I think it's awfully naive to think that anyone will care about this in 4 years.

The only parties I have, you aren't invited to. Actually on second thought, you are invited, it would be pretty funny.

the ‘truth presented by the House’ was fine enough for almost every (D) member in the House to vote on impeachment.

why does Swallwell (D) require more “truth” now - he ran for President too and his abusing his power as a legislator against his political opponent when he is fishing, for any story that will confirm his bias, on social media

I think it’s awfully naive to think this won’t be written and taught to students for generations to come. He is one of 3 presidents to ever be impeached, could be the first impeached president to get re-elected or the first president to be convicted in the Senate. It will be taught in every US History class. But the thing is, regardless of whatever the outcome is, when the ultimate truth comes out that to will be written.



This is so ass backwards. You can have overwhelming evidence and enough to prove his guilt (which they did) and still need more evidence to get the ultimate truth. Systematic blocking of evidence to the house. People often forget, Nixon had incredible GOP support until the tapes came out. There may still be courage in the Republican Party, tho I doubt it.

Nobody spares a second thought about Bill's impeachment, nobody will care about Trump's either. There is a zero percent chance that he is convicted by the Senate.

Depending on whether or not he's reelected, this will either be seen as a sign of things to come (his electoral defeat), or a colossal blunder by the Democrat party that was a harbinger of their decline.

To your point to excellence, if the case has been proven, there's no reason for us to chase the "ultimate truth". The case hasn't been proven, and so we're where we are.

Maybe not for the trial, but we definitely should chase the truth from an oversight perspective. If we don't want the next President to do something similar, we should pass legislation and/or give more power to the IGs and oversight committees.

How bout we take away power from the government instead. No "oversight" committee is going to do anything.

The true issue underlying all of this is that the consitution doesnt give Congress appropriate tools to deal with norm-breaking by presidents in nuanced fashion. The gap between a meaningless censure and the frenzied impeachment process, which by its nature always comes with hyperpartisanship, is just too big.

The present case is very clear if you ask me: Trump did engage in misconduct, and there is plenty of evidence for it. But at the same time, the misconduct quite clearly does not nearly rise to the level of being worthy of removing a democratically elected president from office over it. One could argue that Trump being impeached but remaining in office amounts to this kind of more severe punishment, but the price is just too high in terms of the collateral damage this circus inflicts on the country's democratic culture and institutions

See, ive always been of the opinion that we should hold our leaders to high standards. If they do things that are clearly illegal and out of a motivation that is not defensible then get their ass out. Pence can take over, thats what vice presidents are for. Trump isnt worthy of the office and is the literal embodyment of the fears that drove the founders to create the electoral college in the first place.

Agreed. What Trump did was a gross abuse of power and unlawful. Presidents are replaceable, and it's important to hold a high standard of accountability unless we want to witness the position of the chief of the executive branch grow increasingly powerful and unruly.