- Nov 21, 2008
- 51,298
- 10,590
- Country
- United States
- Faith
- SDA
- Marital Status
- Married
The Senate can take decisive action to save the Republic from political games and ultimate political nonsense.
Given -
1. That both sides agree that President Trump has said things at times - about his opponents that do not help his case even with Republicans - so both sides agree that his choice of words is at times self defeating. And that the charge of "poor choice of words" falls far below "impeachable offense".
2. That both sides agree that a bipartisan vote from the Senate is needed to confirm the impeachment charge coming from the house. 4. The house "needed" to present a bipartisan vote in favor of whatever final decision was going to be made in the house, to keep it out of the bottom-of-barrel antics of purely partisan politics as the "substance" of impeachment
3. That both sides agree that the only bipartisan vote that came from the house was one opposing impeachment.
4. That both sides agree that we would not want a future Republican or Democratic house to "repeat" the antics just displayed in the house - with purely partisan political voting impeaching the president of the opposing party in election cycle after election cycle.
5. that both sides agree that to "give incentive" to such poor behavior in the house will only encourage a repeat of that sad behavior no matter which party is in control of the house - from now on... as long as the house majority is of a political party that is not also the President's political party...
6. That BOTH sides agree that the house should have called all the list of witnesses it now demands that the Senate call before "rushing to partisan-political judgment"
7. That BOTH sides agree that president's lawyers in every instance of impeachment have the opportunity to question the opposing witnesses and choosing to oppose that fair and open process is to declare a "partisan result" as the only result sought for.
8. That even the democrat expert witness called to testify regarding the process of impeachment stated that it is the house of Reps that is guilty of "abuse of power" if it dares to file charges against the President for daring to ask that the judicial branch decide on issues of conflict between the legislative and executive branch in the area of calling witnesses
THEN the Senate needs to redirect the focus to one of condemning a shoddy work product in the house - condemning a tactic in the house that cannot be tolerated by EITHER party. That giving any legitimacy or "benefit" to such a practice can only promote it.
A vote of "no confidence" telling the house that they provided no open door a bipartisan vote in the Senate in favor of the house's charges. And a "bipartisan result" is the only acceptable result when it comes to such a serious issue in the Republic.
Tell them that given that they set the low bar of a shoddy one-sided purely-partisan work product as the lead initiative in that work product, they leave the Senate no choice but to reject it outright because the only way for that motion to succeed in the Senate is via a bipartisan result in the Senate.
The Senate should declare with bipartisan vote "no confidence" or "abuse of process" or something like that so that the house "sees the consequence" of doing this all wrong. And so no future Republican-majority house will be enticed to "follow the poor example" set but this House.
Failing to do so - puts the entire ship of state into a nose dive.
Some details are so obvious - both sides can seen them.
Cooler heads must prevail.
(Hint: I don't think the Senate is going to agree with the house.. but that is not the point. The much larger problem for the republic is getting into the basement-level tactic of from now on having purely partisan impeachment cycle after cycle as long as the HR majority party is not the same as the president's party. Not a welcome scenario for the future of politics in the Republic).
Given -
1. That both sides agree that President Trump has said things at times - about his opponents that do not help his case even with Republicans - so both sides agree that his choice of words is at times self defeating. And that the charge of "poor choice of words" falls far below "impeachable offense".
2. That both sides agree that a bipartisan vote from the Senate is needed to confirm the impeachment charge coming from the house. 4. The house "needed" to present a bipartisan vote in favor of whatever final decision was going to be made in the house, to keep it out of the bottom-of-barrel antics of purely partisan politics as the "substance" of impeachment
3. That both sides agree that the only bipartisan vote that came from the house was one opposing impeachment.
4. That both sides agree that we would not want a future Republican or Democratic house to "repeat" the antics just displayed in the house - with purely partisan political voting impeaching the president of the opposing party in election cycle after election cycle.
5. that both sides agree that to "give incentive" to such poor behavior in the house will only encourage a repeat of that sad behavior no matter which party is in control of the house - from now on... as long as the house majority is of a political party that is not also the President's political party...
6. That BOTH sides agree that the house should have called all the list of witnesses it now demands that the Senate call before "rushing to partisan-political judgment"
7. That BOTH sides agree that president's lawyers in every instance of impeachment have the opportunity to question the opposing witnesses and choosing to oppose that fair and open process is to declare a "partisan result" as the only result sought for.
8. That even the democrat expert witness called to testify regarding the process of impeachment stated that it is the house of Reps that is guilty of "abuse of power" if it dares to file charges against the President for daring to ask that the judicial branch decide on issues of conflict between the legislative and executive branch in the area of calling witnesses
THEN the Senate needs to redirect the focus to one of condemning a shoddy work product in the house - condemning a tactic in the house that cannot be tolerated by EITHER party. That giving any legitimacy or "benefit" to such a practice can only promote it.
A vote of "no confidence" telling the house that they provided no open door a bipartisan vote in the Senate in favor of the house's charges. And a "bipartisan result" is the only acceptable result when it comes to such a serious issue in the Republic.
Tell them that given that they set the low bar of a shoddy one-sided purely-partisan work product as the lead initiative in that work product, they leave the Senate no choice but to reject it outright because the only way for that motion to succeed in the Senate is via a bipartisan result in the Senate.
The Senate should declare with bipartisan vote "no confidence" or "abuse of process" or something like that so that the house "sees the consequence" of doing this all wrong. And so no future Republican-majority house will be enticed to "follow the poor example" set but this House.
Failing to do so - puts the entire ship of state into a nose dive.
Some details are so obvious - both sides can seen them.
Cooler heads must prevail.
(Hint: I don't think the Senate is going to agree with the house.. but that is not the point. The much larger problem for the republic is getting into the basement-level tactic of from now on having purely partisan impeachment cycle after cycle as long as the HR majority party is not the same as the president's party. Not a welcome scenario for the future of politics in the Republic).
Last edited:
