The proof is in the extensive testimony, the transcripts, and those on the phone call (first hand). Done.
My examples were only theoretical bordering on hypothetical. Both would be extremely unlikely like much less than 1% chance. But to continue, how would the VP evict a removed president? SCOTUS certainly could overrule the OLC legal opinion on prosecuting a sitting president but that is less the 0.0001% likely. On the other hand, if they did overrule the legal opinion why do you think the US Attorneys would still follow it? The current impeachment being unconstitutional is not only not absurd it is self evident. There is nothing in the Articles that come within a million miles of high crimes and misdemeanors. The current Articles are simply the latest ideas of many the Democrats pulled from their butts and trotted out; there will be more after these and will probably be more ridiculous: they haven't had putting ketchup on steaks yet but they are not far from it. There have been two official opinions of prosecuting a president written by the Office of Legal Council (which is not one individual), in 1973 and in 2000. The Constitution does not explicitly state this detail but the Constitution does not state that congress could pass a law or a president or the Court take some action that destroys the separation of powers fundamental linchpin of the Constitutional either, but it is prima facie axiomatic and obvious. You are correct that Wilson was the first president to openly favor a very powerful president. He also did not favor the Constitution. I think he once said that the concept of individual rights and liberty was quaint.
[QUOTE="FreshAir, post: 1071343714, member: 58375"...... never before has a President been impeached for asking a foreign government to help them win the next election while holding up funds for their defense already approved by Congress.[/QUOTE]You might have a point if only Trump actually held up funds to get Ukraine's help in the upcoming election. Like the old saw, "We are going to have ham and eggs. Now if only we had some ham and if only we had some eggs."
You might have a point if only Trump actually held up funds to get Ukraine's help in the upcoming election. Like the old saw, "We are going to have ham and eggs. Now if only we had some ham and if only we had some eggs."[/QUOTE] The eventual release of the aid, only done because Trump's extortion scheme had been exposed, does not absolve him from culpability for devising the extortion scheme and attempting to carry it out in the first place.
Police never make felony or misdemeanor charges. It goes to the DA and then a grand jury all over the land to get true billed as felony or misdemeanor charges.
Clinton was never convicted for Perjury, so to the right that means he did not do it course like Trump with Ukraine, we all know he did it just the same yes, Clinton lied about having a consensual affair under oath, but if we take the innocent until proved guilty to insane levels like the right, then we have to say he did not
Hate to bust your bubble, but, no, it has not been proven in the least. You are confused between proof and personal beliefs and wishes.
The eventual release of the aid, only done because Trump's extortion scheme had been exposed, does not absolve him from culpability for devising the extortion scheme and attempting to carry it out in the first place.[/QUOTE]Says your belief and wishful thinking.
Well I see you have gone full circle in believing there were first hand witnesses that heard everything.. How long does it take to convince ones self that gossip and opinion are first hand evidence And the transcript, LOL.. Even the leader of Ukraine doesn't even validate what you and all the other leftist believe ¯\_(º¸º)_/¯
I thought that was the plan from the moment he was elected? The very next day the democrats vowed to impeach him The democrats ass's are hanging out for the nation to see, and aint a pretty site either
What would it matter in the DR Congo what any U.S. President does? You folks have your own really serious internal problems..
And the Republicans have the Senate. Pelosi and Schiff will do as they please in the House. Therefore, they really need to shut the **** up when Republicans do the same in the Senate...
Republicans in the Senate have been bitchin’ about what the House has been doing for months, I guess you’re mad about that as well. No?
You confuse mad with amused, it's a common mistake with the left as they have no sense of humor only angst about everything..
For some weird reason, many conservatives seems to confuse crude insults with humor and politics. There is a reason there are no great conservative comedians.
There are enough investigations going on that Trump’s greatest foe is going to be his activities coming to light. The advantage he had going into 2016 was most people didn’t know a lot about him. Now we do. We have seen his corruption and ineptitude on full display.
As usual you post without looking in to what you claim Please try harder Norm Macdonald Tim Allen Ron White Steven Crowder Dennis Miller Jeff Foxworthy Bill Engvall Adam Sandler Adam Carolla Jeff Dunham Nick DiPaolo Larry the Cable Guy Evan Sayet Jackie Mason Rob Schneider Kathleen Madigan Victoria Jackson Chonda Pierce
yes, republican in the house were amusing, especially Nunes with his Ukraine connections that came out - the right will defend Trump no mater what comes out, they hope to prevent as much as possible from coming out, but will vote not to fire him no mater what
Trump was not impeached for holding up funds. He was impeached for soliciting help from a foreign government to influence the 2020 election.