When, exactly, did we determine that bringing matters to a vote

[burythehatchet]

in the congress must be a decision based on whether we have enough votes to win?

When one makes that assumption, one assumes that all the debate and evidence has already been presented and the determinations of individuals have been die cast.

We don't have the votes.

Impeachment is an indictment. A trial follows. During a trial prosecutors and defenders are complelled to produce evidence of innocense and guilt.

Do you suppose NEW information might actually come out? Maybe we don't know everything. Maybe there are GREATER CRIMES that are occurring without our knowledge, without our consent and without our oversight.

We don't have the votes.

There is a Hindu swami whose lecture on Judgment I listened to very intently. It was a long lecture with many parables and illuminations, but the gist of it was that making a judgment like this (any judgment actually if you interpret the lesson with 100% purity) was the height of arrogance. When one makes such a definitive judgment, especially regarding a subject so intensely violative of our sensibilities as this vile group of men, one presumes to know an awful lot. The Gods smile and ponder how absurd it is that mere mortals would deign to inherit the vision of God.



We don't have the votes.

It's not ANYONE'S call on whether we do or not - and that should never even be a factor in the equation. Our moral compass tells us that we should try to do the correct thing when confronted with a dilemma. Failing to do so is making the judgment on your own accord.