Trump impeachment

So every politician uses their office for personal gain...only Trump is impeachment worthy. These people are something else.

I hope this opens up a look into Hillary, Biden, Obama, ect...but we all know the House will remain silent on all without the name Trump.

 

Democratic Council and Prof Feldman clearly rehearsed the questions and answers. He is teed up and ready to go with those answers.

 

The Framers would beat the shit out of these Harvard Professors...Feldman is something else

 

And nothing but their opinions about Trumps actions.
These educated peeps are awesome living in their own self congratulatory world of just how awesome they are. Circle jerk at its finest.

 

They defend Biden while bashing Trump at the same time.

This goes right in with "fighting for peace is like fucking for virginity"

 

Dems good, republicans bad

 

Feelings over facts.

 

No one is questioning or challenging the legality of the constitution.
I love how they are trying to intertwine their own feelings and perception of Trumps actions as being actually proven.
Of course bribery is impeachable.
Of course obstruction is impeachable.
Of course abuse of power is impeachable.
Etc. Etc. Etc.
No one is questioning this.

The only question is, do Trumps actions constitute bribery, obstruction or abuse of power. Etc etc etc.
None of which Trumps actions have been established to be crimes.

They are placing their own feelings and beliefs before any established acts of crime.
Complete sham.

 

As I stated long ago in this thread, it is all about what you believe Trumps motives were in pressing for the investigation into Hunter Biden. If you think it was politically motivated then it is abuse of power and he should be impeached. If you think it was going after corruption, then it was not abuse of power and Trump should not be impeached. There is no definitive proof at this point one way or the other so opinions rule. No one is going to change their opinion about his motives.

 

What’s that pesky saying, again? Oh yeah ... “innocent until PROVEN guilty”. These are legal scholars after all. Surely they understand that it isn’t on him to prove himself innocent. The fact that they have zero PROOF of any wrongdoing NEEDS to kill this thing. Even his motives don’t mean shit without proof of those being his motives. The fact that their own witnesses stated the only actual interactions with Trump were him specifically saying he wanted nothing from Ukraine doesn’t seem to register with them.

 

No shit. Turley is the only one who sounds educated and doesn't have anti trump hysteria. He actually cares about the law.

 

Knowing how disturbed these idiots are makes my little heart go pitter patter, moreso knowing he'll get re-elected and they have 5 more years of this torment.

Resist assholes. Resist.

 

Prof Turley injecting some much needed common sense into the discussion. Reacting and responding from a foundation of facts and actual events and not on emotion and feelings like the other “scholars”. Good Lord that “lady” from Stanford was extremely emotional and almost border line hysterical. No doubt she’s had a few triggered moments over Trump.

 

Since it is firewood season, if you have any dull axes, head on up to DC...it appears to be where they are sharpened.

 

@dsapsis Hey Dave, you planning on having a date night and getting all scholarly with this fine highly educated Stanford specimen? If so, drink copious amounts of some of your higher point beer prior.

 

Again, liberal women all look like Bernie Sanders in drag.

 

Actually proof beyond a reasonable doubt would be the trial portion in the Senate. What is completely not clear is what level of evidence is needed for the House to Impeach. It is not spelled out in the Constitution. There is certainly evidence that he asked a foreign government to have a political rival and his son investigated. That much is clear from the call transcript. It is certainly well within the bounds of logical thinking that could have been politically motivated, and as such it would be grounds for impeachment. Is that enough to indict / impeach? Well as stated previously that isn't clear at all.

Trump telling a witness that he wanted nothing from the Ukraine contradicts his own words in a call where he specifically asked the Ukraine for a favor. Either the witness was wrong, Trump changed his mind or Trump was lying.

 

That is Rachael Madcow in disguise.