Opinion - Impeachment

[Kitsune9tails]

Here is an honest question about the Impeachment trial.

Should it be an honest trial?

I have the impression that a plurality of Republicans think the trial should be a sham because the President is obviously innocent of wrongdoing, or his wrongdoing isn't bad enough to be impeachable, or because the trial is partisan, or some combination of all three.

I have the impression that a plurality of Democrats think the trial should be a sham because the President is obviously guilty of wrongdoing, or abuse of power is impeachable even if it isn't a crime, or they think the President is actively harmful to America and should be removed on any pretense, or some combination of all three.

However, both of these groups seem to agree on one very important thing: that the President will be acquitted, regardless of the evidence, regardless of the question of any possible guilt, regardless of whether or not his actions regarding Ukraine or anything else is something you might want some future President from some other party to do.

Is it even possible for the Senate to put country ahead of partisan politics on this? Should they? ARE they? If they cannot, should politicians from both parties face penalties for not being able to do their jobs?

Or should they speed through a sham trial and acquit the President so he can get back to <investigating corruption and/or soliciting election interference> thus avoiding spending more taxpayer money and mental bandwidth on what seems like a foregone conclusion?

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails

Should it be an honest trial?

Yes.

However, both of these groups seem to agree on one very important thing: that the President will be acquitted...

Is it even possible for the Senate to put country ahead of partisan politics on this?

No.

Should they?

Yes.

ARE they?

No.

If they cannot, should politicians from both parties face penalties for not being able to do their jobs?

They would argue that they are doing their jobs. Their jobs are to represent their constituents. Their constituents might also believe they are doing their jobs. We don't actually have that strict of a definition of what the job of a Senator is.

Or should they speed through a sham trial and acquit the President so he can get back to <investigating corruption and/or soliciting election interference> thus avoiding spending more taxpayer money and mental bandwidth on what seems like a foregone conclusion?

It certainly is worth investigating. It's setting a lot of dangerous and arrogant precedents that will have important implications down the road, for sure. What they're doing right now is important. Not patriotic. Not honest. Not in our best interests. It's important though.

So was the Bolshevik Revolution.

[Kitsune9tails]

A question: have we proven that Impeachment doesn't work or have we proven that two Presidents were innocent of what they were accused of?

[Publius]

Originally Posted by Kitsune9tails

A question: have we proven that Impeachment doesn't work or have we proven that two Presidents were innocent of what they were accused of?

As far as I am aware, all of the Presidents that have been impeached were guilty of what they were accused of.

I think this is a case of impeachment no longer working.

They didn't call witnesses. The evidence was plain as day, and even many Republicans said so.

Impeachment is broken.