If Bolton testimony is blocked, our democracy has ended.

Imagine a Democrat president who did something illegal and someone from his inner circle is willing to testify.

"OMG now he's a conservative hero!"

You basically made an argument that anyone who testifies or makes claims contradicting the adminstration they work for is automatically not credible.

Where are all the high level Obama officials claiming that he did corrupt illegal things and are willing to testify under oath? Why does Trump geberate so many people within his administration willing to testify against him?

 

Because Trump is about as loyal as a turtle. I have no idea how loyal a turtle is but it didn’t sound good so I threw it out there. His ‘fixer’ Cohen got the cold shoulder as soon as he got caught. It’s like Frank Underwood from House of Cards.
That is a good point about Obama. No one rolled over on him. The Dems stick together much better than the repubs do. I think this impeachment was a rally cry for the the repubs. Hold the line.

 

What is there to roll over?

Trump - corruption heaven
Obama - golf too much?

Conservative values loyalty and obedience more than liberals. Generally, Republican get in line much more than Democrats.

 

Why are you so quick to only believe things that make you feel good?

 

Elaborate. If Obama had a plethora of high level officals willing to testify that he did impeachable actions under oath would you be like "oh they liberal heros, can't trust them". Seriously doubt it.

Please. You are making a argument that anyone in the president's inner circle wouldn't not be a valid witness because the opposing party doesn't like their politics.

 

Well, he wore a tan suit once. And wore a helmet when riding a bike.

Seriously, its weird looking back in time. GWH Bush once lied by saying "Read my lips... no new taxes". He was crucified for that. Then, Obama was crucified for saying "You can keep your doctor".

Now look at what we got...

 

Maybe Americans just want consistency. All truth or all lies. Just as long as we avoid any sort of confusing mix...

 

President wasn't accused of doing anything illegal.

 

You know, technically you are right.

Although the president did break campaign finance laws, the house did not charge him with that. I think had they limited their efforts to that it would have been a different story.

When they did "Abuse of powers" it left it open to interpretation and the Republicans decided to interpret it as "Well, the president should have these powers to abuse, so what?"

 

WSJ Editorial Board: "Our friendly advice to Democrats and the impeachment press is to accept that you lost fair and square in 2016 and focus on nominating a better Democratic candidate this year."

https://www.wsj.com/articles/lamar-alexanders-finest-hour-11580680232?mod=hp_opin_pos_2

Lamar Alexander’s Finest Hour
His vote against witnesses was rooted in constitutional wisdom.
By
The Editorial Board
Feb. 2, 2020 4:50 pm ET

Senate Republicans are taking even more media abuse than usual after voting to bar witnesses from the impeachment trial of President Trump. “Cringing abdication” and “a dishonorable Senate” are two examples of the sputtering progressive rage. On the contrary, we think it was Lamar Alexander’s finest hour.

The Tennessee Republican, who isn’t running for re-election this year, was a decisive vote in the narrowly divided Senate on calling witnesses. He listened to the evidence and arguments from both sides, and then he offered his sensible judgment: Even if Mr. Trump did what House managers charge, it still isn’t enough to remove a President from office.

“It was inappropriate for the president to ask a foreign leader to investigate his political opponent and to withhold United States aid to encourage that investigation,” Mr. Alexander said in a statement Thursday night. “But the Constitution does not give the Senate the power to remove the president from office and ban him from this year’s ballot simply for actions that are inappropriate.”

The House managers had proved their case to his satisfaction even without new witnesses, Mr. Alexander added, but “they do not meet the Constitution’s ‘treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors’ standard for an impeachable offense.” Nebraska Sen. Ben Sasse told reporters “let me be clear: Lamar speaks for lots and lots of us.”

This isn’t an abdication. It’s a wise judgment based on what Mr. Trump did and the rushed, partisan nature of the House impeachment. Mr. Trump was wrong to ask Ukraine to investigate Joe and Hunter Biden, and wrong to use U.S. aid as leverage. His call with Ukraine’s President was far from “perfect.” It was reckless and self-destructive, as Mr. Trump often is.

Nearly all of his advisers and several Senators opposed his actions, Senators like Wisconsin’s Ron Johnson lobbied Mr. Trump hard against the aid delay, and in the end the aid was delivered within the fiscal year and Ukraine did not begin an investigation. Even the House managers did not allege specific crimes in their impeachment articles. For those who want the best overall account of what happened, we again recommend the Nov. 18 letter that Mr. Johnson wrote to House Republicans.

Mr. Alexander’s statement made two other crucial points. The first concerns the damage that partisan removal of Mr. Trump would do to the country.

“The framers believed that there should never, ever be a partisan impeachment. That is why the Constitution requires a 2/3 vote of the Senate for conviction. Yet not one House Republican voted for these articles,” Mr. Alexander noted. “If this shallow, hurried and wholly partisan impeachment were to succeed, it would rip the country apart, pouring gasoline on the fire of cultural divisions that already exist. It would create the weapon of perpetual impeachment to be used against future presidents whenever the House of Representatives is of a different political party.”

Does anyone who isn’t a Resistance partisan doubt this? Democrats and the press talk as if removing Mr. Trump is a matter of constitutional routine that would restore American politics to some pre-2016 normalcy. That’s a dangerous illusion.

The ouster of Mr. Trump, the political outsider, on such slender grounds would be seen by half the country as an insider coup d’etat. Unlike Richard Nixon’s resignation, it would never be accepted by Mr. Trump’s voters, who would wave it as a bloody flag for years to come. Payback against the next Democratic President when the Republicans retake the House would be a certainty.

Mr. Alexander directed Americans to the better solution of our constitutional bedrock. “The question then is not whether the president did it, but whether the United States Senate or the American people should decide what to do about what he did,” his statement said. “Our founding documents provide for duly elected presidents who serve with ‘the consent of the governed,’ not at the pleasure of the United States Congress. Let the people decide.”

***
Democrats and their allies in the media have spent three years trying to nullify the election their candidate lost in 2016. They have hawked false Russian conspiracy theories, ignored abuse by the FBI, floated fantasies about triggering the 25th Amendment, and tried to turn bad presidential judgment toward Ukraine into an impeachable offense. Yet Mr. Trump’s job approval rating has increased during the impeachment hearings and trial.

Our friendly advice to Democrats and the impeachment press is to accept that you lost fair and square in 2016 and focus on nominating a better Democratic candidate this year. On the recent polling evidence, that task is urgent. In the meantime, thank you, Lamar Alexander.
​

 

I still cannot understand this 2016 obsession.

Trump & crew’s misdeeds w Ukraine were in 2019. He abused his power and then obstructed an allegedly co-equal branch of our government... in 2019.

that is true in the SAME universe where Hillary was a shitty candidate and lost a national election in 2016.

These things are both true separately and to conflate them is to blind oneself (or worse, the public) to an important truth.

it’s like saying watergate was all about Dems losing an election in 1968. Just, no. It’s disingenuous gaslighting. Stop it.

 

OJ Simpson wasn't to blame... Nicole and Goldberg should have been more careful...

 

Or yeah ... maybe more like... the cops didn’t give OJ a fair chance because they had wanted Walter Payton to be in those rental car commercials.

 

I agree with you. I understand Trump doing it. When you don't have much to cling to you latch on to whatever you have.

Why anyone else brings it up is idiotic and not relevant.

 

The real gaslighting is all this impeachment effort. There is no evidence of what he was accused of and people are pretending it is. They are pointing to a phone call and saying seee seeee. But it just isn't there.

 

Democracy isn't dead. We're going to have an election and then hopefully an orderly transition. What we lost was a check on the executive branch. And we probably didn't lose it in this Administration -- we just finally managed to prove it this year. There was some evidence with how the Clinton impeachment came down to partisan lines that impeachment is not a real tool for accountability, but it is really confirmed now. But look, we still have Congressional oversight (though now only at the pleasure of the courts) and we still have the vote. So of the three big mechanisms we had for maintaining accountability of our highest civil servant, 1.5 of them still work. Better than North Korea....

 

What evidence are you looking for?

 

Something that would hold up in a real court. So far the dems are playing mind reader and reaching beyond what has been said.