Sure, Dershowitz and Graham had in mind impeaching the President for meeting a foreign leader at the UN instead of the WH as the two leaders originally discussed.
Maybe the non indictable offense they were referring to was the President âcoercingâ a foreign leader when the foreign leader has stated publicly multiple times he didnât feel pressured at all.
But wait, it couldnât be that Clintonâs impeachment was driven by a dozen documented felonies and Trumpâs is driven by no underlying offense that drives Graham and Dershowitz to oppose the current partisan hate fest. Itâs hypocrisy under the influence of the bad Orange man cult.
This is precisely why the Democrats seek press microphones immediately following adjournment of the Senate proceedings.
They do this to promote their disagreement and criticisms of the Presidentâs teamâs presentation to the public, reiterating their own lies and suppositions regarding what the people involved in the denial of the charges were âactually thinkingâ when they stated their facts.
Adam Schiff is particularly gifted at paraphrasing quotes to make them more effective in establishing dislike of the person quoted and what he/she might have said.
Following Saturdayâs adjournment, Schiff was âquotingâ someoneâs comments supposedly said to Trump and expressed, âHe loves youâ as âHe loves your assâ.
Adam Schiff is a despicable, lying piece of shit!
He knows he got his ass handed to him by the Trump team lawyers in their initial 2 hours of their allotted 24 hours of debate time. I suspect he has correctly discerned that this is only the beginning.
Difference between Clinton and Trumpâs impeachment is that Bill was convicted of a crime, perjury in the Paula Jones case, he paid a $90K fine to the court. Keep up.
Perhaps if you had read ALL my commentary on the subject youâd have a better understanding of what I know, and then you wouldnât have to be snarky.
Impeachment, for the umpteenth time, doesnât require a crime, so said Alexander Hamilton, but much more recently, and importantly, so did Lindsey Graham and Alan Dershowitz. So stop attempting to make indictable crime a necessary requirement.
No it doesnât. But it does require a reasonable certainty that a president has committed high crimes or misdemeanors.
In this case, neither bar has been reached. In fact, the bar has been set so low that the precedent is if you donât like the current president or policies you can impeach.
Itâs bribery, treason, high crimes and misdemeanors that are necessary for Presidential impeachment. Itâs not make it up as the Resistance pleases, it is in the Constitution.
High crimes and misdemeanors have to have equivalent gravity to bribery or treason. Failing to have a meeting in the WH but in the UN instead doesnât qualify in any reasonable analysis.
President Trump has defied exactly zero subpoenas. As his legal team explained the President asserted his legal rights to refuse illegal subpoenas.
The House is given the power to impeach not the Speaker to independently launch an impeachment inquiry with subpoena power. Of course Democrats made no effort to resolve the differences between the 2 branches, instead they fashioned another article of impeachment.
You expose your ignorance once again! Surprise, surprise!
You can declare a subpoena illegal if it has not be through the proper judicial process which is in fact what happened when the AOI was hatched! If there is no enforcement mechanism to subpoenas then of course they are illegal and Graham is speaking in jest to make this point.
Educate yourself instead of pretending to know how the process works so you donât continue to spread more erroneous misinformation and keep copying and pasting your responses here with same drivel. You only look more ignorant than you already are about this subject matter when you appear to be doubling down.
Your own Democratic impeachment managers even admit this! Wow! I guess you missed this detail huh?
True, and 70% of Americans want documents and witnesses at the senate trial. That includes objective republicans, not Trumperâs, not the guys that would excuse him for murder, and who have excused his treasonous acts like inviting Russia and China to interfere in our elections, or standing on foreign soil and siding with an adversarial leader (Putin) over his own countryâŚ
Real Americans want to know whatâs in the subpoenaed documents, and what Bolton, Mulvaney, Giuliani and others know about the Ukrainian scheme (drug deal) Trump and Parnus were cooking up.
No matter what the topic the expert jumps in and begins spewing.
Time for another walk about as I tire of the montes endless droning on and on. Unfortunately several people;e try and engage him which is impossible as he continues with the dialogue.
I am convinced that his MO is to constantly sow discord with posters here! I too am tired of his incessant whining by propagating lies and spreading erroneous misinformation. No one can be that stupid to be posting half the shit he does here! Like Juan âwhinyâ Williams, Monte Crusty appears to be a carbon copy of him that always has an agenda.
Sigh, once again you ignore your own rhetoric. The Constitution defines impeachable offenses not politicians. Dershowitz will testify before the Senate asserting the insufficiency of the AOI. Graham has already asserted the same. Attack their rationale based on reason, not Resistance hatred.
Denying President Trump the ability to resist illegal subpoenas based on legal reasoning is yet another example of Resistance Democrats throwing bedrock legal principles overboard in the lunatic pursuit of the bad Orange man. Believe it or not there have been conflicts between Congress and the President in the past. They have been resolved through negotiations and failing that in Federal court. Leave it to the Resistance zealots burn down the village to save it craziness to use impeachment instead of conflict resolution.
