the demonstrably false conclusion about what the articles of impeachment really say?

 

The defense was not allowed to call witnesses. How is that not political?

 

But, but, BUT RUSSIA

 

If the provided phone call scenario were proven to be true, I would not oppose removal of Trump. However, I also would not support it, as it seems likely to me everyone else running would try and get away with far worse crimes, and its likely the establishment would actually let them.

It would, for me, become a contest between a criminal individual fighting our criminal establishment, and shills who want to join our criminal establishment. A shitty choice to be sure, but not a difficult one.

However, if the above phone call were proven to be true and then someone like Rand Paul announced his candidacy, I would likely not vote for Trump, whereas I definitely am voting for Trump now.

 

Easy.

I can read.

 

So, thank you. But you said nothing.

"It's possible that somebody else might do it one day in the future" is not what I would call an "insightful" argument.

 

If I thought any president, Trump included committed impeachable crimes I would be all in favor of removal. The accusation is the Democrats set out to destroy Trump beginning the day after the election. Okay, everyone with a bit of political common sense knew impeachment would be coming if the Democrats won back the house. They so much said so numerous times during Trump's first two years.