Do you understand what is going on? The primary argument for no witnesses isn’t factual. It’s that, even if Trump did exactly what he is accused of doing, what he did isn’t a high crime or misdemeanor.
Do you understand what is going on? The primary argument for no witnesses isn’t factual. It’s that, even if Trump did exactly what he is accused of doing, what he did isn’t a high crime or misdemeanor.
Do you understand what is going on? The primary argument for no witnesses isn’t factual. It’s that, even if Trump did exactly what he is accused of doing, what he did isn’t a high crime or misdemeanor.
Dems should have charged Extortion.
Regardless, I have no illusions it would have made any difference.
I know.
I’m saying the argument that extortion is sufficient is much stronger than the argument abuse of power is sufficient.
Do you understand what is going on? The primary argument for no witnesses isn’t factual. It’s that, even if Trump did exactly what he is accused of doing, what he did isn’t a high crime or misdemeanor.
I know.
I’m saying the argument that extortion is sufficient is much stronger than the argument abuse of power is sufficient.
Dems could have presented evidence and witness that Trump committed actual treason, and the GOP would say ‘Sure the constitution lists treason specifically as impeachable but the founders didn’t mean this kind of treason...’
So Senator Lamar Alexander thinks withholding congressional aid from an ally in a war with an adversary of the US in order to obtain assistance in a domestic election is "inappropriate" but is not a high crime or misdemeanor.
What would be a high crime or misdemeanor?
Well that depends on the context. If Trump did it, it’s not a high crime or misdemeanor
Proud moment for NC last night when Richard Burr, retiring GOP senator with no Trump retribution to face and also the chair of the Senate Intelligence Committee asked a question...about the Steele dossier. What a fucking pussy.