164

Democrats didn't impeach in 2018, because they were a minority in both House and Senate until January 3, 2019. Afterwards, they didn't have the necessary evidence until the Mueller Report that would have resulted in multiple felony charges for any American other than the president, was released on April 18, 2019. Democrats were divided on whether to ...


141

Absolutely Not – the White House had ample opportunities to present a defense The House Judiciary Committee gave The White House the opportunity to present a public defense from either Trump or his lawyers: The chairman of the House Judiciary Committee asked President Trump on Friday whether he intends to mount a defense during the committee’s consideration ...


137

"What is accomplished" depends on whether you look at impeachment as a process that is strictly evaluated on partisan political gain, or whether you view it under its intended framework - as a tool for a co-equal branch of government to rein in potential abuses by the Executive Branch. If the President has committed abuses of the powers of office, removing ...


114

In terms of what new information of substance can the whistle-blower bring to the fore that is not already confirmed or refuted by more closely engaged sources, there is no purpose and nothing for the whistle-blower to offer. Since the allegations have been corroborated, and more, it seems, the purpose of the whistle-blower is more key for the defense of ...


113

Impeachment is a political act. There is no crime so heinous for which members of either house could be found criminally or civilly liable for voting no on impeachment. There is also nothing so pure and beneficial which they are forbidden from using as justification for impeachment. The President could be impeached by the House on the grounds the ...


91

This comment is coming from the same President who called lifelong Republican Robert Mueller "a Democrat" for investigating him. He doesn't use these words to mean what they mean. He consistently uses them as epithets to dehumanize anyone who doesn't support him. It is a cue for his in-group to consider these people 'outsiders' and 'nonbelievers'....


87

No it wasn't "just another partisan report", the report came from the Government Accountability Office (GAO). They are a non-partisan factual resource body, completely independent of partisan politics. They are pretty much the gold standard for independent legal and policy analysis. Their duty is much like that of an independent auditing firm which is ...


81

I don't think "pre-impeach" is the right word because Congress has the power to impeach the VP or any other "civil officer", not just the president. According to article 2 of the constitution, as stated by Wikipedia: The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and ...


79

Mistaken identity It's not clear that the person named by RealClearInvestigations is the actual whistleblower. According to mediabiasfactcheck.com, that website has mixed factual reporting and has frequently run "emotionally loaded headlines" of which they give a few examples. Given the uncertainty as to whether this is the actual whistleblower, it'...


72

The only "element" missing is a sufficient number of Senators who would vote on the basis of the evidence rather than politics.


71

No, from ABC News (in reference to Ambassador Bill Taylor and Army Lt. Col. Alexander Vindman; emphasis mine): Trump has repeatedly lambasted these officials sitting for depositions as “Never Trumpers” – he called the United States’ top diplomat in Ukraine, Bill Taylor, one, too – despite the fact that there’s no evidence they have political biases ...


68

Isn't every conversation with the US president a form of quid-pro-quo? Possibly, though it depends on what's in the quid pro quo if it matters. In the case of withholding congressional approved security assistance until the Ukrainians investigate a domestic political opponent, there are two things wrong: It's not up to the president to withhold the ...


66

I believe there is an option 3: impeachment proceedings force senators to go on the book about whether or not they believe the actions of the president are worthy of removal from office or not. This provides ammunition for upcoming elections in 2020 where vulnerable seats, e.g. Susan Collins, can be targeted based upon how they vote. Having a hard vote on ...


65

'Why' questions are inherently difficult, often de-evolving to opinion-mongering. Unless someone in the White House tells us their reasoning explicitly, we could only guess. However, what we can say is that the White House and its supporters have consistently held that the Bidens and Burisma were involved in some unspecified form of corruption in the ...


65

In the fifth Democratic debate from Atlanta on November 20th 2019, Biden was consulted on this issue by moderator Rachel Maddow. He responded that he would leave the decision up to the Attorney General, and that he would follow their advice on the matter. He was pressed on the issue by Bernie Sanders, however, he maintained his position that the decision of ...


60

Freedom of the press means that anyone can publish anything they know without having to obey government gag orders. The government is not required to keep journalists informed. Freedom of the press is not violated if the government tries hard to not leak anything to the press. That's why the Freedom of Information Act exists. It grants journalists access to ...


60

Because four were completely irrelevant to the question at hand, two were superfluous, and two actually did testify. Let's go through the list for fun. Hunter Biden. It would stretch credibility that Trump or one of his cohorts would have directly informed Hunter Biden that they were attempting to determine what criminal activity he did. You don't tell ...


58

Because Senate leadership [which largely shapes these rules] sees the trial's outcome as a forgone conclusion “I’m not an impartial juror. This is a political process,” Senate Majority Leader Mitch McConnell (R-Ky.) told reporters last month. The accelerated schedule (towards that foregone conclusion) goes hand in hand with not calling any [new] ...


57

The origins of the "identifying" of the whistle-blower come not from any actual fact or confirmation, but from speculation from a right-wing agenda site that bases the speculation upon similar characteristics matching between this person and the description of the whistle-blower. The obvious problem with the identification is that it has not been factually ...


56

There are at least 3 motives to get the whistleblower to testify: Fact finding to figure out what actually happened. Retaliation to discourage and intimidate potential future whistleblowers, and also to discourage and intimidate witnesses. Distraction not only to literally distract from the core question of the impeachment, but also as a vital component of ...


56

While the question of whether Trump's actions would have resulted in felony charges is a matter of opinion (though the 1027 prosecutors who signed the letter you mentioned is strong evidence in the positive), it is a fact that Mueller specifically avoided making a judgement about indictable offenses and chose to stick to investigating and reporting the bare ...


55

This has a long tradition in the US. Before World War II, most ambassadors were actually political appointees rather than career diplomats. Trump might be marginally worse than Obama and reverted back to a level of political appointment last seen under FDR but everybody is doing it. Consequently, using this as a charge would promptly backfire for Democrats.


49

Primaries. In order to win re-election a politician must win both a party primary and a general election. In most Republican primaries 80-90% of the electorate approves of the president and thinks he should not be impeached. So if you are a Republican running for office it is virtually impossible to win if you support impeachment because the people voting in ...


49

Regarding the start time (1p) From my understanding it is due to The Chief Justice's day job (SCOTUS). If true, this could be why on Saturday Jan 25 the trial started earlier as the SCOTUS didn't have any work that day. My answer doesn't included factors such as primetime viewership as I think those were secondary. I am trying to find text that cites ...


48

There are two levels on which to consider the question: On the partisan level, it is not at all clear that an impeachment process will benefit the Republicans (despite Trump's claims). Each Republican senator will be forced to either vote against Trump or go on record voting to support someone being accused of soliciting foreign powers to attack his ...


46

Yes, "quid pro quo" transactions are the bread and butter of international diplomacy. There is nothing inherently wrong with them. Which makes it kind of weird that the White House is harping on that issue as if it is the problem.* The actual issue here is if the POTUS was demanding something of chiefly personal value in exchange for smooth performance of ...


46

Four reasons: Whataboutism. It's easy to make potshots at vague 'questionable' behavior without actually trying to get to the bottom of it and punish those responsible. Add to that a refusal to defend one's own actions, and people quickly come to believe that 'all politicians do (X bad behavior)'. This has worked amazingly well for Trump against Hillary ...


44

No. Senators may vote as they wish. There is no standard of proof (such as "beyond reasonable doubt") specified in the Constitution for impeachment trials.


43

Actually, group polarization is not statistically unlikely for correlated variables like opinions, nor is it a phenomenon unique to politics. People radicalize in concert with like-minded others due to the mutual affirmation of a shared identity. This behavior intensifies their shared attitudes, including a negative view of outsiders. This, in turn, ...


41

Washington Post: Who is Bill Taylor, and why does his public testimony matter in the impeachment inquiry? In brief, the Washington Post lays out his pertinence as follows. As the top U.S. diplomat in Ukraine, he had a unique vantage point: Key figures in pushing Trump’s Ukraine policy were open with Taylor as they tried to get Ukraine to do Trump’s ...


Only top voted, non community-wiki answers of a minimum length are eligible