Impeachment does NOT require a crime

It is what it is. If the Founders thought differently, they would have required a two-thirds vote in the House for impeachment. They didn't. But, they did require a high bar to clear for conviction, in the Senate.

 

Former Chief of Staff Kelly just came out in support of calling for the testimony of Bolton and other direct witnesses.

 

You'll note the Democrats have pretty much given up on their "Obstruction of Congress" accusation.

 

Most Presidents use it occasionally. No President has ever claimed it applies to ALL Executive branch communications. The argument isn't over whether executive privilege exists or not...it does. The argument is over the extent off its usage.

 

It's a red herring because "his administration" never had the cooperation of the government of Ukraine to investigate US 2016 election interference.

 

Too late, this is how they have convinced their voters our constitution was supposed to conduct an impeachment. I thought it was bad enough when dumb ass Harold Ford said impeachment is whatever the House says it is; this is much worse.

 

and besides, all Trump needs to do is illustrate sufficient cause for concern that something looked corrupt between Hunter, Joe and Burisma. That's easy as hell to do.

 

It's not his call to make.

 

Minor clarification. I don't think the Democrats think this is how the government works. This is how they want and hope for the government to work.

 

As long as they are in power.

 

That's the idea.

 

Hey man, if you guys want to toss around impeachments like cops give speeding tickets, go for it. But don't be crying on here when your next democratic president had impeachment trials left and right over the most trivial things. I'll be the first one to shove this thread back in your face. Capisce?