Nancy Pelosi March 26th is 80th B-Day - her husband Paul needs help making the PERFECT call

My point is that trying to rewrite history by attempting to expunge Trump’s impeachment is a nonsense and will be seen to be exactly that. The Republicans, in my opinion, made a bad error of judgment and played into N Pelosi’s hands when they refused to hear any witnesses during the Senate trial. There was and is only one rational explanation for that: the witnesses would not have cleared Trump. This will be one of the things that will be used to motivate Democrats and Independents to turn out and vote for the Democrat candidate.

Fallenturtle saying “He wasn’t vindicated” is accurate enough (at least until Election results are in).

Please read below and then anyone tack on.

A deeper dive into the verb tense: to vindicate means the “CLEARING” i.e. someone of blame.

Thus, the Democrats will NEVER admit vindication can EVER effectively be served in this specific instance. At least that much I hope we all can agree.

That being said, the Senator’s view who voted to acquit clearly believe Trump is vindicated.

Thus, impossible to even attempt to get a general consensus when polar opposite views will remain along partisan sides.

And even National election results that should speak volumes on how history will record Trump being vindicated (or not) will still not sway opinion of those dug in FOREVER AND A DAY.

I presume you meant Senators’ views rather than Senator’s view. History will judge Trump with the benefit of all the evidence which was suppressed in the Senate trial.

What ever helps you sleep.

Westaussie: Talk about “bad error in judgment…”

Tip off should of been the entire impeachment affair NEVER having BI-partisan support.

Why a Super Majority # of Senators votes (currently 67) are needed to remove a President from office speak volumes to intent.

Since no appeal is possible from here, the Senate having sole power rules the roost.

** IT is when such a verdict is rendered (and only then): History is marked FOREVER**.

The lower chamber only needing Simple Minority to impeach invites potential abuse of powers.

Where your argument falls apart is poor rationale in believing history can not be rewritten even though the partisan-only effort failed miserably.

Buckle in, if Trump is re-elected and the GOP controls the House expunging this impeachment could happen.

And no matter how many more bitter pills the Dems may have to swallow…

1 Like

Fallenturtle: did you fall asleep or just falling on your sword in not replying to the one earmarked your way?

Wow she is 80? I could have sworn she was older. Time isnt treating her well. Maybe she needs more botox?

Westaussie:

The ultimate judge here is the National election.

Historians will certainly judge/study past events and have different takes as a whole and in parts, including isolating the one incident you refer to.

Can you at least concede, along the lines of Andrew Jackson, President #7 having a Senate censor expunged makes a Trump impeachment following suit at least “plausible” IF it plays out as discussed here?

Coolidge: LOL, probably too late for botox, just like Nancy says Trump being late to treating the virus.

I don’t understand this question.

The joke that was the Senate trial with no witnesses wills how the partisanship of the Republican Senators. History will hold them in contempt for such partisanship and lack of courage and judgment.

As you are obviously aware I am an Aussie so I can’t speak to the circumstances you outlined with respect to Andrew Jackson. The potential for expunging Trump’s impeachment by the House of Reps in my opinion is laughable and patently ridiculous.

Alcohol is a fantastic preservative.

“I “can’t” speak… in respect to Andrew Jackson.” doesn’t mean you also "can’t’ look it up.

Never too late for anyone to try and enrich themselves.

In America, when someone says to “Get Real” that is informal slang for telling someone that they should try to understand the true facts of a situation and not hope for what is impossible.

Expunging is quite possible. NOTHING in the U.S. Constitution that prohibits it in the least.

If you think that expunging the impeachment; expunging the expunging of the impeachment; expunging the expunging of the expunging of the impeachment; expunging the expunging of the expunging of the expunging of the impeachment, etc. is reasonable then you are perfectly at liberty to do so. My personal view is that it is nonsensical.

Asking for your input is all.

My rebuttal relating to your comment “He (Trump) wasn’t vindicated, he was just removed from office.”

Just don’t feel like arguing about it.

Westaussie:

My thoughts were revealed of an expunged Andrew Jackson censorship.

The visualization of expunging and expunging and expunging is witty I will give you that.

It’s still not too late to make more sense about this so called American version of expunging.

If you remain open to discussion please let me know.

And if POTUS and House changes over, we shall all probably see how nonsensical this Trump impeachment really turned out to be.

Friendly factual debate is all that was intended.

How about a LIKED button or something to show I am vindicated at least…