"Enough evidence to proceed" doesn't mean "all the evidence" and also doesn't mean "the senate doesn't collect more evidence".

It's just common sense

a complete abandonment of common sense and logic is the necessary requirement for being a trumpapologist at this point. no one who has anything even remotely resembling principles or critical thinking left, can still defend his actions, or the way that senate republicans covered for trump's repeated abuses of power.

That never happens in the real world. Do you think once an indictment occurs, the DA's office stops gathering evidence? Obviously impeachment trials are different than civil or criminal trials, but this notion that the Senate can't or shouldn't gather new evidence is pure applesauce.

This is just another one of many steps toward authoritarian capitalism.

This post was edited by Skinned on Feb 1 2020 03:07pm

What do you think we would have realistically learned from Bolton?



This is separation of powers working exactly as intended.

It's the Senate's choice on how to proceed, once receiving the articles of Impeachment.. Just as it was the House's choice on how to handle the Impeachment Inquiry.
Everyone knows this is how it works.

It seems however that some folk think that the Senate shouldn't have it's choice, just like the House did.

By removing the threat of impeachment to an executive? Seems like a strengthening of the Federal system. It's a matter of taste I guess.

This post was edited by Skinned on Feb 1 2020 03:25pm

I'm confused what the Democratic argument here actually is.

Should Republican Senators have removed a president overwhelmingly supported by their constituents? If a president makes the House upset, is that sufficient to order him removed from office and struck off the ballot?

Impeachment has a high bar precisely because it's such a radical action. It requires substantial, overriding support from the populace at large. Instead we have a plurality that wants him to stay in power, a minority that wants him removed, and a chunk of the public that just can't be bothered to care.

There never was an actual threat of impeachment in the case here, simply because impeachment never had the bipartisan support that the constitution requires for removal.
What the Republicans in the Senate did was shut down attempts by the Democrats to inflict PR damage on Trump via a process whose actual goal was unattainable anyway.

Well, it would have been another first hand account of what happened so it likely would have corroborated what we already know. I don't think it really changes the calculus much and now we're going to hear about it closer to the election as opposed to next week.



Uh...it's called lobbying your elected Senators lol. Are we not allowed to express disappointment in people we elected or something?



I don't think removal will ever happen with elected officials. We've seen first hand how much people are willing to bend over backwards for their team. If Nixon did what he did NOW, he wouldn't be forced to resign. It's ok though, we have elections to deal with this sort of thing.