Can someone explain to me why the Dummycrats think there is any grounds for impeachment?

cronos ^ | 14 Dec 2019 | Cronos

[Cronos]

I haven't bothered with these witch-hunts, being out of the States for some time now, but now I see the Dummycrats have taken it up a notch and I figured I ought to know something about this in case asked.

I digged and digged and I can't figure out what the heck President Trump is alleged to have done.

I read that he was alleged to have pressured Ukraine on a quid pro quo for some investigations against Dems. But then there's a statement that Trump said "I don't want nothing"

And even if a President tells a foreign government "you don't get money from the USA unless you do something for us" what is the problem?

What should I tell people who ask me? I figure on the simple "It's a witch-hunt. The President broke no laws and the one thing he's accused of doing was denied by a key witness"

[Cronos]

Exactly. I tried to think it through impartially and can’t figure out why they think they have any case

[Cronos]

It makes the entire us political establishment look pathetic

[sit-rep]

for what its worth, I have a different view of all this crap....
acting just like a 5 year old, the dems blame an innocent to take the focus off themselves. and with so much backing from the media, 24=7 whos going to really have the patience now to listen to it all and accept it as real when the Repubs bring out the actual democrap crimes?
the fact that not a single person on that side has entered a prison cell yet tells me their plan is working wonders...

[conservatism_IS_compassion]

It’s simple:

The natural disposition is always to believe. It is acquired wisdom and experience only that teach incredulity, and they very seldom teach it enough. The wisest and most cautious of us all frequently gives credit to stories which he himself is afterwards both ashamed and astonished that he could possibly think of believing. — Adam Smith, Theory of Moral Sentiments (1759)

“The republican principle demands that the deliberate sense of the community should govern the conduct of those to whom they intrust the management of their affairs; but it does not require an unqualified complaisance to every sudden breeze of passion or to every transient impulse which the people may receive from the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests.” ― Alexander Hamilton

The check against " the arts of men, who flatter their prejudices to betray their interests” is libel suits. But fifty years ago The Warren Court Said That 1A Denigrated the Right Of Officials to Sue For Libel. That was WRONG.

The “Bill of Rights” does not enumerate all the rights of the people; it was impossible do that since those were and are a matter of Common Law, nowhere comprehensively articulated. The first eight amendments enumerate only those rights which historically had been denigrated by tyrants. And - very importantly - the way those rights are articulated was crafted not to impinge on rights which are referred to in the Ninth Amendment:

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

The fact that the right to sue for libel was not compromised by the First Amendment was never questioned before the 1964 New York Times Co. v. Sullivan decision by the Warren Court. That hamstrung the ability of politicians to protect the reputations their behaviors had earned - thereby releasing journalists from the necessity to adhere to the truth. Political Correctness - and the ability of Democrats (who are joined at the hip with the journalism cartel) to disregard reality - follow.