politic on the board

If you did not read the transcript or watch the testimony of the witnesses in the house hearing you are wasting your time arguing about it. Everyone is entitled to their opinion. I completely respect that. I think we need to getting back to a society where we can agree to disagree and each side compromises a bit to come up with a solution. They have been trying to impeach Trump since the day he was elected. It really has nothing to do with a call. If you believe it does you are very naive. Using the rights you have in the constitution is not abuse of power. We have laws and a constitution for a reason. Everyone should respect that. I would hope.

If you want more fact watch the defense testimony on what Nadler, Schumer and I think 2 other current house members that are now on the Democrats side as impeachment managers and see what they had to say about the Clinton impeachment. The same arguments that the defense is making now. They are both right. Not because it is convenient but rather how impeachment was intended by the founders. If you want a really good refresher on that watch the testimony by Kenneth Starr and Alan Dershowitz. And Dershowitz is a Democrat that did not vote for Trump, will not vote for Trump and disagrees with with many of his policies. Tells you something.

I find Trump's 30-40% base is immovable and refuses to look objectively at any hard evidence. They mainly regurgitate Fox News talking points and recite MAGA mantra of Hannity and the like. You'll get no objective examination or discourse on this subject from them. Not that the far left does not tow their own line. My hopes are the large percentage of swing voters who will be objective and paying close attention to facts and the farcical nature of the impeachment trial will help sweep Trump and a fair percentage of his GOP cronies out of office come this Fall. Time will tell if this scenario will play its self out.

I have read the transcript and watched all of the hearings and testimony up until yesterday. What evidence are you referring to? The same evidence that Adam Schiff said he had? Bring the actual facts and I would be glad to discuss. It is not up to the defense to provide evidence for the people accusing him. Not how it works. Not liking Trump is not an impeachable offence and also not a platform to run on which is what Hillary learned.

This board is a great board. A lot of great resources on trucks and obviously varying opinions on many things. That is what makes America what it is.

Thanks for the discussion and sorry I get so caught up in it but I do follow it way too close.

More evidence comes to light everyday but is deemed inadmissible, witnesses are being blocked and key GOP members are unwilling to testify under oath. A real kangaroo court but I expect no better.

Again I wait for the American voters come the election to see if we get any justice. I appreciate your view point and definitely agree on your list of fixes for some of our political ills and would add the nullification of the electoral college and the end of gerrymandering.

Again if you want the facts...
The house had every right to call and/or supeona any witnesses they wanted. The courts would likely would have had to decide. This is the way the laws and the constitution are setup. The fact that they did not call the witnesses in the house was their choice. They want everyone to think that is was someone choice of someone else.The way this impeachment trial was agreed to by both parting in the senate is the exactly the same format used in the Clinton impeachment. Right up to voting on additional witnesses at the end of the 16 hours of questions.These are the facts. The reality is the democrats only have one thing left and that is to make it look like it was an unfair process. It is all about 2020 and everyone knows that that is informed. Like Schumer said if we do not impeach him there is a chance he may get re-elected. The problem is that the democrats are not willing to endorse a central enough candidate that will make a difference in the 2020 election. The left has their base, the right has theirs. It is the moderates and independents that decide elections.

It will be over on Friday!

Thanks again for the discussion.

Again if you want the facts...
The house had every right to call and/or supeona any witnesses they wanted. The courts would likely would have had to decide. This is the way the laws and the constitution are setup. The left has their base, the right has theirs. It is the moderates and independents that decide elections.

It will be over on Friday!

Thanks again for the discussion.

You make some very valid points, I will correct you on a few tho. The house did call witnesses, most refused to show, the ones that did and testified under oath layed out a real problem. You can make the argument that they should have gone to court and waited thru all the appeals that would surely come of that. It is a valid criticism, with some merit. Our laws also state that you can not ignore a subpoena, and many did. I find it interesting that those that think Trump was wrong are willing to say so under oath, and those that think he did nothing wrong will not take the stand under oath to say so, however.
Going thru the court process would have made a better case and would have drawn the whole process out for years, dragging the rest of the nation business to a halt.
Only the most optimistic among the Dem's thought there would be a conviction, this being one of the most partisan times in our history.
If you were expecting to hear " Vlad, I want a quid pro quo, I want you to do an investigation into my rival before I release the aid" then no you didn't nor would you hear that. Before the phone call, The Pentagon, and CBO and some members of the armed service were trying to find out why the aid had not been delivered. All the dept. that have oversite of the release had said it wasn't they who were holding it up. Only after it became too politically "Hot" to sit on it anymore was it released.
I'm sure we will never agree on this topic, but I hope that we can remain civil on the board.

Did you watch the testimony of the house witnesses. Obviously not. That is not what they testified to. A summary of these was presented in the defense if you want to watch it.

Vindman was the only one that even came close to even being critical. The others denied in direct questioning that the aid was tied to an investigation or an announcement of one. That along with what was said on the call would be anough to call BS on this entire process. It is a big huge nothing burger. I get it that if you really do not like Trump that you would like it to be something else but it is not. The impeachment process is a very interesting process. They want us to think it is a criminal trial. It is not and never has been. I am serious, Ken Starr did an incredible job of going over the entire history of where it came from, the intent, how it has been used in the past and much more. Very interesting.

I completely agree on the division in politics. It is preventing anything from getting done. When USMCA sits there for 9 months with full bipartisan support and does not get signed something is wrong. Whatever it takes to make it look like Trump did not get a win. You are probably thinking I am a Trumpster in hiding but I am not. The guy has real issues with not letting things go and how he attacks people but at this point what else is he going to do? The politicians on both sides are trying to protect themselves.

When you get elected to the senate and have little or no money and make $170k a year and leave 8 years later worth many millions, it tells you what is going on.

I really do respect any opinions you have or points you make but I won't let you skew the facts.

I didn't watch but did listen while I was working. You and I will not agree on what was said. in fact I knew about it long before the "call" or the hearings. There were people in the state dept trying to get answers long before it blew up.
Impeachment is a political process and not a criminal court, It is however based and organized on our judicial system, where the impeachment inquiry is similar to a criminal investigation, the impeachment vote, like the grand jury, and the trial in the senate, like the criminal trial. All three parts mirror the judicial system. There are differences I agree, for one there doesn't have to be a criminal law broken, abuse of power isn't something you will find in the criminal code, nor is treason.
Don't think I am ignorant of the fact because I don't agree with your reasoning.

"It would be real easy to fix 95% of our issues.
1. Balanced Budget Amendment
2. Term Limits
3. No lobbying the federal government if you have ever held a Federal Office."

This right here.

Yesterday's outcome was not surprising, and not totally unexpected.