Impeachment Hearings

[*michaelsean*]

(01-23-2020, 01:28 PM)hollodero Wrote: You're not seriously asking that question, right?

The reason is that many viewers are not interested in any facts. They just look at this with one sole purpose: To find someting that can be used against the democratic accusers. Anything.

Behaviour that can be witnessed all the time, even on this boards.

Yes but if you listened to Schiff, withholding aid was tantamount to signing Ukraine's death warrant.  So doing it in order to have a corrupt prosecutor fired seems a bit extreme.  

[Au165]

(01-23-2020, 01:16 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: Roberts doesn't want to answer political questions, so I am not sure how he'd view this argument. Strictly by the Constitution, the Senate has a ton of room to do whatever they want. Moving into the realm of intent of the framers, Roberts may say "not for me to say". 

Right, in the Nixon case the Chief Justice's opinion was that essentially it's not for him to say but it was three other justices though who wrote an opinion that something so far from the reality of a trial could require judicial intervention. As I said though, this court probably wouldn't but it's still an interesting idea.

It is also an interesting way to historically look back at a potential acquittal without witnesses. No impeachment trial has ever not had witnesses (or at least playing of taped depositions) so the concept would be foreign and open to an even bigger black mark on Trump's legacy.

[hollodero]

(01-23-2020, 02:10 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yes but if you listened to Schiff, withholding aid was tantamount to signing Ukraine's death warrant.  So doing it in order to have a corrupt prosecutor fired seems a bit extreme.  

Maybe it was a bit extreme. The situation was a bit different though. When Biden "did it", corruption in Ukraine was actually rampant. One could argue that it was in Ukraine's interest as well to fight that, even if it took a push from the outside. Many European countries supported the move. Also, judging from what Biden himself said, he rather threatened to withhold aid than actually did it. At least that's what I found (I don't guarantee 100% that this is right, but it seems so). That there was no actual hold (of loan guarantees), but rather a threat to do so if Schokin isn't fired. Which, well, got him fired.

When Trump "did it", fighting corruption played no part in it. There was zero greater good to be gained. Also, he actually did withhold actual aid (instead of threatening to withdraw a loan guarantee).

--- That being said, I too found the particular line of saying Ukraine is doomed without the aid is not particularly persuasive.

[GMDino]

Media Matters is definitely liberal.

They also provide links and video/audio to back up what they say happened.

https://www.mediamatters.org/fox-news/what-fox-news-aired-last-night-instead-impeachment-trial

[GMDino]

Jerry Nadler just ethered Alan Dershowitz pic.twitter.com/eZys5qJNXk

— Aaron Rupar (@atrupar) January 23, 2020

[masonbengals fan]

Media Matters is flat out scary liberal.

[GMDino]

(01-23-2020, 03:48 PM)masonbengals fan Wrote: Media Matters is flat out scary liberal.

Yep but the tape don't lie.

[GMDino]

http://news.trust.org/item/20200122223845-ozj6d

Quote:A bipartisan majority of Americans want to see new witnesses testify in the impeachment trial of President Donald Trump, and the public appears to be largely following the proceedings even after a bruising congressional inquiry that lasted several months, according to Reuters/Ipsos polling released Wednesday.

The poll, which ran from Jan. 17-22, also showed that U.S. public opinion has moved little since the U.S. House of Representatives impeached Trump in mid-December.

About 44% of adults in the United States say Trump should be removed from office, another 15% say he should be reprimanded formally with a congressional censure, and 31% said the charges should be dismissed.

Trump so far has blocked the Democrats' requests for documents related to the administration's activities in Ukraine last year. He has also urged officials like former national security adviser John Bolton and Secretary of State Mike Pompeo not to participate.

Republicans in the Senate so far have backed up the president, rejecting requests for White House documents and interviews with administration officials.

The poll showed that Republicans and Democrats want to see people like Bolton and Pompeo tell the Senate what they know about the administration's policies in Ukraine.

About 72% agreed that the trial "should allow witnesses with firsthand knowledge of the impeachment charges to testify," including 84% of Democrats and 69% of Republicans. And 70% of the public, including 80% of Democrats and 73% of Republicans, said senators should "act as impartial jurors" during the trial.

About 40% of Americans said they had a favorable view of Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell, while 60% said they have an unfavorable view of him.

The poll showed that two out of three Americans are paying attention to the proceedings, with Democrats more interested than Republicans.

About 12% said they plan to watch the trial every day, while 17% planned to watch a few times a week, and 36% said they would check in on the trial afterward through news reports.

Despite their expressed interest in the trial, Americans were divided over giving the press more access to the Senate proceedings, which the Senate has largely restricted for the trial.

About 46% agreed that journalists should be allowed to enter the Senate chamber with cameras and cover the trial. Another 41% disagreed, and 13% said they did not know.

The Reuters/Ipsos poll was conducted online, in English, throughout the United States. It gathered responses in two waves: the first was conducted Jan. 17-21 and asked 1,116 people about their interest in following the trial. The second was conducted Jan. 21-22 and asked 1,108 people about whether to remove Trump from office.

Both polls have a credibility interval, a measure of precision, of about 5 percentage points. (Reporting by Chris Kahn in New York; Editing by Lisa Shumaker)

[Dill]

(01-23-2020, 01:28 PM)hollodero Wrote: You're not seriously asking that question, right?

The reason is that many viewers are not interested in any facts. They just look at this with one sole purpose: To find someting that can be used against the democratic accusers. Anything.

Behaviour that can be witnessed all the time, even on this boards.

What?  Who behaves like that on these boards? 

Yes, I get that many viewers/listeners are not interested in the facts.  But the "Biden did it too" has been so thoroughly addressed for months now--even on Fox news when they present Schiff et al. making their case.  Even the minimally attentive have to have encountered the legal clarification somewhere.

Why viewers are not interested in sorting this out seems to me complicated, not simple.  Rule of law is really being systematically set aside on so many levels--e.g., think of Trump pardoning war criminals and Joe Arpaia; giving his children high security clearance; expelling refugees with legitimate asylum claims; diverting money appropriated to legitimate needs to his wall;last night he BOASTED that he had the "materials" (i.e., evidence) and "they" (Democratic Congressmen) did not.   And it is all done in the open.  Voters are consciously holding their Senators to the goal of freeing Trump from the law.

And though Democrats are not and have not been doing anything like this Nixon-style skullduggery which led to the impeachment, they are constantly accused of "you-did-it-first" law twisting.  They weren't fair in the House!--like that's REALLY the reason why McConnell doesn't want witnesses, or would make that injustice somehow ok.  Like the Clinton's, Biden is now subject of round the clock "questions" and "breaking news" of wrongdoing which NO ONE WILL INVESTIGATE--BS which further aggrieves Trump voters, convinces them that yes the system is rigged and illegal and controlled by "the Left."  Fighting liberals by appealing to law and Constitutional precedent is only bringing a knife to a gunfight. At least that is an hypothesis which covers some of the behavior I am seeing.

It is still very hard for someone on "the left" to see how the world and Trump's behavior looks to people who genuinely believe that the DNC server is still somewhere in Ukraine and our Intel services won't look for it or give it up--the same services who illegally spied on Trump. This really is like Copernicans and flat earthers looking at the same phenomenon but interpreting it in different ways.  The sun rises in the east and sets in the west because it goes around the earth, etc. Trump was fighting corruption when he withheld aid to Ukraine--which a president is SUPPOSED to do.  That's why he fired that "bad" ambassador, the one so hard to work around because of her stand against corruption.

[Dill]

(01-23-2020, 02:10 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Yes but if you listened to Schiff, withholding aid was tantamount to signing Ukraine's death warrant.  So doing it in order to have a corrupt prosecutor fired seems a bit extreme.  

I think you are making a valid point about Schiff, though I understand he trying to impress upon people that the aid was critical to the Ukraine's defense. You hit on what looks like a contradiction: can't be critical in one case but not in the other. The firing, after all, was right after the Crimea was seized, etc.

I guess there is another point that should be made about Biden. Though he speaks as if he were the immediate driver of Shokin's firing, that is a remarkable exaggeration. First of all, the IMF was also threatening to withhold aid if he were not fired. The EU wanted him fired, as did the US Congress. And it was Obama's call, not Biden's, whether the aid could actually be withheld.  He was, as he correctly understood at the time, an instrument of US diplomacy, Obama's policy, not a policy maker.

So it's not at all like Cowboy Joe just dropped into Urkaine to dress down their corrupt leaders and in the heat of the moment, and on his own initiative, by god slammed an ultimatum down on the table that got Ukraine moving in the right direction in 24 hrs. In fact, if Joe Biden had never been born, Shokin still would have been fired by the threat to withhold aid. That removal was a process involving many national actors operating with a deliberative and collective force.

[BmorePat87]

https://www.vox.com/2020/1/23/21078993/impeachment-trial-republican-talking-points-new-evidence

How long can Republicans argue that the impeachment trial is a waste of time because they haven't seen new evidence after they voted 9 times against allowing new evidence?

GOP Senator John Kennedy even admitted that none of them followed the case in the House, even as they now actively ignore the case being presented on the floor:
“I think most if not all senators are hearing the case by the prosecution and the case by the defense for the first time. If you polled in the United States Senate, nine out of 10 senators will tell you they have not read the transcript of the proceedings in the House and the tenth senator who says he has or she has is lying.”

[HarleyDog]

(01-22-2020, 09:50 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote:

Quote:Here's an article about two witnesses requested by Republicans and how one confirmed quid pro quo:

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/impeachment-hearings-even-the-gops-witnesses-are-hurting-trump

I don't understand why you say the GOP called these witnesses? Because the article said so? The GOP has repeatedly complained they were not allowed to call their own witnesses.

Quote:You can pull up the hearings on youtube to see that the claim that people were interrupted is false. In reality, Jim Jordan and Doug Collins spent most of their time not asking questions but rather just ranting, often times about debunked or patently false claims. 

Actually, yes they were. I seen it, heard it. 

Quote:Here's an article on how the GOP used their time with witness Fiona Hill (a lifelong Republican who worked for Bolton in the administration)

She was chided for her comments by three Republican congressmen, Mike Turner, John Ratcliffe and Brad Wenstrup, who used their question time to criticize her, fellow witness David Holmes and the impeachment inquiry without asking them a question.


"Dr. Hill, I’m sorry, I have to say this, you say based on statements you’ve heard that some in this committee believe Russia did not conduct a campaign against this country is false," he said, before decrying the Democrats' impeachment efforts as "a coup." "Coups create division," Wenstrup said.

When Hill asked if she could respond to Wenstrup, he angrily declared that he hadn't asked a question

http://www.msnbc.com/rachel-maddow-show/impeachment-hearings-even-the-gops-witnesses-are-hurting-trump

[/url]

I honestly don't recall enough of this to defend. I remember watching parts of it and I will revisit, but I felt with Dills comment, I needed to respond to these post's.

Quote:With regards to "rushing", the Clinton impeachment process in the house lasted from 10/8 to 12/19. Trump's was 9/24 to 12/18.

Fair enough if your dates are valid. I felt it was rushed. I felt they bullied their way through this to get an impeachment. Let's face it, when there is full support from dems who control congress, and zero support from republicans. Much like some of the comments on here about this senate trial, it was easy to forsee the outcome.

Quote:Previous impeachment calls or being upset about the election do not demonstrate the process being unfair.

I guess that's a matter of opinion.

Quote:The Whistleblower's identity is protected. Why would it need to be exposed if they're investigating what he reported?

I think your incorrect on this. A whistleblower has rights that he cannot be discriminated against but nothing in the FR states a whistleblower has rights to anonymity. Rather you or I agree with this doesn't matter. It's not in there that i've seen. 

Quote:There's been plenty of wrong doing exposed. 

Show me a crime he's been guilty of committing? Dems have tried over and over to accuse and prove he has. However, this impeachment hearing has zero crimes. Only opinions of abuse of power. Opinions based out of anger.

Quote:Justin Amash supported impeachment. 

Hmm, honestly had to check him out. Never heard of him. Ok, maybe 1. But respectfully dont have the time right now to check if your correct or not, when he supported it or what his motives were to do so. Therefor, I'll just give it to you.

Quote:Collusion wasn't an accusation.

Umm, yes it was.  

Quote:The dossier isn't relevant to this.

Why isn't it? Because it's pretty disgraceful and shows the depths the dems will go to get what they want? It's very relevant.

(01-22-2020, 09:52 PM)Dill Wrote:

Quote:Gosh Harley. It sounds like you are getting your news from one source, point by point.

I think I answered this, but it was later.

Quote:Why would you say there has been "no abuse of power" here? A day after the Muller Report could not exonerate Trump of obstruction of justice, he began working against US official policy to blackmail the president of Ukraine into producing (not finding) dirt on Joe Biden. 

The Mueller investigation was meant to bury Trump, not try to exonerate him. The report came back with nothing but Mueller added his little tidbit that it didn't prove he didn't. So the dem supporters hung on to that.

Quote:How does holding up aid, demanding a political favor, firing honest government officials who would not be corrupted--and then blocking all testimony from the WH staff--amount to "no facts of wrongdoing"? 

Holding up aid? I believe there was a timeline for the aid to be delivered and it was met (I don't have any facts on this, just what I've listened to). As for the President, he was firing people way before he was in office. It's actually a staple of his. As POTUS, he has full, legal support to fire anyone he doesn't trust that work for him.

Quote:I know Jim Jordon and Devon Nunes were claiming "no wrongdoing" every day during the impeachment hearing, but can't you yourself--independently of them--tell that the aid WAS held up, conditioned on Biden dirt, the ambassador really fired?  And Trump's own ambassador to the EU confirmed his motives. All that happened, right?  You see that evidence is being successfully withheld because those charged with upholding the law are allowing that, right?

I won't lie, I'm a fan of Jim Jordon. Mainly because I've met him and he spoke to a group of company leaders in transportation and the concerns we had. He was genuine and a pretty nice guy. Plus he's a little fiesty and kind of what you want out of a representative. As for the rest of that question, did you read the transcripts of the conversation? I read it and I did not see any quid-pro-quo and both leaders even said there wasn't any. [url=https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf]https://www.whitehouse.gov/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Unclassified09.2019.pdf

(01-23-2020, 05:29 AM)Dill Wrote:

Quote:You got responses from three people, answering your questions in specific terms and asking substantive questions in return. No one has treated you disrespectfully, certainly not like "raw meat."

I don't think I wrote I was being disrespected. I simply wrote that a trump supporter on P&R is like raw meat. I was in no way implying you, or anyone else was being disrespectful and apologize if it came across that way.

Quote:I, for example, asked you questions focusing on the factual basis of the case against Trump.  Bpat offered specific, concrete examples of Republicans questioning witnesses or wasting their questioning time just to berate a courageous witness. With links.

In return you've only responded to Hollo, telling him how many news stations you watch.  He asked about your sources, because you said Republicans were not allowed to call witnesses and "mostly" couldn't question them. You also said there "no facts of wrongdoing." Since those claims are factually wrong, he was trying to figure out whether and how much of the hearings you had actually seen or read about, and from what sources. I.e., he was being careful and polite, trying to understand where you were coming from. I am very curious about that too; hence all those questions in my post about what you understand to be "facts."

I wrote what I wrote and it took a long time because I was on the phone with my wife during her lunch and did not give respect to your posts. This is why I'm here responding when I said I was done. After I posted my response, I jumped to other forums quickly before going to bed. I get up early.

Quote:Now it looks like you just made some claims about "unfairness" based upon "facts" which turn out not to be facts (of the kind we regularly hear on Fox, not "leftist" MSNBC).   If there is no "real discussion" here, that is only because you have chosen to exit when asked to clarify and support your claims.

  
Your facts, Hollo's facts, Bpats facts and even my facts are based on what we read. However, we are on puppet strings of the news we listen too. I listened to different viewpoints and I went a different direction that you guys. Because of that, I seem to be doing a helluva lot of writing tonight.

(01-23-2020, 07:26 AM)NATI BENGALS Wrote:

Quote:I appreciate the honesty. And it saddens me that "they are who we thought they were."

A reality TV show host, draft dodging, silver spoon, sexual deviant, conman, has force fed you a fire-hose stream of bullshit. And you drank it up.

Yeah I guess, but I considered the alternative and the alternative forced my vote. But, I like my decision so far, that's why I vote. So I can ***** and complain or support. 

(01-23-2020, 09:06 AM)hollodero Wrote:

Quote:No.

Rather, you asked me what facts I think you ignore.
One of those facts you ignore is that you're wrong regarding many circumstances of the hearings. I'm really sorry that you're wrong about them. But you just are. Don't be offended by me saying so.

How am I wrong? The word FACTS has been thrown around in here pretty loosely. Show me facts. Opinions fueled by media is not facts.

Quote:Then you asked me if I have seen the same hearings you saw. Which is not a genuine question to begin with, and tough to answer, because obviously I haven't. Since you saw hearings where Reps couldn't even ask questions. Which is, again, mind-boggingly untrue. Again, don't be mad at me for you being wrong.

I'm not mad at you at all. I will admit I was taken back by your last comment I responded on which (I can't go back and get it precisely because I'm afraid to lose all this writing) that a biased media is driven by people who ignore facts. People like me. Thought that was pretty accusatory and callous because I didn't agree with you. But it didn't make me mad but made me think you were. As for your question, I answered that above. I watched clips of the hearing and this is what I saw. Not what I read, what I saw! As for stating I should not be mad at you for me being wrong? You should work on your skills a little. They're a little disrespectful to anyone who discusses something with you and explains why I bowed out. Again, not mad.

Quote:I have no problem with Trump supporters. From what do you conclude that I "hate" you? Because I disagree with you? Because I tell you you're factually wrong when you're factually wrong?

I'm really struggling here to remember where I said you hate me? Again, the facts you speak of are articles, that with media bias today, hold the same weight this forum gives Wikipedia. 

Quote:This is really something I don't understand. Trump is tough in handing out verbal injuries. Supporters usually are too. E.g. there are millions of memes painting liberals as crybabies, as snowflakes, that have their feelings hurt, oh hahaha.
But as soon as you run into the slightest controversy, you feel personally insulted, call folks hate-felt, take your ball and go home.

This is snowflakeish.

This motive right here, which I felt in your first response, is why I "took my ball and went home." It was not unfair to you that I did so. I responded with my opinion. Vastly different that your opinion which you say is factual, but holds as much factual weight as a wet paper bag. I might be the only person whoever said that, but you get the point.

Quote:Yeah kinda cute, though a bit of a pastry face.

Something about the way she moves her lips maybe, IDK? I find women who are assertive and strong are more attractive to me. Oh shit, maybe I miss my mom?   I'm sure there is some psychologist out there that would staple me with that diagnosis. But seriously, my wife is very similar. Not in looks because my wife is a 10 and that girl is maybe a 7. Yet, when she believes in something and discusses her point she is very intelligent and well spoken and hits her points home. Drives me wild. Maybe that's why I provoke her mind on stuff, LOL.

I hope you guys have a great evening.

[Vas Deferens]

Well there you have it guys. What I would previously call good upstanding Americans are now kowtowing to the kremlins wishes, acting like Daddy isn’t looking out for daddy’s daddy, then daddy first. ‘Cuz they done seen it.

Past the point of ignorant last return.

[BmorePat87]

(01-23-2020, 10:52 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I hope you guys have a great evening.

The Republicans are exaggerating and at some points outright lying with regards to witnesses and access to hearings. 

Those are two witnesses that were requested by the GOP. They had a number of witnesses who were rejected because they were not relevant to the impeachment. As someone already stated, one of them was someone related to the Steele Dossier, which had no relevance to this.

When the defense team stated on the Senate floor that no GOP witnesses were allowed and that no Republicans were allowed in SCIF hearings, they were outright lying. 

My dates are "valid". That's a matter of public record.

The whistleblower's identity is protected from being exposed by the inspector general and their staff after the whistleblower submits a report. There are numerous other federal laws that would make it illegal for others to out the whistleblower at this stage of a congressional investigation, including 18 USC 1505. 

You don't need to commit a crime to be impeached. 

It would have been quicker to google Justin Amash than to type out that you don't know who he is and don't have time to look him up.

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/justin-amash-speaks-in-favor-of-impeachment-on-the-house-floor-75303493746

Collusion is not part of the articles of impeachment

The dossier has nothing to do with Trump's abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. 

[GMDino]

Vindman lawyer adds: “While Senator Blackburn fires off defamatory tweets, Lieutenant Colonel Vindman will continue to do what he has always done : serve our country dutifully and with honor.” 2/2

— Peter Alexander (@PeterAlexander) January 24, 2020

 

[HarleyDog]

(01-23-2020, 11:58 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: The Republicans are exaggerating and at some points outright lying with regards to witnesses and access to hearings. 

Those are two witnesses that were requested by the GOP. They had a number of witnesses who were rejected because they were not relevant to the impeachment. As someone already stated, one of them was someone related to the Steele Dossier, which had no relevance to this.

When the defense team stated on the Senate floor that no GOP witnesses were allowed and that no Republicans were allowed in SCIF hearings, they were outright lying. 

My dates are "valid". That's a matter of public record.

The whistleblower's identity is protected from being exposed by the inspector general and their staff after the whistleblower submits a report. There are numerous other federal laws that would make it illegal for others to out the whistleblower at this stage of a congressional investigation, including 18 USC 1505. 

You don't need to commit a crime to be impeached. 

It would have been quicker to google Justin Amash than to type out that you don't know who he is and don't have time to look him up.

https://www.nbcnews.com/video/justin-amash-speaks-in-favor-of-impeachment-on-the-house-floor-75303493746

Collusion is not part of the articles of impeachment

The dossier has nothing to do with Trump's abuse of power and obstruction of Congress. 

Ok.

[Benton]

Nutshell so far:

Democrats: here's all the evidence. You can ask the white house for more if you don't believe us.

Republicans: yeah we didn't watch what the house did. And we're not really paying any attention to what's going on now. Didn't that one guy have sex with a corpse?

White House: crooked Hillary!

[hollodero]

(01-23-2020, 10:52 PM)HarleyDog Wrote: I'm really struggling here to remember where I said you hate me? Again, the facts you speak of are articles, that with media bias today, hold the same weight this forum gives Wikipedia. 

You said my answer was "hate-felt".

Also. That Republicans could and did call witnesses is not taken from a biased article. It is the truth.
Also, republicans were not mainly disallowed to ask questions. That is just wrong. And whatever you saw, it still is wrong. I have no interest to mince my words around that fact. You're just wrong about that. And everyone who saw the hearings knows that. This is not just "my opinion".

Now maybe you saw an unfortunate selection of clips out of context, or you were so eager to find what you hoped to find that you got a distorted view on reality. I wouldn't know. But this also is not a matter of "I have my articles you have your articles and everything is biased anyway". The republicans questioned witnesses for hours uninterrupted. That's just what happened. You don't get to put alternative facts to this reality and call them equivalent in nature.

And sure, I accuse you of being badly informed when you say things like that. This is not meant in a bad way. It is the respectful response, because it's the honest response.

And this goes for so many things. Like your saying "the Dems betrayed the courts with a phony dossier". This is a heavily biased view on things. You however call that "factual". As if it were "factual" that the FBI are Democrats (for the FBI handled FISA) or that the courts were actually "made to allow a "politically motivated investigation" - which also is not factual and refuted by pretty much everything, including AG reports and Barr-led investigations.

And so on, Mueller report, Trump's Ukraine scheme, you just take the democrat-unfriendly view and call it "factual", though it is not factual. The rebuttals you recieve, however, are. Some are even easy to check. You can find out in no time that republicans could and did call witnesses in the hearings. You could see you're wrong in asserting the opposite in a minute of research. A minute, really.

I mean, I get it, you got a hot wife and hence have no minute. I don't and have many. Btw. Tulsi is the hottest US politician by far, and I don't like her at all.

[Belsnickel]

(01-23-2020, 01:05 PM)hollodero Wrote: Yeah, my issue is rather how people, sure mainly from the prosecution, argue how in any regular trial, this and that should be natural.
I'd wish the defense/jury/Mitch would just respond by admitting that this is not a trial and hence those points are moot. But all sides keep up the appearance and perpetuate the picture of a trial. Which is deliberately misleading.

(01-23-2020, 01:09 PM)Dill Wrote: Well, yes. It is very much a trial. And constructed on analogy to criminal trials, with some deviations at critical points--like a president doesn't actually have to violate a criminal statute to be impeached and the jury is at the same time the judge.

It is a trial because that is the next step according to the Constitution. That is what the Senate is supposed to be doing. The biggest problem right now is that the Senate is not acting as it was intended to. The Senate was intended to be above hyper-partisanship like we are seeing, here.

If you are familiar with the works of Dr. Jane Mansbridge, she lays out the differences between adversarial and consensus democracies. The way the House and Senate existed up through the mid-20th century was that the House acted in an adversarial way and the Senate in consensus. This was a great paradigm in which the bodies complemented each other and allowed actual governing to occur. Dr. Ross Baker described this in detail and even used the Clinton impeachment trial as a case study on this point because it was that recent that we could see this occur. Dr. Baker has said everything he wrote about how Congress operates in that way, now, is completely out the window. The McConnell era especially has ruined over two centuries of effective governance.

[hollodero]

(01-24-2020, 08:25 AM)Belsnickel Wrote: If you are familiar with the works of Dr. Jane Mansbridge, she lays out the differences between adversarial and consensus democracies.

Well, I for one am not. You added interesting detail, bit in general I was aware that it is supposed to be a trial and that the senate is supposed to be somewhat beyond pure partisanship. But that is not the case and what is happening right now is not a trial.

All that makes it so unfathomable to me how folks are 100% certain that your democracy still is absolutely rock solid in its core. This is based on many things that used to be true, but went out of the window, like this trial thing and other things that are supposed to happen, but do not happen.