When/If Impeachment goes to the Senate...

Well the democratic candidate would still be stuck at the Senate without the required permission to leave.

Keep him there every day past the election.

 

You're wrong...that's why we have elections. That is what a "republic" is. Representative government.

 

I agree we have a representative government but each individual is guaranteed by the constitution our sovereignty.

 

It isn't about Biden. It is about Trump abusing his office. And what a moron too. Biden was never going to win the nomination. Trump ruined his already corrupted reputation in the process. He has been exposed for the criminal he is.

 

Apparently it is all about Biden and Biden using his office to protect his son. If this goes to the Senate all that will come out. I have seen zero evidence of corruption and all the other silly liberal claims, just high level whining. The American people see this for what it is, liberal bullshit about losing the election. Bring out the evidence from someone who was actually there, not third or fourth hand hearsay. Taking this all the way through opens up more problems for Democrats than it does for Trump. I'm all for that...

 

Biden who?

 

This all started over Hunter Biden, and liberal corruption, all of which will come out. This was done in the hopes to get a radical prog candidate and take a shot at Trump. If there were crimes, they were committed during the Obama administration. This whole clown show has produced no evidence, not even a single credible witness that isn't third or fourth hand hearsay...

 

Yeah...from 538 who admitted to skewing their polls against Trump in the 2016 election year. Think I'll ignore them thanks.

 

I would think that their duty to uphold their oath of office and be present for all proceedings would take precedent over being out on the campaign trail. This is why I dislike political parties in general; IMO they are only concerned with their agenda's which a vast majority of the time do not include the American people. Both Democrats and Republicans have proved it over time and are a part of the same hypocrisy.

 

Umm...how can he do that? He's not VP or President anymore? Am I missing something? Are you talking about him claiming that for anything related to while he was VP? If so...well...he could as executive privilege does apply to foreign talks. However it wouldn't do him much good as Trump can simply release him from it. Then he couldn't claim it.

 

If Biden wasn't ever going to win the nomination then there is no attempt to influence the political process because he was never actually going to get nominated per your own words.

And yes, Biden IS central to this because the "abuse of power" is about Trump requesting Ukraine to investigate the Bidens. If there is a legitimate cause to do an investigation then there was no abuse of power. And we won't know if there was a legitimate cause until an investigation actually occurs... and like it or not, that includes questioning Biden.

 

Biden is no longer leading in the Iowa polls and it's debatable whether or not he'll be the nominated candidate. It will continue beyond that, if not completed prior to the Iowa Democratic primary. On calling on Schiff to testify, why? If we're going to start placing elected politicians on the witness list, would President Trump be the logical starting point? If he has nothing to hide, why doesn't he voluntarily offer to go before Congress and testify under oath regarding his intentions on withholding Ukrainian aid for two months?

 

Rumors are that Republicans believe that the longer impeachment goes on the more it hurts Democrats, so that assuming an impeachment trial begins in the Senate in January, the GOP is prepared to to stretch it out for three or four months!!! Effectively wrecking the entire Democratic primary season!

Hey the Dems wanted to go this route. Sow the wind. Reap the whirlwind.

 

Schiff had the initial contact with the whistle blower, even prior to them going through proper channels. Schiff injected himself into this, it would only be right he testify in this case. If Biden isn't the nominee, the case against Trump is gone. You folks are the ones saying Trump abused his power to go after a political rival. If Democrats choose someone other than Biden, that's got nothing to do with Trump. If you folks have some evidence, produce it, so far we have nothing but hearsay and opinions, its pathetic...

 

It would appear that impeachment and the Senate trial will be primarily based on national security...i.e. putting the country ahead of party politics. I think most Democrats understand that.

 

Why do you think the Whistleblower is still relevant, when so many others have testified basically corroborating his complaint. Also...two Trump appointees (the Intelligence IG and the Director of National Intelligence) concluded that the WB complaint was both "credible and urgent." Why do you find their testimony irrelevant?
The testimony and documents to date indicate Trump had TWO targets...one was Biden, but the other was the alleged Ukrainian interference in our 2016 election. Do you think Trump should concede that, as his own administration has concluded, the Russians were the hackers into the DNC and Clinton campaign?

 

is that Trump's problem too?

 

This all hinges on the whistle blower, and if you folks don't want him to testify in front of the American people there is a reason. The fact this all stems from a Democrat operative really puts a damper on the whole thing. Thus far zero evidence has been produced, just hearsay and opinions, nothing impeachable. Bring out the whistle blower or call this off, the people will not stand for more nonsense...

 

Actually, "the people" elect Senators and House Representatives, their Governors and state and local public officials. The Electoral College elects the President, according to individual state rules, effectively making the Presidential election "a recommendation." And, there is difference between "a recommendation," and the transfer of the "people's sovereignty" to their elected Senators and House Representatives, which makes us a republic.

 

The idea is that "the people" transfer part of that sovereignty to their elected representatives, who in turn, pass laws. We collectively agree to live under those laws, making us a "nation under law." The president, of course, is elected separately by the Electoral College, which may or may not reflect the "recommendation" of the people. There is a significant difference, which manifests itself in the separate branch's powers. The political philosophy at the time of the Revolution and American Constitution was that Parliament is supreme, because it reflects the transfer of the people's sovereignty to Parliament, for in our case, Congress. Barr's "theory of the unitary presidency," or even the idea that there are separate, but equal, branches of government is absurd. Only Congress may make laws, and it is the fact that we are a "nation under law" that gives us the exercise of individual sovereignty. There ARE separate branches, each with their own responsibilities and powers, but ultimately it is only Congress (the legislative branch) that may remove officials from the Executive and Judicial branches from office and only Congress that may remove its own members (a criminal prosecution does not in itself remove someone from office, unless it's used as the Congressional reason for expulsion).

 

Well Congress has already taken far too much of our sovereignty.. as have state and local governments.

 

That's ridiculous. You want to give it to the President? Suggests you're either an anarchist or an authoritarian. IMO, law is a function of both density and diversity of any given population. The greater density and diversity, the more "law" is necessary to regulate their interactions, which is basically the fundamental reason for law. If you live a simple life, in a rural area, you may not need as much "law" as you need in a more dense and urban population, wherein there are more possibilities for clashes between peoples. Both the density and diversity of our population has increased enormously since the mid-late 18th century, at the time the Constitution was written. Fortunately, there is an amendment process. And, as we became a global power, it was natural for the focus of national governance to move from a state and local orientation toward a national one.

 

I completely disagree freedom is vastly more important that the rule of law..

The majority that wants more laws to keep things civilized needs to go to hell .
And if density is the problem then i strongly oppose all immigration. And we need to tax having children to encourage people to avoid having kids. We need to reduce density so bad city people will stop dictating how rural people have to live..

 

Individual rights are more valuable than civilized society is.. and vastly so..

 

At least you are honest about your minority position. But, I take it the organizational part of the Constitution doesn't interest you much and you focus on your rights under the first ten amendments. But, whether you like it our not, we're a nation under law. Not your choice to decide which laws you'll follow and which you want. If you want to break the laws, the rest of us have passed through representative government, then the State may prosecute you and if found guilty of a crime may enforce the appropriate punishment. Civilization is a positive thing...not a bad one.