Bob in Mich

How do you know that I closed my mind? Are you referencing some earlier discussion? My take on the Biden issue you reference has been explained as a quid pro quo HOWEVER it was done as part of our policy and not related to smearing personal political opponents. There is disagreement whether or not he ended up protecting his son's job or not as the particular prosecutor has been said to both be investigating and to not be investigating. I don't know the truth. The whole problem is that I see Hunter's bad judgement and that his job looked bad but I have not seen any concrete evidence of further misdeeds. What exactly are you suspicious he did? Do you have hard evidence of that?

Didn't recall that that was you earlier. Don't answer then. Did I start this conversation or did you? The hypothetical helps focus on the heart of the matter. It flips motivation around and then asks the 'same' question. I don't think you would ever accept that weak excuse you used if you were motivated to learn the truth, as in the rape example.

I understand that but was pointing out that to say we should close our eyes to available evidence is totally political. You don't want to know anything more, is that fair? Assume that the trial we were discussing was to determine if the accused had raped your daughter. Say it is looking like the guy did it but that he may skate away - he said, she said. Someone stands up in court, a total surprise unknown, and he says I know what happened and I want to testify. Would you want to hear the witness or no because the prosecutor did not discover that witness?

I don't understand. Why not find that out? Do you think you would have been in favor of getting the Nixon tapes at the time or not ?

Probably impossible but I would like to come to general agreement as to what types of misdeeds would fall under that label of high crimes and misdemeanors and what specifically would not. As it stands today, the question is never discussed until one party is under fire and then the political interpretations override honest interpretations. It may require periodic review or updating but that definition seems to be a big part of disagreements in the last 50 years or so.

Well, we will assume you actually understand that they are referring to the Senate trial phase. The House testimony and evidence was admitted. The Senators voted to not look for any more information that would be tough to explain. They had plenty already. The Nixon tapes were uncovered during the Senate hearings. The Senate Ervin Hearings called witnesses and questioned them, like when folks want to find out what happened. The Nixon tapes were revealed under witness questioning weren't they? I recall reading that prior to that revelation, Nixon support was still strong and he was never going to be removed by the Senate. Do they still have Perry Mason reruns on anywhere. Check out some. Lots happens under questioning, cross examination and follow up questions. Would be nice to ask Bolton if he was aware of other similar schemes. I would ask if he recalled if any other Presidential transcripts ended up on that same, more hidden server. If so, why. A voluntary first hand key player has not a thing he could add that would help illuminate? Even though we have seen book excerpts that sound damn relevant?

Well, you picked a bad example but I am sure there is some middle ground on some other things. Obama and his, 'you can keep your doctor line' was a bad mistake. His red line Syria statement, although was traded for removing most chem weapons, if I recall, was seen by most as a large mistake. I think he said that blue or gold dress was blue when clearly it was gold. Trump' credibility overall has become a huge problem with me. Did I mention that before? I no longer can buy his administration's account of anything that I can't verify. Without picking top ones, let me just list some......his assertions about say, bringing back some particular industry jobs, or keeping plants open....that sort of stuff is terribly misleading. Many jobs will fall to automation and those workers need new directions, not promises of returning to the way it was. We should not revive coal, either imo and we are not but he lead people to believe that was going that way. He will hold some rally at a plant, like that Ohio auto plant, make promises, brag that he saved it. Then a few months later it quietly downsizes or shuts down. He is a con man at heart, imo, and I hate to see people get fooled by his lies. NKorea. He has those WH photo op summits that go nowhere. He was going to eliminate the deficit and that is going the wrong way. He declares 'national emergency' and re-appropriates money to his own project that congress decided not to support. No Mex$ either. His recent budget attacks on programs he promised to protect....SS, medicare, etc. DACA was going to be protected. We were going to all have better and cheaper health coverage that included pre-existing conditions. Remember that tax cut was supposed to be generally for the middle class along with business but now that we see it better, the middle class was not the target. Then just before the 2018 election recall he claimed they were all discussing the new 10% middle class tax cut. After the election, that evaporated too. Anyway, most quit reading already and I am unintentionally gish galloping I guess. How ironic Len. The issue I have with the surveillance question is the same question I have had all along. So, the FISA 'mistakes' lead to surveying CPage, OK. And now because of that, the FBI could survey others that he contacted and maybe Trump too, OK. After that the actual surveillance that was done gets less clear to me as I have stated. Did anyone record these people that were surveyed? The question I have isn't 'who the CPage FISA allowed them to watch, but who did they watch'? Len, you assert like a fact that they wiretapped Trump conversations. How are you so certain that this is fact? Is there further proof beyond the ability to do so and the follow up suspicion.....like recordings? I have never seen or heard of recordings from a program supposedly designed to survey the whole campaign. Have you? If not, why is that?

Len, top lies in what sense? Lies that affected my life personally, lies that seemed to be the most egregious to the country generally, lies that I see as most troublesome to all of us, or what? And, while I am looking for more clarity, where are you going with this.....what point is out there in the distance?

Foxx, I appreciate the reply. Apology accepted but I think we each view the other as pretty much out of any more second chances. If you have problems with my post, point out the flaws specifically. By all means. Doing so without belligerence will lead to a better idea exchange...with me and with most people. I thought it was interesting to try to think of ways to improve the current impeachment setup given what we just witnessed. I was trying to point out that minority 'rule' could happen with respect to even charging a president. Has that been considered? Is it OK with you? In the spirit of a discussion, I was throwing that out there

Thanks for the reply. I am basically restating what I said however. I think the shouting and trying to get the name out there is irresponsible. I view it as irresponsible to endanger the guy/family physically for whistle blowing in the first place. I too oppose increasing that danger by ANY AMOUNT. Doing so for kicks at annoying libs is surely not worth increasing it by ANY AMOUNT. You keep implying probable devious motives by the politicians and media for not wanting to publicize it initially or publicize further, now. What is your opinion of why both are doing that?

We are done but I did explain the reasoning - it could happen so plan for possibilities. A minority could hold the vast majority hostage. Your reasoning sucks pal...and your constant insults are surely signs of a personality defect. Look into it. Do some online searches. Perhaps it is correctable. Generally speaking, and no need to reply but, what is the purpose of berating anyone that holds a different opinion? If you are not in favor of discussions, why be on a discussion board? Your posting style surely drives away potential posters and ideas. You are way too quickly obnoxious and insulting to those that will not see it your way. Would you be that way to a guy a few seats away at the bar that you just met? And before Henry pipes up, You folks should ask yourself, should people that don't know everything be allowed to post on a topic? Should questions be allowed? Can posters be partisan? Can posters be less intelligent than you? Can a poster state something that has been mentioned on the web prior to them stating it here? If a poster makes an error should they be banned? What do you want out of this place, discussion or only agreement? As before, not looking for replies as much as to ask yourself. If you like this setup and like to push to drive away disagreement, then nothing to consider I guess.

I think Congressional Republicans have demonstrated less spine than I recall them having, Lindsey for example. They are thumbing their noses at Dems but no one will stand up to Trump. I have posted before that if Repubs would push back if/when Trump strays, there would have been no need to take it to the level of impeachment. I am not aware of all the options but if the Repubs won't check the guy, the impeachment hopefully shone enough light that it won't recur - to check him. From the Dem perspective it appears that no one will check the guy's actions, proper or not. Every action is explained away by Repubs. From the Dem point, election interference can't be ignored. If impeachment or even oversight can not be used to check him, then the election needs to be fair. His abuse of power scheme was designed to tilt the election, not just to get him more money or to get Ivanka more contacts. No response expected

Of course I won't because, as I see from you, you like to miss the point. Whether it has happened is not really important. What is important when designing rules is whether it could happen. It is that way because once it actually happens, changing the rules at that point may appear unfair to one party or the other. if the rule has been in place, no one has a quarrel.

I don't think I have a problem with either if the guy keeps to moderation and can do the job. Certainly can't be nodding off or be unable to do a reasonable job. Safety related jobs, like pilots, should not allow either. Does that relate to starting wars....hmmm, perhaps. Additionally some jobs are client facing. If, even a spectacular performer, damages the reputation of the company, they must be moved or released.

Oh Foxx, I was just about to compliment you on your previous point about impeachable vs 25th amendment.....and then you come up with this reasoning. Do you see that just you thinking it unlikely is not sufficient reason to say it could not happen? You want to point out bad logic elsewhere. Do you think it faulty here?

Meant to ask, Henry, did you lose your clipboard in the mishap?

If you think it important to uncover government misdeeds, I think whistle blowers are an important tool. Generally, abusing the people that come forward will surely impact the decisions of potential whistle blowers down the road and so abuse should be discouraged. I have not followed Halpern's case. My above statements apply I would have to guess.

Like our founding fathers your plan assumes enough integrity to put country ahead of party. That level of integrity is not apparent in Congress. Say things are flipped and we have a large Repub majority in the House - just one under the 2/3's, as mentioned in your solution. Assume too we have a Dem President that in the minds of all Repubs is waaaaay out of line and needs to be checked. The just under 2/3s In the House might want to impeach but in a super partisan environment, perhaps those Dems in the House will never vote to convict. Couldn't that allow a vast minority too much control by allowing them to block even charges of wrongdoing, the impeachment?

Well, I thought you would see that point with what I wrote but I can spell it out further. Your point about most everyone knowing the accused whistle blower's name is agreed to. Good point. To say NOT ONE MORE unstable person could be notified by you and others shouting on the internet is incorrect, right. That number is admittedly small but it is non zero. The more shouting, the more tiny increments in the possible number of attackers to the whistle blower. Maybe some fool has been plotting his attack on the Mosque for the last 6 months and your shouting caught his ill informed, deranged ears. While certainly unlikely, I view it as possible. To a small degree you have increased threat odds for reasons that are questionable. Don't know Sandman. I have admittedly not given much thought to whistle blowers in the past. Why? Guess it didn't come up in any issue I was watching. What did I miss that you wish to point out, anything?

Some of this was discussed by now I guess but a few points..... Abuse of Power is a super valid reason to impeach, as far as I know. It has been used before, if I recall. There is no requirement that says impeachment must contain a judicial law crime. Regarding the' face the accuser' question, there are two different 'trials'. One in the senate and if impeached and removed, possibly followed by the judicial trial if criminal offense was involved. My point about possibly using the other House witnesses was that there are now a lot of accusers. Is there any requirement that the FIRST accuser be involved? I don't know. Maybe someone does. Your point about no criminal charges being The proof of political House proceedings does not really follow. That logic seems flawed to me. There are reasons to impeach that involve behavior we can not tolerate in the President that is not strictly criminal. Say he starts downing a quart of vodka with breakfast every day and cannot be counted on to be sober or conscious, ever. IDK, just off the top of the head but that seems intolerable and non criminal.

I am not sure about your claim about the charges from the House being criminal charges. If convicted in the Senate, there is no criminal offense. He would just be removed for bribery for instance and then could be charged for the crime after out of office. Unsure of Senate rules, so I can't say if that 'face accuser' is a Senate trial rule. At this point in time, couldn't others actually accuse Trump at a Senate or criminal trial, if that was an actual requirement? I don't recall who would be the best, but wouldn't some of the House taped testimony accusing Trump of the scheme and of the obstruction of the document release (obstruction of congress) suffice?

Len, on this board my reply was easily within acceptable standards. In the context of our interaction however, my reply was too harsh. You were right. I apologize for the tone of that reply. With that said and hopefully accepted and the slate hopefully cleared, I will attack you further. lol Keeping it real, I apologized for the delivery. Folks like you keep saying sure Trump lies, they all lie. That is a false equivalency. Just because you can point to where Obama or Schiff lied does not mean that we should accept a president that lies as much as Trump. I know times have changed since Pres Clinton but to discount honesty is the wrong direction. And seriously, how can Trump supporters even have the gall to claim someone else's lies are wrong? If lies are wrong they have to be wrong for everyone. If they are OK now, then please stop making a big deal out of the lies of others.

You are starting to reason like DR. Be Careful! That road leads to madness and insufferable douche-iness.. I honestly answered your question of 'why not' several times. I think doing so is irresponsible because I think you are increasing the odds that a person could be attacked by a political zealot. I agree with your 'everybody knows' argument, but only to an extent. I mean realistically, not everyone knows. I am not 100% certain of the whistle blowers identity, to be truthful. I have seen who has been accused but I would not bet my life on it. To disagree with my opinion of increasing danger is fine, but to tell me it is dishonest, comes across as arrogant. It may be a talking point but any reasonable individual could easily arrive at that conclusion. People often criticize my thinking or reasoning skills HERE. Posters do it within broad criticisms, like the discussion I just had with Foxx. When I ask where my reasoning breaks down, for specifics, I seldom hear back. Also I don't get that from people when having an in-person conversation. Of course people don't always agree anywhere but disagreements aren't typically about reasoning or logic skills. And, yes, I do socialize with Trump supporters in person. Please be specific if you wish......If you have issues of faulty reasoning, where, what post? Certainly we all are capable of mistakes. Oh, and I do appreciate the answer. It pretty much confirms what I thought. The increased danger is recognized but dismissed.

Good Night idiot

"If they have nothing to hide, why keep it a secret? " I stated five times why I think it is a bad idea. Even if a political operative, increased danger in this environment is not necessary. I suspect many want, but won't admit, the whistle blower to be punished and if physically punished, they would be giddy and would claim he deserved it. Was hoping for a different take but didnt really think there was one. You did not answer my question yet