A night of shame?

[Honda]

I view it the same way I viewed Russian collusion, Monica Lewinsky, Benghazi, et al. I don't believe that their motive is to get to the truth I believe their motive is about the next election, and the election after that. My only interest is those that committed crimes be charged and punished if guilty. If the outcome of these hearings stops or impairs Trump from being able to run that would be the best outcome I can ask for. Also I wouldn't describe myself as a committed conservative. I would characterize my political position as moderate. I can't stand the left-wing wackos and I can't stand the right wing wackos. I have positions that are clearly supported by most Democrats and I have positions that are clearly supported by Republicans. My main interest is to elect officials that have the best interest of the American people. After having to experience Trump and now Biden my Hope is fading since I can't believe in this great country with all the bright minds that we have to settle for arrogant narcissists and those with substantial cognitive impairment in the White House. People of substantial geriatric age have no business running this country.

[UTAH]

I can't stand the left-wing wackos and I can't stand the right wing wackos.

This puts you solidly in the middle of the political curve, my friend. Which is why we find your posts entertaining and instructive.

Hunter

[Kevin]

I appreciate the time you took to provide your perspective. It is a reasonable reaction to the events you cite.

Here is mine:

The multiple Benghazi investigations were motivated by a desire to "get Clinton" but despite their ill intent, they served a useful purpose. People serving our country died and we needed to know what happened. Did we need 11 investigations? No, but we needed Hillary Clinton in a chair for 10 hours having to answer to Congress about her actions. Why? Because Stevens and Smith died and we need to know why but also so that the next politician to serve understands that there will be a public airing of their actions so they better be able to stand up and give an accounting. So no matter the malign intent of her questioners, a useful purpose was being served.

Monica Lewinsky - I'm with Dave on this one. I remember making the argument in 1992 that I didn't much care about questions about Bill Clinton's character. He was being hired to do a job and as long as he did it, that was what counted. I was wrong. Character is probably the single most important element in a candidate. Bill Clinton's disgusting behavior needed to be shown to people like me to impress on us the fact that being President is not just being Mayor of the United States. He was unfit for office. And that showed up in my immediate revulsion against Trump's candidacy so at least I learned something from L'affaire Lewinsky.

Russia collusion - Schiff's motivations were bad. I believe he was out to hamstring a President. Yet that whole debacle showed everyone that Russia is deeply involved in our election process. So when Russia invaded Ukraine, we were united behind the opposition to Putin. We knew the enemy. Was the Russia impeachment worth that? I dunno, but despite the bad intentions of our politicians, there was useful information in the process.

Bad intentions in politics are nothing new but there is still utility in exposing the things that politicians do. Politicians run from strong light and the fact that you might be exposed keeps many from further transgressions. Kind of like the speed traps we all roll through. The fact that they are out there doesn't keep us from doing 70 in a 65 but it keeps us from doing 100.

However, I don't say you are wrong. I just have a different way of looking at things. Thanks again for the explanation - I appreciate it!!!

[Truckman]

Tom and Kevin both presented solid positions above...I can take away useful nuggets from each one......Ben