The Senate impeachment trial - an outsider's perspective

@NickN I thought I would create this thread in Outside Beltway as it has evolved beyond just Trump’s impeachment trial. Also, rather than include all the posts I have chosen to include only NickN’s last post and my response.

NickN’s post was:

"1a. + 3. Sure a Trump plea for innocence. Still confusing to me, taking delays out of the equation for a moment, can you shed some light on how you feel in the House inquiry the Dems were justified in skipping standard protocol of even attempting to seeking court orders to force witnesses in? Please include how appreciating any sitting President is surely to invoke executive privilege fits in too recognizing standard practice including Nixon and Clinton prior.

And now on to “ expected” delays with court appeals. Election year coming would of caused chain reaction to force much quicker turnaround. Add proof on how Supreme Court Chief Justice had to quickly drop his afternoon schedule to preside over Senate trial. Plus taking a month to deliver articles. Will you concede that at least Dems made it clear to R-Senators of morse code being telegraphed was political agenda (as clearly no immenient threat keeping POTUS in office)?

2. Your choice word of “some” sparked me to add pressure. Enuf said there.
3. Three Dem Senators, including Sanders and Warren on the far left, none seem to be among the Parties preferred choice to headline of their ticket. Agree?
4. If Bolton was allowed to testify in either inquiry or results do you feel even damaging 1st hand testimony changes materially the end result? Cite one or two theoretical examples if you do.

Q2 According to Oxford dictionary, is Romney a textbook example of a hypocrite in your book? A simple yes or no will suffice.

Q3 Conclusion: Agree Nixon a goner, would of been removed. Difference than from now in Trump being absolutely partisan affairs x 2 Houses. Even Clinton plea bargain including like 11 felonies counts had at least decent amt of bi-partisan support in both Chambers. Neither Clinton or Trump even close to real danger of being removed. Wisdom in why U.S. Founding Fathers set it up for super majority in impeachment still standing the test of time is impressive from my viewpoint. How Is impeachment different in Australia?

P.S. Being a liberal, surprised to hear you are unaware extreme political divide exists here. Imagine how the mostly left press sang the praises of Obama for 8 straight years preceding Trump. Even DJT being polled on Election Day is considered to be greatest underdog in American history to win. How does your left movement compare to Israel? Their left press is more brutal than U.S…"

Let me start with saying that as an Aussie I totally reject the tag of Liberal. I am left of centre. What executive privilege did D Trump apply with respect to this? The reality is that there is little doubt trying to ensure that certain witnesses appear before the House of Reps would have meant a significant delay.

I don’t think that one can extrapolate the SC Justice presiding over the Senate trail to an expedited SC hearing for witnesses to appear before the House of Reps. Quite clearly impeachment of a president is implicitly a political practice given the roles of the House of Reps and Senate. From my perspective taking a month to deliver the articles of impeachment to the Senate is neither here nor there especially given the time of year (Christmas holidays). The use of hyperbole is undoubtedly very much a device used by politicians no matter what their politics.

  1. I would not describe either Warren or Sanders as far left. Notwithstanding that it is not unusual that supporters of a political party may not all support a single candidate (for president). I am sure that there were/are some Republican supporters who do not have Trump as their preferred candidate. I expect that some of those whom may have sat out the presidential election or written in another candidate’s name in 2016 will vote for the Democrat candidate in 2020. Who do you think are the DP’s preferred choices?

  2. Given the R Senators’ action in not voting for witnesses it is highly unlikely 20 R Senators would have voted guilty under most circumstances. As I said previously it was a missed opportunity for the Trump to speak to Independents that it was only ever a witch hunt if first hand witnesses had confirmed Trump’s claims. To me there is no sane, rational, reasonable explanation of Trump’s decision not to allow those first hand witnesses to appear that is favourable to Trump.

Q2. I am not trying to be coy but in the context of the trial why do you say Romney is a hypocrite?

Q3. Obviously there has been a very limited number of impeachments of USA presidents. And I obviously don’t have an exhaustive knowledge of all the actions of all USA presidents, so it is difficult to attest to whether requiring 67 senators is a bar too high or not. In this context Australia doesn’t have an impeachment process as such. In order to take action to replace a Prime Minister there are two legal ways of doing it other than through a general election.

(i) The PM’s party’s politicians could move a spill motion which if successful would replace the PM.

(ii) The lower house (House of Reps) could have a motion of no confidence moved and if successful the PM would be required to resign and the opposition would have a chance to prove they have the confidence of the House of Reps. If they are successful the opposition leader would become PM and there would be a change of government. If the opposition can’t show they have the confidence of the House of Reps, there would be a general election.

Note we don’t have fixed terms in our Federal parliament. It is up to the PM to determine when a general election is held notwithstanding that our maximum term is 3 years for our Federal government.

PS. I am not sure why you think I was not aware of the extreme partisanship of the political climate over in the USA. I am certainly aware of it. Israeli politics is not something I have taken a particularly keen interest in so I will comment on the ALP (Australian Labor Party) here in Australia. The ALP was formed by trade unionists. It is a centre-left party with right, centre and left factions. Over the past 50+ years it has moved to the right. I would say that the current Greens Party would occupy the same political space as the Whitlam Labor Government of 1972-75. With respect to Australia’s press for all state capitals (except my state capital of Perth, Western Australia) the top selling newspaper is a Murdoch newspaper that could not be described as a left of centre newspaper.

Thanks for taking the time to open this post.

Let’s get this going.

“What executive privilege did Donald Trump apply with respect to … impeachment inquiry or during Senate trial…?” - Answer is not a one, but of course, we all already knew that.

Excuse the pun being Australian, but only a “Kangaroo Court” would attempt jumping around witnesses like the Lower Chamber did here. Ignoring recognized standards of justice was no more than a calculated maneuver. Hindering the ability for the Executive to get an opportunity to evoke even a singular privilege was of the Dem’s own choosing. Instead a call to round up dissenters of POTUS policies were sought.

The witness testimonies were hidden in pouches down under in the Capitol basement. Then Act 1 came upstairs in full focus. I imagine how trick camera’s seemed to make this all look like a legitimate court proceeding. The opening act was set on the House’s stage for a real spectacle Washington DC style, Act II, then on the Senate floor. This had all the makings to also be a successful made for TV - Show Trial. But somehow the ratings bombed. A Broadway Flop too… Will you be willing to hop off with the notion of this executive’s claim being never asked thus ever needing to be denied was a Democrat act turned bad?

Moving on, “Delivering the articles of impeachment to the Senate is neither here nor there…”

LOL, that a funny way to put it. Here 1st was a sense of urgency in rushing to judgment (record pace in fact). There 2nd was abruptly putting on brakes for the holidays.

Average Joe probably expected something a lot more immediate. Comparing this to what is customarily seen on TV, including parallels to how FBI officials, Mayor’s and Police Chief’s often keep the general public informed. Can we agree this was not simply a mild case of “here nor there” ?

  1. Probably your definition of what is “far” for a Yankee is at least somewhat further out in Aussie miles might be a simpler distance to concede. To your point “Some of those who sat out… in 2016 will vote…” perhaps it easier to consider how there are many more voters who sat out because Sander’s once denied the D nomination. It was widely believed he sort of pouted and then not wholeheartedly rallied his supporters to still vote for Clinton.

This dynamic adds to why some of the main stream Dem’s are at odds with Sanders. Certainly, anybody in the party will gladly take anyone over Trump including Bernie. The other thing at play here big time is “Down Ballot” concerns. Bernie Sanders on top of the ballot could send even middle of the road Dem’s to not only vote Trump but also completely Republican too. That’s also where expunging an impeachment could come true, should the House color turn red to start 2021.

The preferred choice before impeachment was Biden. The impeachment toll to Biden was costly, now making it extremely hard to still get the nod. Perhaps they hoped someone else other than Sanders would rise to the top, we simply can only guess. I still think their preferred choice is to kick the can down the road to the convention, then see who emerges in a brokered fashion. What’s you prediction?

  1. “It was a missed opportunity for Trump to speak to independents…if first hand witnesses had confirmed Trump’s claims.” likely gets him very little added voter appeal already being acquitted. Consider instead the opportunity afforded independents to attend and get a “1st hand” glimpse at a Trump Rally…

Q2. “In the context of the trial why do you say Romney is a hypocrite.” Just a few hours before Senate votes were to be cast on both Articles of Impeachments a taped interview between him and Chris Wallace of Fox News was aired. In it, he described his rationale to vote in favor of convicting the President on the 1st Article part of the basis of reaching his decision included mentioning himself being a person of faith. Being a duly elected official representing any political party often requires outright conformity. For example, the D-Senators all voted to convict. So when Romney’s personal moral beliefs were cited as rationale not matching an otherwise unanimous consensus of his party this is a textbook example of being a Political hypocrite. Are you now on board this train of thought?

Q3. A super majority requirement to convict in Senate trial (no matter who holds the majority) reminds mere partisan controlled Lower Chamber’s opposite a GOP POTUS to think twice before submitting weaker Articles on Impeachment simply because no one else can stop them.

P.S. “I am not sure why you think I was not aware of the extreme partisanship of the political climate over in the USA” yet did you forget it was rather my reply to a previous comment of your’s “I am under the impression that there used to be more bi-partisanship in USA politicians historically. It would appear that changed prior to Trump’s presidency.

I took this to mean a very negative connotation to the current administration. For why if you already were well aware of extreme partisanship happening in America here now and over an extended period of time did you choose to the cite a presidency that only was starting to take shape so recent (January 20, 2017 to be exact)?

It is my understanding that the rules used during the House or Reps impeachment inquiry/hearing were the ones instituted previously by Republicans. As I said I watched almost all of the impeachment inquiry/hearing that was telecast on CNN and Fox News. To say that in my opinion Messrs Nunes, Jordan and Gaetz were not impressive would actually exaggerate their performances during same. The crashing by some Republicans in the “basement” showed the idiocy of those who planned such a manoeuvre when the fact was that a number of Republicans were present at the time of those meetings. Republicans were NOT banned.

With respect to when the Senate received the articles of impeachment. Do you think it would have been reasonable to hold the trial over the Christmas-New Year period? I am sure you are aware that it was not only the Senators and the SC Chief Justice involved in the trial. There would have been a myriad of staff that would have been required to spend that time rather than spend Christmas - New Year period with their families and friends. As I said the use of hyperbole is not limited to just one side of politics.

There are significant differences between how trials are conducted in the USA and Australia. For example, in Australia we have the legal principle of sub judice that absolutely bans discussions about the merit of a trial in progress and whether the accused is guilty or not guilty. However, one thing that is common is that witnesses appear at a trial. It is too early to determine whether the impeachment of Trump will have an impact in November, 2020.

It is my understanding that H Clinton received more delegates than B Sanders during the primary process. 2020 will be different to 2016 in my opinion because there will have been 4 years of Trump. That will make those Sanders’s supporters who chose not to vote in 2016 more likely to vote in 2020 irrespective of who is the Democrat nominee. I also think that the trend of a double digit increase in turnout between 2014 and 2018 will be replicated in 2020 for the 18-29 and 30-44 age demographics.

Obviously the ability of the Democrats to maximise the turnout of all their various sectors of their supporters will be a key to their success. Similarly, the turnout of Independents who vehemently oppose Trump will play a part as well. How successful the Democrats are in doing that will depend on the ability to coalesce around whomever is the Democrat nominee and the amount of money that the likes of Bloomberg and Steyer will spend to support the presidential and down ballot Democrat candidates.

I have made my feelings about the prospect of expunging Trump’s impeachment known already on this forum. It is a complete nonsense.

Obviously your post was before the South Carolina primary result was known so I will let you re-visit your comment about Biden’s chances post the South Carolina result.

I presume you were being flippant about attending a Trump rally.

I would argue that in terms of already committed Trump supporters first hand witnesses would not make a scintilla of difference. The significant difference would be with Independents.

Q2. No I don’t think that Romney is a hypocrite. I believe that the evidence presented in the House of Reps inquiry/hearing warranted a guilty verdict and there was no evidence presented at the Senate trial that contradicted the evidence given before the House of Reps. Party affiliations should have played no part in the determination of the guilt or otherwise of the president during the Senate impeachment trial.

Q3. Having no witnesses during the Senate trial means that the verdict in the Senate was pre-determined prior to the start of the trial. I would argue that is not what those who wrote the USA constitution envisaged.

PS Didn’t a senior Republican politician make the statement that his aim was to ensure that B Obama was a one-term president? That certainly doesn’t speak to an atmosphere of bi-partisanship. As I said I am more used to an adversarial climate in our Australian parliaments although a significant amount of legislation is passed in a bipartisan way.

Thanks for another carefully crafted response.

I appreciate how we both can be direct and ask questions freely. However, in your last reply I do not see much of anything to the following:

  1. Executive privilege question. There are a few instances how I perhaps detect you depict differences from typical court to a political trial implying sort of an outraged kind of tone. However, very little is written on acknowledging dissatisfaction of violating basic rights of defendants. For example, here with executive privilege:
    a. the President having the right to counsel in all preliminary proceedings leading up to a trial;
    b. defendants in a normal trial having standard rights in not having to testify in fear of what they say may also incriminate them;
    c. a wife is not required to testify against a husband as a 1st hand witness - “pillow” talk protect.

  2. On your P.S. citing an example of someone opposing Obama did not answer my question. Still confused on what you really are to say in context of you being aware of bi-partisan for a long period of time.

In anticipation of your next reply please consider incorporating something on these open questions of mine too. Regardless, I promise to continue on in providing very thorough responses too…

Idiocy - For political stages extremely stupid and bad behavior is often merely an act for effect. Deliberate attempts of interjecting humor as a listening tool when proceedings tend to get dry also often soon get shown later through the various news outlets. The best illustration during the trial might of been when Impeachment Manager Nadier had the presiding Chief Justice Roberts proclaiming a stern warning to both sides. Perhaps you’ll do one better?

Delay in delivering articles - The timing of when to vote on Articles in House was well played. Making the setting of a “brief” intermission for the Holiday’s seem reasonable for sure.

Back at you regarding what you consider a reasonable start up time for Act II to commence. More than a few eyebrows were raised for delivering the articles immediately was the precedence set during President Clinton’s impeachment. This brand of foolery clearly went both ways. Not even when the Iraq militant being killed did the mold cast for delay soften. An interior motive to stall against Bernie Sanders seems like a cause of why not to start trial sooner. Any other reason’s you like to add?

Gag orders - Ever since the O.J.Simpson murder trail Court TV, coverage where the camera will continue to roll became very popular in the US. Seats for large #'s of the live audience’s in courtrooms around America, including here with the Senate Trial are reservation only. I only cite for your mention of courts “banning discussions” in Australia. Does coverage in front of live audiences for trials there Down Under include guest lists from prosecutors and defense teams?

Witnesses - In both civil and criminal cases, discovery involves investigating the evidence that the other side plans to present. The House inquiry was sort of like the discovery phase of non-political trials. Similarly and just like we saw in the Senate trial with Bolton the lack of doing a more thorough discovery can often prevent any surprises at trial from being introduced.

Next topic - Yes, Hillary Clinton won the D-nomination fair and square. Just saying there is a lot more to it than meets the eye…

Bernie Sanders - Being named the nominee clearly inspires his faithful supporters will come out and vote (for him). I suspect many of the 18-29 age crowd may also concede the National election should their choice be denied the nomination yet again. Also far from certain how the group of Bernie’s NON-supporters will turnout to vote if the Vermont Senator becomes the Dem Nomination.

Polls show President Trump approval ratings initially trended up immediately after Senate Trial. No other real tangible way of telling how the poor ratings of Senate trial will impact the elections or not.

Got your takes on Sanders and Biden - I do find it amazing how Joe Biden persists on campaign trail despite the damage done him by POTUS implicating his son’s Hunter activity in Ukraine. Former VP Biden winning South Carolina has now put in play at least two other fallen candidates endorsing him heading into Super Tuesday.

Flippant - attempt to rally up humor is all - always being respectful is a good thing for all.

Romney - Please explain rationale on how you believe he is not a political hypocrite. How you perceive Romney’s vote to convict being just is besides the point. Rationale for being morally vs politically correct is what I imagine most others plainly see here. I still encourage the use of whatever dictionary you fancy to build your case otherwise.

When you specifically mention party affiliations should have played no part in determination of the guilt I beg to differ. There is political irony when compared to outsider’s and other’s named jurist’s that much I agree. If three seated as jurists still running for President doesn’t tell you how bias is not relevant in any impeachment trial nothing will. To date, not one POTUS has been removed in this fashion, and for good reason: National elections here effectively use the Electoral College to elect and remove its President’s. It has served America very well thus far… ain’t broke don’t fix it…

Super majority - much is written on how the U.S. Founding Fathers struggled with how to shape impeachment. In the end analysis they came up with a way to make it much harder to impeach without overwhelming Senator support. Not really following if you have a beef here or not?

Senate trial verdict - Not guilty was in fact predetermined. With outcome certain made Dem’s impeachment’ managers court methods deployed amount to nothing more than a pseudoscience show and tell.

Bigger picture: Virtually everything done in both the House inquiry and the Senate trial regarding witnesses were contrived. Each chamber of Congress had ALL the power only once.

Once the mid-term elections of 2018 won the Dem’s back control of the House, Trump’s fate was sealed of being impeached no matter what. It may be an epiphany for many of us spectators to learn that:

This impeachment in the House was always about trying to REMOVE a POTUS in November !!!

Let me add, this strategy proved effective for the Republicans as Clinton impeachment led to George W. Bush winning the election next election cycle.

Distinguishing between the two most recent impeachments only a greater divide of bi-partisan support now exists. The biggest change this time around was probably Dem’s Constitutional experts research. Findings included many ambiguities and legal technicalities still open for interpretation large enough for scholars and lawyers alike to shoot giant holes through.

Then a vicious attempt ensued to pierce the true intent of the various impeachment clauses. Where as the founding fathers wanted it clear to remove from office a sitting president it must be high crimes considered so heinous 67 Senators would agree.

Hopefully those still not convinced the real abuse of power did occur in the House, will still remain open to understand what might unfold next…

And that’s why I conclude, impeachment can only be forever IF the Presidency doesn’t change hands next January.

Then and only if House control changes over will EXPUNGING away the impeachment stain happen too.

So with this caveat, a pledge comes back your way to me eating my words should it not happen this precise way.

Is it at least fair enough for you to formally concede back my way if impeachment turns out to be a bunch of erased nonsense?

@NickN I have read both of your most recent posts. This is just a quick note to let you know given the size of both posts it might be a few days before I get the chance to provide a reasoned response to both.

As a tidbit I will state the obvious; I most definitely am not a supporter of Trump. If I was eligible, and of course I am not, I would have no qualms about voting for the Democrat nominee against Trump. As to my preferred candidate, as opposed to the one whom I would consider has the best of winning against Trump, is Bernie Sanders. The candidate that I think is most likely to beat Trump would be Joe Biden.

Greetings, got up fresh this morning and added some clarity for your reading pleasure. Please review and I look forward to continued discussion. Anyone else can jump too…

Final touches now made.

Westaussie: More edits just made. I will now wait what you comeback with…

@NickN I will probably do it around Friday/Saturday my time; so don’t hold your breath waiting!

@NickN I will throw a couple of points for you to ponder whilst waiting for a full response.

(i) I note that the election of the USA president is not based on the overall votes cast by everyone who votes. It is done through your Electoral College. Therefore, it is questionable whether one can accept your assertion that an impeachment (in the House of Reps) is permanent if there is a change of President. E.g. in the 2016 presidential election there was a differential of around 3 million votes between H Clinton and D Trump. Hypothetically if the Democrat nominee received say 5 million more votes, it is difficult to argue that the impeachment should not be permanent.

Similarly, with respect to the House of Reps it is problematic that districts are drawn up that gerrymander the results. To contract that in Australia we have an independent body that is responsible for determining boundaries for our electorates (districts in the USA). So again I would dispute that if the Republicans gained the majority in the House of Reps that indicates that the impeachment should not be permanent.

(ii) More generally I think that what D Trump has been allowed to get away with by Republicans during his presidency will be problematic with future Democrat presidents adopting similar tactics.

Some of the points you raised are at least a bit “off” topic but I will bite nonetheless:

(i) Naming the Republican and Democratic Parties tells two slightly different tales. In a Republic, for which we in the United States are, stands for the supreme power held by the people and their elected representatives. A Democracy, which America is not, a system of government by the whole population or all the eligible members of a state. The 1st time any candidate wins election and upon taking the oath of office they are each assigned their own unique Presidential #. That recognizes chronologically their place in American history in perpetuity.

Did you also happen to see how the 45th POTUS is tracking very well in polls with African Americans? Imagine what a landslide electoral college victory including capturing the popular vote might do with this impeaching and expunging argument.

Other examples that might shed light on holding to permanent and forever:

  1. Clinton impeachment - Pleading to guilt on reduced criminal charges still counts as permanent. That also made the case legitimacy in the House much more of a bi-partisan affair. And despite his acquittal in Senate Trial, the impeachment stuck as forever being a criminal guilt stain still not removed elsewhere.
  2. Nixon would of been impeached and removed - Resigning was also a plea bargain but differed being politically arranged. The pardon is recorded with no imprint in Congress whatsoever. Nixon leaving office in disgrace also ruptured an “everlasting” scar nonetheless.

Kind of interesting twist - Nixon was pardoned by Ford for alleged crimes, yet never was booked on any charges thus necessity of a trial become moot. Trump did stand trial and was acquitted, yet it’s only Nixon having nothing tagged on to any ratified House docket.

At least as where the Articles of impeachment presently stand…

Past Presidential expunging in Congress has previously occurred. When the Democratic Party won back control of the Senate out with Whig Party’s opposition also went their censorship against President Andrew Jackson. History could (easily) repeat itself. But only if Dem’s tumble in election in similar fashion to the how it when down after the 7th President won re-election. Another perfect storm is brewing…

U.S. Census Bureau - every 10 years a complete human population count is done in this country. Any changes as a result will not take effect until 2022 mid-term and 2024 National elections. So only thing for certain are more impeachment proceedings are coming, especially whenever the House not controlled by GOP.

Erasing examples in legal and political proceedings - To forgive someone or remove something are verbs synonymous for pardoned and expunged, respectively. Also both can be unconditional, invincible and forevermore.

(ii) - “I think what Donald Trump has been allowed to get away…will be problematic with future…” - This seems to be a blow below the belt. Not sure if you are fully aware that since Bill Clinton’s presidency the conception of work around’s were born named an “Executive Order.” Since inception, cumulative totals by President: Clinton 364, Bush 291, Obama 276 and Trump’s running count is currently at 140. Problematic of executive’s not caring what a divide is created when such acts are unilaterally evoked all partisan in fact. Yet somehow it’s convenient to forget who started this mess…

And talking about opening up a can or worms: Did you happen to hear Bernie earlier this week proclaim on the campaign trail that if he is elected POTUS an executive order to legalize "hooch "in all 50 States of the Union for which it is not already allowed?

(I) I haven’t ignored your earlier post; I will respond this week end on that. However, it is interesting you mention that your census is due shortly without mentioning the controversial attempt by Trump to limit the census. Also, I note the complete absence of mentioning about the blatant gerrymandering of districts by both sides.

I don’t support the theory that with a different Republican president that impeachment is inevitable. Similarly, I don’t support the theory that Republicans will impeach a Democrat president in the future as payback for Trump’s impeachment.

Quite simply the claim that the supreme power is held by the people is not sustainable given your Electoral College method of electing your presidents. Firstly, the candidate with the most votes in a presidential election doesn’t automatically become president. Secondly, I believe it is not unprecedented that an elector in the Electoral College can choose not to vote for the candidate with the highest votes in that particular state.

I have read claims of Trump’s polling in the African-American community. However, in discussions there is considerable downplaying of that percentage of the African-American community.

I would argue that censoring of a president is far less significant than impeachment. I would contend that censoring a president is akin to being hit over the arm with a limp lettuce leaf.

(ii) I would sum up our positions as: East is East and West is West and ne’er the twain will meet. At this point in time neither of our positions can be provable; we will have to wait for some time to see whose opinion was more accurate.

I didn’t comment as to who was responsible for EO in the first instance. My contention is that some of Trump’s actions will come back to haunt Republican supporters. I have read commentary regarding a potential Sanders’s EO regarding Climate Change as a national emergency.

Not wanting to deflect from your comment about Sanders’s intention vis-à-vis legalising marijuana. I remind you that Trump promised that Mexico would pay for the wall. Clearly not everything a presidential candidate promises does not happen.

Finally with respect to the respective EO totals I would comment that not all EOs are born equal.

Appreciate the feedback. Some quick points and questions:

I have an in-depth knowledge about Presidents more than anything else. Even have a complete set of American Presidential Dollar proof set in my possession. Mint at the time of press is legally only permitted to do coins of dead presidents plus add at least a two year wait. Since then George H.W. Bush expired. So I have him and the 5 living Presidents with coins from a private mint.

Polls I have seen suggesting African Americans is a safe bet to maybe double the 8% Trump got in 2016 election in November. Today Biden strong here with Bernie getting more of the Latino’s. Assuming Biden gets the nomination pretty sure Trump’s talent on stage will shine as he is made for TV, especially in a 1 x 1 debate setting (which there will be two so I hear). You can bet more than a fair share of undecided’s African American’s will tune in-could swing popular vote too.

The average American viewed the impeachment process as a purely political affair. No juicy crime plots like Clinton and Nixon to sink your teeth into…

Andrew Jackson was very popular. A decorated military hero and 1st General since George Washington. These guys Henry Clay, John Calhoun, and the dictionary guy Daniel Webster were world class debaters making epic arguments for the opposing party. Very similar dynamic to how talents of Adam Schiff is now… Just imagine if there were 3 Schiff’s. .Nadier could not hold a candle to Schiff. Different times back in the day where the divide was not nearly as severe. Thus a censorship back there = an Trump impeachment of today.

The Andrew Johnson impeachment was also politically motivated. Thing was with him even a lot of his own party hated him. Racial overtone severe as he often sympathized with South coming off the Civil War and slaves being given their freedom. Remember he was never elected so was an arrogant SOB too.

Sanders promises utopia, have you read Karl Marx? People here are not stupid in believing anything he promises.can really happen. Imagine how irate millions of parents will be who already took the clothes off their back for their children to go to the colleges of their choice on their own credit co-signing and paying back often US $100K in Student loan debt. No way Sanders is going to forgive new debt still owed and not grandfather in all the student loans already paid back. It’s a non-starter…

Trump promising the wall is already happening. He already pivoted on financing with his campaigning now including how the lucrative new trade deal with Mexico and Canada will make it up plus them some.

No worries Westaussie on agreeing to disagree on many issues. Just want it down on the record. In November if Trump wins and House is flipped just expecting one of us to eat crow when the times come (and it won’t be me), lol…

Let me say that I don’t expect to have much support on here. I would also suggest you do a little research on the history of the party I support here in Australia, the Australian Labor Party (ALP). If you do then you understand that I am used to running second in a two horse race. I certainly appreciate the opportunity to have a discussion without the personal abuse.

I would never presume to suggest that my knowledge of USA presidents is anywhere near that of yours. However, I would suggest that the era of Andrew Jackson is nowhere near contemporaneous USA society.

As I said given my understanding of USA politics that the more “radical” parts of Sanders’s agenda would be unlikely to be passed even by a Democrat controlled House of Reps and Senate. I haven’t read Karl Marx.

With respect to the African-American community: I believe you may have overestimated Trump’s support in that community. The reason I think that there will be significantly less support is quite simple. If Biden wins the Democrat nomination Barack Obama will endorse Biden and actively campaign for him. Under that scenario do you think it is reasonable to expect that Biden’s support in the African-American community will be similar to the support Obama received?

With respect to who has paid for the wall I will make two observations. From what I have seen there has been relatively little wall that has been built where there hadn’t been previously existing infrastructure. That reality doesn’t match Trump’s previous hyperbole about the wall. The second point is that it is a very esoteric argument to try to rationalise that Mexico is paying for the wall because of a changed trade agreement.

Got to go to sleep shortly, I will leave you with this: Feel safe here, my writing is intense but respectful. I will enrich myself about Down Under too. Also like to close out points fully even if agree to disagree before moving out of focus.

With that, the heck with your beliefs, what facts you got about African-American tendencies?

The Hunter Biden leveraging his Dad being VP is just the tip of the ice berg for that family accumulating wealth. And there must be something to it for Obama not to endorse Biden out of the box. I have read Biden very loyal. And no way Trump does not pick up some of Obama support - money talks like via higher paying jobs.

Empirical evidence vis-à-vis the African-American support for Trump will come in November, 2020. There can be no actual facts re a Biden-Trump 2020 presidential election and the percentage of African-American support for Trump with a B Obama endorsement of J Biden.

Again I don’t want to play the whataboutism game but I will point out that when Biden was not performing well prior to the SC primary interest in Burisma had fallen off the agenda. Post the SC primary it is now back on the agenda. That speaks for itself. The we come to certain family members of Trump: on what basis were they appointed to roles in the WH other than their familial link to Trump?

Have a good night. I look forward to a continuing robust discussion.

Trump donates his net pay to charities every quarter. He was born with a silver spoon as are his children and grans now are too. Biden part of the Establishment, both sides of isle infested, not Trump’s make up. His greatest talent is being fast on his feet, can not only take a punch, but give one back even better.

Biggest edge gained with impeachment was a sense of belonging. The money Trump is raising from rally’s and social media is off the charts. He is now the face of the Republican Party. Much different than last time around being the outsider. Cruz has turned over, hopes he is next in line. These Rep’s will die for him in battle. The sleepy dogs like McConnell and Graham are awoken under Trump.

Seems like Super Tuesday results reveal Dem’s hand picked candidate all along. Brings into focus how impeachment was marketing tool to “cry wolf” all along.

Here are two famous quotes about the big bad wolf:

“You make me sound like the big bad wolf”

“There was something wolfish about him. Not in the sexy, but in the I’ll-eat-your-grandmother way.”

You got any to add?

Actually to be honest I don’t have much idea of what you are trying to say.