LA Times Opinion: Impeachment could be history's takeaway on Donald...

The House has already fatally wounded its case and it will go down in history as a disgraceful episode in which one party tried to undo an election through the abuse of the impeachment process.

IT DID NOT HAVE TO THAT WAY, even if we all know that this is the reason the Democratic-controlled House wants impeachment. The approach taken could have been made to look legitimate, even if it was not so, but that possibility is now gone and cannot be retrieved.

Albion said:

The House has already fatally wounded its case and it will go down in history as a disgraceful episode in which one party tried to undo an election through the abuse of the impeachment process.

IT DID NOT HAVE TO THAT WAY, even if we all know that this is the reason the Democratic-controlled House wants impeachment. The approach taken could have been made to look legitimate, even if it was not so, but that possibility is now gone and cannot be retrieved.

Click to expand...

The facts will be tested in the senate trial, and then we'll see if the impeachment was warranted..... not according to the senate's vote, which is already decided even before the trial, but according to the merits of the case as displayed in the trial itself.

durangodawood said:

The facts will be tested in the senate trial, and then we'll see if the impeachment was warranted..... not according to the senate's vote, which is already decided even before the trial, but according to the merits of the case as displayed in the trial itself.

Click to expand...

The House was already decided before any investigation. Therefore nothing in this process will tell anyone anything unless someone comes up with solid facts rather than the speculations, assumptions and projections we have heard so far.

durangodawood said:

The facts will be tested in the senate trial, and then we'll see if the impeachment was warranted..... not according to the senate's vote, which is already decided even before the trial, but according to the merits of the case as displayed in the trial itself.

Click to expand...

It's the House vote that is already decided. It's been tested several times and the votes counted, so when the vote is taken on impeachment itself, there is no question about where the votes will fall. In the Senate, we may guess and presume, but that remains open for the time being.

That aside, it is as I said. The House action has already marked the process as a sham, a phony thing. The House leadership COULD have done it otherwise but chose not to do so, for some reason. The most obvious reason is that, being a phony process, they didn't feel there was much choice left to them--crimes that are not crimes, a "whistleblower" who is not a whistleblower, a committee chairman who has previously told the world that he had indisputable evidence against the president in the Russia scam only to have the Mueller committee pull that rug out from under him, etc.

But I still think it could have been made to look legitimate--or something close to that--and they did not do that. So in history it will be seen as a raw exercise in political vengeance on the part of the party of the losing candidate (somewhat like history's verdict concerning the Andrew Johnson impeachment but unlike the Nixon impeachment, even though the Democrats were out to get Nixon from years before there was any Watergate).

grasping the after wind said:

The House was already decided before any investigation. Therefore nothing in this process will tell anyone anything unless someone comes up with solid facts rather than the speculations, assumptions and projections we have heard so far.

Click to expand...

There's been some quite powerful testimony from very credible witnesses for far. Of course there's a political game operating alongside the facts of the matter. But lets focus on the facts. Eye on the ball, people!

Testimony and credibility doesn't count for much if its all second-hand, third-hand, opinion, and/or contrary to the evidence. And it isn't even credible if whatever is said is not given in open hearings.

durangodawood said:

There's been some quite powerful testimony from very credible witnesses for far. Of course there's a political game operating alongside the facts of the matter. But lets focus on the facts. Eye on the ball, people!

Click to expand...

Witnesses speculations, assumptions and projections are not facts no matter how credible anyone considers them.

Albion said:

Testimony and credibility doesn't count for much if its all second-hand, third-hand, opinion, and/or contrary to the evidence. And it isn't even credible if whatever is said is not given in open hearings.

Click to expand...

Not buying it. Thats like saying the entire Starr investigation into Clinton was illegit.

There's a whole senate trial ahead of us which, if not open, I will agree is a sham.

durangodawood said:

Not buying it. Thats like saying the entire Starr investigation into Clinton was illegit.

There's a whole senate trial ahead of us which, if not open, I will agree is a sham.

Click to expand...

The Starr investigation is analogous to the Mueller investigation. Not to any House proceedings. You should be comparing how the House ran the impeachment of Clinton to this thing that is going on in the House that does not resemble that process very much.

grasping the after wind said:

The Starr investigation is analogous to the Mueller investigation. Not to any House proceedings. You should be comparing how the House ran the impeachment of Clinton to this thing that is going on in the House that does not resemble that process very much.

Click to expand...

I trust Chief Justice Roberts to run a fair trial, even if I dont trust the senate to vote a-politically. Thats where we'll see whats what regarding the case itself.

As for the house, I'm perfectly fine with closed door hearings and written transcripts in the inquiry phase so long as the R's arent shut out.

TLK Valentine said:

Anytime Donald wants to sign a confession is fine... lacking that, the inestigators are going to have to... you know... investigate.



The Whistleblower has agreed to answer questions in writing (to protect his identity) -- that was good enough for Donald (to protect his freedom), so why not, eh?

Click to expand...

Would you be ok if I answered questions in writing if I accused you of doing something wrong because someone else told me you said something ? Would you be ok if I was allowed to do that and no one was allowed to know where I got my information or who I was? Would you be ok that your Constitutional right to face your accuser was removed from you?

grasping the after wind said:

....Would you be ok that your Constitutional right to face your accuser was removed from you?

Click to expand...

Wow its like someone erased the open senate trial phase from your consciousness.

Albion said:

The House has already fatally wounded its case and it will go down in history as a disgraceful episode in which one party tried to undo an election through the abuse of the impeachment process.

IT DID NOT HAVE TO THAT WAY, even if we all know that this is the reason the Democratic-controlled House wants impeachment. The approach taken could have been made to look legitimate, even if it was not so, but that possibility is now gone and cannot be retrieved.

Click to expand...

I don't understand the extreme loyalty to Trump. Why Trump? Why not some other more worthy person? You don't have that kind of extreme loyalty to Nixon, right?

Halbhh said:

I don't understand the extreme loyalty to Trump. Why Trump? Why not some other more worthy person? You don't have that kind of extreme loyalty to Nixon, right?

Click to expand...

Nixon lived in a time before Fox News.

durangodawood said:

I trust Chief Justice Roberts to run a fair trial, even if I dont trust the senate to vote a-politically. Thats where we'll see whats what regarding the case itself.

As for the house, I'm perfectly fine with closed door hearings and written transcripts in the inquiry phase so long as the R's arent shut out.

Click to expand...

I'm actually amused at the notion that the House is totally fair and square after we know for a fact that it is not, while the Senate that has yet to vote or even be polled informally is a worry.

GoldenBoy89 said:

Nixon lived in a time before Fox News.

Click to expand...

Hmmm....that's perhaps like the...secondary cause, or secondary effect of the primary cause, it seems possibly. I mean I think there could be a more fundamental thing. Possibly Reagan (who was before foxnews right?) would be a good instance to consider. But this seems a little different to me than Reagan. I could understand the Reagan thing, "Morning in America", and loved it when he stood in the cold outside in Berlin and said "Mr. Gorbachev, tear down this wall!" and such. I had drunk the kool aid on Reagan like about age 13 way back before he lost the 76 nomination to Ford. But Trump doesn't seem like Reagan to me. It's different...atmosphere to it. It seems more...well, frankly, evil, to me. Now there's where fox (tricky fox) could have an effect: by hiding that darker side of it from very many. Keeping the darker facts out of view, missing.

Albion said:

I'm actually amused at the notion that the House is totally fair and square after we know for a fact that it is not, while the Senate that has yet to vote or even be polled informally is a worry.

Click to expand...

Why is it a worry? There has been no open House debate on the Articles of Impeachment yet, so the Senate doesn't even know what they will contain.

GoldenBoy89 said:

Nixon lived in a time before Fox News.

Click to expand...

This guy in the video below (who I was a huge supporter of as a teen) got a lot of loyalty, but it seems to me there was a different....atmosphere/spirit to it. Did Reagan demonize or slander innocent and desperate immigrants?

Reagan himself was a dreamer, capable of imagining a world without trade barriers. In announcing his presidential candidacy in Nov. 1979, he had proposed a “North American accord” in which commerce & people would move freely across the borders of Canada & Mexico.
Ronald Reagan on Immigration