(12-12-2019, 06:35 PM)Labster Wrote: I know GethN7 well enough to know that he's very earnest here, and trying to build common ground. And in terms of the current events he describes, I disagree with him on all the facts.
Part of the reason that it's so hard to follow the facts is that they happened all out of order -- this wouldn't make a good drama, for instance. The halt to foreign aid happened from the day after the Mueller Report was released, all the way until there started to be news reports about an Inspector General report on a national security issue. Then Trump confessed on live TV, which was followed by the whistleblower report coming out. Trump then unconfessed, and called it a witch hunt. Then the congressional investigation began. Zelensky said he was not being pressured while sitting literally right next to Trump on a trip asking for aid. Witnesses began testifying, which were followed by witnesses being subpoenaed, and then deciding not to show up. Mick Mulvaney confirmed the scheme in a press conference, then began denying it. All of the witnesses, including many Trump appointees, confirmed that the hold on aid was an attempt to get another country to investigate the Bidens. No exculpatory evidence was presented, though many attempts were made to identify the whistleblower and call the Bidens to testify -- both of which are immaterial in the instant case. Then the articles of impeachment were written, and here we are.
I always thought the point wasn't that the facts are in dispute, it was whether the action is enough to warrant impeachment.
There are also some things that I think a lot of people don't get. While the President is nominally in charge of the Justice Department, he should not interfere in individual cases, so as to not let politics get involved in the enforcement of law. This is a norm which would be considered part of the Constitution, if we had an unwritten one such as in the U.K. Another thing is that international relations do not work like personal relations -- if they are, it's a failure mode of the system. If we get back to the days when alliances are made by marrying off daughters then this is a serious problem. Third, diplomacy shouldn't be entirely transactional, because a lot of benefits come from trust. For instance, the U.S. has been fine with paying more on defense than Europe for many reasons, but first and foremost that it ensured American hegemony.
And that's a fair rebuttal. Trump certainly has played pretty fast and loose and while I do like a lot of the things he does admittedly, I always thought his diplomacy skills were lackluster at best, and if they have reached the levels of tarnishing the good name of the country, then he should be legally fried for doing that.
However, what does not sit right with me is that unlike Nixon, where there were bipartisan efforts to hammer out things both sides of the aisle could agree were objectively bad and worthy of impeachment, this has been a nigh one sided Democrat led effort to destroy Trump that has not ceased since day one and they've tried so many times to get him thrown out that they are just as bad as he may or may not be, especially since there is a lot of evidence they likely committed crimes of their own just to get him nailed for the same. And as for the Republicans, there hands aren't entirely clean either, and if they contributed to any conduct worthy of impeachment that can be definitively proven, they deserve a book thrown at them too.
Ultimately, I want the guilty to be properly judged and called to account, but I want justice to blind to bias in this case, but unfortunately, bias has deeply colored this whole affair and I think there are lot of parties (on both sides of the aisle) who should be facing justice irregardless of Trump's guilt or innocence no matter how this goes down.