The Meaning Of The Impeachment: (February 6, 2020) The so-called acquittal in the senate vote says nothing about Trump or his guilt or innocence, nothing about the Democrats or the House vote. It says conservatives created a nonfunctional Senate. It must be nonfunctional to represent conservatives, where mongering power replaces rationality and the value for a government of laws. The whims of a totalitarian dictator are more in line with power mongering.

Trump not only assumes he is the world's ruler, he assumes presidents solve everyone's problems, so keeping him in power is the answer to everyone's problems. Since none of that is true, he focusses the government upon himself trying to do things the presidency isn't designed for.

Impeachment and Election Meddling: (September 29, 2019) Whether something wrong is occurring is in the eye of the beholder. The same facts, two opposite concerns. On one side, there are laws being violated. On the other side, there is nothing wrong, just normal procedures.

What it says is that the new normal is an attempt to throw out the older concepts of what law should be and operate by a looser standard without laws getting in the way. Laws cause conservatives to assume they have to fight their war with one hand tied behind their backs. The government is the problem, Reagan said. Governments create laws, and conservatives do not want to be restricted with laws.

The question is not what has been occurring but what should be occurring. What should occur is a question of values. It's a values war. But the laws are already in place, and they are being defied. Changing the laws by defying them is lawlessness.

(The issue is that Trump called Ukraine and tried to get them to scandalize Biden (his election opponent). But Trump said he gained nothing from the attempt, as presidents can supposedly be expected to look into criminal investigations in other countries as a national security issue. Every criminal act of Trump's is supposedly justified as being a national security issue.)

Why even worry about "quid pro quo?" To even mention Biden's name in a phone call to foreign officials is criminal intent. There are a hundred thousand criminal investigations in this country and others. To pick Biden's name out is a contempt for campaign laws.

It would be a misuse of taxpayers dollars to investigate corruption in another country (Ukraine), even if it had nothing to do with an election opponent, which is why the only purpose to was degrade an election opponent.

The counter-argument to impeachment is that Trump supposedly has a right to investigate corruption in Ukraine. Even if it were true, the claim strips away the purpose and result. The law and concerns are in the purpose and result. To strip those out of the subject is beyond infantile.

If Trump or the conservatives had to explain what corruption Trump was investigating in Ukraine, they would have to say, we were making sure the businesses in Ukraine were functioning efficiently and not wasting too much money on director fees, which had some connection to a politician in the previous administration. Trump has only got 193 more countries, 35 million more corporations and 10 million more previous politicians to investigate to fix the world's problems—unless he was trying to degrade an election opponent rather than solve the world's problems.

Counter-Impeachment: (December 4, 2019) When Republicans can say that the impeachment is a disagreement on "Trump's style, world view and decisions" they are abandoning human concepts of government. There is no government at Trump's standard of defying laws, obstructing investigations and attempting to remove Congress from the process. It shows that the conservative trend that has been increasing since 1981 is an attempt to replace five thousand years of humanly evolved social structures with the dictatorial whims of corrupters.

What the impeachment hearings show is that the goal of incompetent corrupters is to strip reality and rationality from decision-making processes, so deciders can dictate freely and arbitrarily without interference. The hearings show this regardless of how the Senate votes. Since truth is the only force corrupters cannot subdue, the hearings are the only relevance, not the vote of the Senate.

In other words, if robbing banks is a life-style for the Mafia, that doesn't make it ok to rob banks. Stripping objective reality from existence and replacing it with subjective impositions is not a form of virtue; it's a form of dictatorial totalitarianism.

What Republicans cannot understand is that it is none of their business what the Bidens were doing in Ukraine. Ukraine has their own laws, and if someone is violating those laws, it is no business of the U.S. Senate or the U.S. President. Yet Republicans are unconcerned whether the U.S. President is violating U.S. campaign laws to defeat opponents in the next election by using the power of the presidency to coerce the result through foreign officials. Republicans are all law, law, law for the Bidens and any opponents, but anything goes for conservative Republicans. Foreign laws are the business of Republican Senators, but U.S. laws are trashed as irrelevant.

Legal Technicalities Of Impeachment: (December 11, 2019) Commentators describe the impeachment process in legal terms, as if it were a court case. Impeachment is nothing resembling a court case; it's a political process for the purpose of protecting the government and society from the damages of a rogue president.

Nixon wasn't threatened with impeachment because of the Watergate break-in. That stunt would have been laughed off as a political disgrace. He was subjected to impeachment proceedings because of the Vietnam War connected to his lying which rose to the level of social ruin. He campaigned throughout 1968 on ending the Vietnam War. He ridiculed Humphrey (the vice president) constantly for not taking a stronger stand against the Vietnam War. After Nixon got elected, he expanded the Vietnam War immeasurably and bombed Cambodia. So the Watergate break-in was used as an indicator of his corrupt, lying character, and his follow-up connivances and defiance were lawless.

Similarly, Trump's impeachment is not a legal technicality on foreign affairs; it's a political attempt to cope with Trump's standard of subverting government and the laws which government is based upon. Trump will not hire necessary employees for getting government work done, while he moves government offices out of Washington to prevent them from getting work done. Trump is opposed to the existence of a government of laws. His contempt for campaign laws is indicative of his hate for a government of laws. He is being impeached for that reason, while one example is indicative of the problem. That's nothing resembling a court case. It's a political process which goes way beyond what courts do.

Clinton's impeachment was a legal technicality over his sex life unrelated to his governmental activities due to a rogue Congress which didn't want a Democrat in the Whitehouse.

High Crimes And Misdemeanors: (December 17, 2019) If a president is to be impeached for "high crimes and misdemeanors," what happens if he commits a high crime and not a misdemeanor? Is he off scot-free? If not, why the and? The and says something other than the crimes of the president.

What it means is that high crimes and misdemeanors represent the range of activities, not the inclusion of activities. The range extends to misdemeanors, which means trivia.

And therefore, it's a political process, not a court case. Court cases are backed by encyclopedias of technicalities. Political activities are represented with prepositional phrases. Congress determines political activity, not court cases.

Intentions Define: (December 18, 2019) Trump's rationalizers ignore the intent. Crimes are defined by intentions, not success. Trump had the intent of attacking a political opponent in dealing with Ukraine. There was no reason to mention Biden's name otherwise, because Ukraine has its own laws which are none of Trump's business, and there are thousands of criminal investigations which Trump did not mention and presidents never do. Picking out Biden's name was attacking a political opponent in international affairs.

Those who rationalize Trump are saying a government of laws is of no relevance, just keep the dictator in power. It takes lies to keep dictators in power. In fact, it takes worship of the emperor to keep dictators in power.

Did Nothing Wrong?: (December 25, 2019) Trump insists that he did nothing wrong. Laws determine whether government officials did something wrong. What laws does Trump apply to his claim? None. He tries to impose a concept onto a government which has 230 years of developed laws. He needs to explain such a claim, but explaining is not something he does.

Trump's Stupidity: (January 23, 2020) Trump thinks he did nothing wrong, because no money changed hands and he has a right to discuss anything he wants and fixing crime is normal for presidents. Presidents don't investigate crimes; the FBI does.

The law isn't based on money exchanging hands, and presidents don't have a right to do anything they want. The minute Trump picked up the phone to Zelensky with the purpose of mentioning Biden's name, he broke the law, because his purpose was to degrade an election opponent through a foreign official. The purpose is evident in the fact that it is no business of the U.S. President what laws are in Ukraine. Even if Ukraine laws were relevant, Trump cannot degrade an election opponent in the process.

What Is Impeachable? (January 26, 2020) Republican defenders of Trump are trying to argue what is impeachable. There are no barriers around impeachment, its being political. Arguing barriers is an attempt to frame impeachment as a judicial crime case, which would be infinitely described.

The politics of impeachment has no defined characteristics, because politicians have to weigh all factors. In other words, the defenders of Trump are trying to define barriers into the process which don't exist. By their standard, a totalitarian dictator could not be removed from power, because dictators decree all that they do to be virtue. Isn't that the frame Trump is trying to paint for himself?

If there were such a thing as "impeachable," there would need to be encyclopedias describing it. Since there is nothing, contriving the point out of thin air has no relevance.

An appropriate logic does not require a precedent description, while the logic is beyond clear that there needs to be a method of removing a rogue president; and it needs to be political rather than judicial, as the U.S. Constitution indicates.

In the domain of politics rather than judiciation, arguing what is impeachable is asinine. If there were such arguments, the court system would be needed to create technical procedures instead of the politics of Congress.

However, the reason why such an argument is being made is to break down rationality as a defense. It is standard operating procedure in arguing that which is unjustifiable to breakdown rationality through asinine arguments. Breaking down rationality doesn't go far in courts, but it is being tried in Congress. Trump's asinine tweeting is an attempt to break down rationality as a defense.

The argument of Trump's defense that there has to be a crime for impeachment is not appropriate. If there has to be a crime, there has to be a proof that the crime occurred. There are no mechanisms in Congress for proving anything, as politics is not a process that proves things. It is clear that Trump broke laws. When that isn't proof, there are no other mechanisms for proving.

They are saying that corruption isn't a crime. Violating campaign laws is corruption and a crime. And the only reason why impeachment exists is because corrupt presidents need to be removed regardless of the rationalizations and nonsense.

Defying The Purpose Of The Law: (January 30, 2020) The drift of Trump's defense attorneys is that there are reasons why Trump could defy the purpose of the election law which forbids foreign influence over an election to be sought by a president.

The purpose of the election law is to create an election where voters chose a president based upon qualifications not skewed by foreign influences created by the power of the presidency, so that an opponent has an equal opportunity to get elected. Democracy requires voters choosing a president on the basis of qualifications without a president using the power of government to railroad the process. It's characteristic of rationalized corruption to defy the purpose of laws through excuses. The purpose is the essence of laws. The purposes cannot be defied through excuses.

Dictators routinely cement their position of power by preventing voters or anyone else from taking them out of power. Democracy only exists when dictators cannot do that. The election law has that purpose. To make excuses and say Trump can increase his influence through some mechanism defeats the purpose and prevents the democratic process from working properly.

It means no excuses can be made. If the president's election advantage is increased through his foreign actions, the election is skewed and a dictator is solidifying his power. So the test is not in the excuses for producing that result but in the absence of that result regardless of other considerations.

Rationalizers are saying the result can be secondary or accidental. It can't exist regardless of why.

Presidents have the responsibility of preventing an election from being skewed by foreign governments. Impeachment defense rationalizers are saying there are endless exceptions to the election law. Any exception in the result defeats its purpose and gives the president an unfair advantage.

Specifically, it's no business of the U.S. President what laws are in some other country. If investigating is needed, the FBI does that, not presidents. The FBI investigates quietly behind the scenes, which doesn't skew elections, not in the newspapers for public influence. If absence of corruption were relevant for transfer of funds, that's supposed to be pre-determined when Congress decides, not through a later investigation.

Trump's inappropriate method was so unnecessary that it wouldn't have occurred for any other purpose than skewing the election. The words that Trump used were aligned upon that purpose including the use of Biden's name in the phone call to Zelensky. Using Biden as a witness would be inappropriate, because nothing about the Bidens was supposed to be taken up by Trump.

(Trump was telling Ukraine they don't get the funds Congress appropriated unless they scandalize Biden.)

Conducting an investigation in Ukraine as a precondition for transferring funds could take several years, while the funds were supposed to be transferred in a timely manner. Degrading an election opponent would only take a few minutes. Which one was the purpose of Trump's phone call?

Government Of Laws: Trump's rationalizers are saying, implicitly, that converting a government of laws into a government without laws is ok and is not an impeachable offense. The lawlessness is ingrained and pervasive in everything Trump does.

Presidents are supposed to be administrators; they aren't supposed to be changing, creating or defying laws. Trump's assumption and argument states that nothing must restrict his impositions onto government, because he is supposedly the answer to everything.

The Historical Record: (August 8, 2020) Democrats are saying they gave Trump the option of presenting evidence in the hearing of the Judicial Committee. Republicans say Trump was robbed of the right to defend himself. They are talking about two different things.

The Democrats started their investigation by calling witnesses and preventing Trump from getting involved. Later, they gave Trump the opportunity to present evidence, which he refused to do. Republicans are saying Trump should have been involved at the vary beginning, and not being allowed to do so robbed him of a defense.

What it means is that Trump and bunch did not want to base his defense upon the presentation of evidence, which he could have done. Instead they wanted to get involved in the whole process of Congress investigating from the beginning for no other reason that obstructing the process.

There are two clear indicators of the obstruction intent. One, evidence can be produced at any point in the process. But the importance of the beginning is in defining the terms and getting some progress made without interference. Interference was the entire purpose of the Republicans.

The second reason why that conclusion can be drawn is because it is the only standard conservatives have ever operated by. Evidence condemns them of everything they have ever done. They are obstructionists. There was no evidence on their side of the issue. Which is entirely why Democrats kept Trump's group away during the early elements of their investigation. There was nothing about that standard that kept Trump from defending himself; it only prevented his bunch from obstructing the process.