SpokenTruth said:
This is definitely the crux of the situation. Conviction being unlikely so what do we gain? I think it's a longer term gain that short term. It sends a clear message that corruption, abuse of power and obstruction will not go unaddressed. That the oath of office still have meaning. That Congress has not abdicated the entirety of its balance of power to the executive branch. Accountability is still a virtue that warrants its protection from indifference. The actions of the Senate also tell the voting public where their morals lie come the next gubernatorial election cycle. Overall....it tells the world we still elected a president, not a king. |
What message does it send when there was an obviously impeachable offense then he gets off anyway?
aiwass said:
You're far more optimistic about the motives and message it sends than I. If successful, it will send the message that a political party can remove the President who belongs to the opposing party simply for politically-driven reasons, and because they simply don't like him. You can argue the specifics of their "case" all you like, but the fact is they were throwing out the word 'impeachment' from day one of him being in office, long before any of the supposed reasons they've come up with existed. They enjoyed taunting that they were going to go for impeachment over Russian collusion. That was a dud, so they came up with something else. Does it not trouble you or send up any red flags that their reasoning for why he needs to be removed has changed over the months and years, and continues to slide around as this process unfolds? The best they have is "obstruction of justice", which was him defending himself over claims that ended up not being true. What a joke. |
The report of the Russian investigation did not say the claims were untrue, but that they could not be confirmed or denied. And because it could not be confirmed the house did not draft articles of impeachment. They investigated the issue, just like they investigated the issue with Hillary's servers. There is no doubt that many prominent republicans hated Hillary. That does not mean there was no cause for an investigation. Obviously with the Russia investigation, there were some very improper things going on as there were several arrests, so it was well worth investigating. Whether or not they dislike Trump is irrelevant. Instead of making ad hominem argument, try addressing the actual facts.
Your argument is similar to saying "don't you find it funny that they wanted to put OJ Simpson in jail for murder, then that was a dud, so they wanted to put him in jail for armed robbery?" The reason changed because they suspected that he committed a crime, investigated it, found out that it couldn't be proven he did, then they suspected he committed another one, so then they investigated that one. Similarly, they suspected Donald Trump did something improper, they investigated it, could not confirm or deny it, then he was accused by several reputable people of doing something else improper, so they're investigating that one. The reason is changing cause he keeps doing different shady shit.
