If this were a court proceeding..with all that means as to guarantee's of fairness...presentation of witnesses and evidence---I'd be right there with you. But it is not..it is purely political..masking itself as legal. Trying the case in the court of public opinion..with so much spin it dizzies the average person..is bad enough--when you add to it the shell game being played with the Senate regarding the presentation of the articles of impeachment, factor in the reality that the 'verdict' is preordained...yeah...Kabuki is a reasonable take. IMO. National Hygiene..from your point of view, maybe...from mine it's a months long campaign ad---had Pelosi presented the articles forthwith..and rolled with the inevitable acquittal..she might have been able to showcase how tainted the process was..but now? She's revealed as McConnell's natural counterweight..the same..in political game playing...except for the D in front of her name.
As I've pointed out many times..and as you well know..this is a purely political process..with possible legal consequences.
Oh yeah..counter-productive. I think that this stalling-out of the process is losing people's support for impeachment..not gaining it. Many I speak to are burned out on the whole process.."**** em' all" is a phrase I hear a lot. Pelosi never wanted this..but she got cornered--by her own party--now she's trying her best...but the country would have been better served..as well as possible justice---had they eschewed impeachment...and took it to the people and to the ballot box.
Impeachment is utterly divisive..and serves our nation poorly. It is gasoline poured on our cultural war--and I think that some in power..on the left---counted on this to mobilize their base..in an utterly cynical..and typically political machination.
This is not about rule of law....I so wish it was. I would love to see Trump in the docket..facing an impartial judge.
That's more or less what you stated during our last debate about this issue.
Where is your respect for the Founders, Eye? Don't you think, putting politicians in charge of Impeachment and Trial, they were well aware both would inevitably end up to be partly "political"? Do you think they were so dumb as to be surprised by that? I think Leahy said it best (paraphrasing): It's not just Trump, it is also the Senate on Trial. That is so because the honorable Senators would have to justify their vote in light of the presented evidence, or, failing that, in light of withheld evidence, as seems more likely at the time. Can they come up with a vote they can, before their respective electorates, reasonably explain, so that the electorate can judge them on that score? That's what this is, and was always supposed to be. BTW, what you probably meant to say is "side effects". Counter-productive would mean bringing about the opposite of the desired effect, at least in my understanding. That's to say, as regards Impeachment and Trial, meant to curtail Executive corruption, would entail more corruption.
Yeah, I hear your complaint about the timing, Pelosi cynically withholding the Articles of Impeachment. They are "are burned out on the whole process." Really... That's the argument of a child bored in school, and irate that lessons are so, so long. If you read the trial rules, as approved by 100 Senators, for Clinton's trial, the Senate sent a message to the House they are now prepared to receive the House managers and the Articles, once these rules were approved. As we all know, the rules for the current trial are not yet in place, it isn't even known what negotiations will finally produce them, and the Senate isn't anywhere near ready to welcome the House managers. Really, whoever is complaining about Pelosi hasn't been paying attention.
All the while we are learning new details about Trump's and his administration's corruption, and, while Pelosi is sitting splendid in the eyes of every reasonable person on earth, Trump and McConnell are more looking like the cynical, corrupt thugs they truly are. Beholding serious criminality, no one begrudges anyone's decision to call the cops. No one would rule that, or the cops looking into it, "divisive". Just now that the House is moving to point out for all to see what Trump's MO is, has been all the time, some are starting to whine about "divisive". No one seems to realize that for that divisiveness there is a root cause - that would be Trump's habitual corruption - and letting him get away with it would be divisiveness squared.
Finally, that's "political". Cue the spluttering apoplexy. I know, the nation got used to regarding all things political as dirty, and those whining the loudest about "political" are those who are the most political of all. Politics is, at its best, the vigorous debate over who is to govern, in pursuit of which sets of aims, within what confines of acceptable behavior. There is nothing inevitably dirty about it, except for the filth peddlers who would denigrate politics wholesale for no reason other than to push through their own political aims. That is truly divisive, and that's what brings the whole edifice, the whole system of governance, into ill repute. Not those who have, up to this point, done a good job of keeping politics in reasonable confines during the Impeachment inquiry. I find, with every single part of your argument, you are exactly on the wrong track. I find that kind of amazing, and thoroughly unexpected from one who is all-in for the rule of law...
