/https://public-media.si-cdn.com/filer/b6/11/b611d42c-35bb-4aec-a220-34c4a6ec7afe/nasm-si-98-15068.jpg)
Posted on 11/13/2019 3:52:08 PM PST by Reagan80
As impeachment hearings begin, some have raised dubious objections to the process from a constitutional basis. Former acting Attorney General Matthew Whitaker suggested there can be no impeachment since “abuse of power” is not a crime, while University of Chicago Law Professor Steven Calabresi argued that President Trump
was denied the Sixth Amendment right to counsel in the closed hearings held by House Democrats.
Neither argument is compelling. The fact is that, if proven, a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable, if proven. Yet the more immediate problem for House Democrats may not be constitutional but architectural in nature. If they want to move forward primarily or exclusively with the Ukraine controversy, it would be the narrowest impeachment in history. Such a slender foundation is a red flag for architects who operate on the accepted 1:10 ratio between the width and height of a structure.
(Excerpt) Read more at thehill.com ...
Well these ####s are saying that what he did CAN be an impeachable offense so why the #### would I read the rest of it or care what they have to say?
There’s no need for a defense against NOTHING.
KILL IT in the senate and if they kick him out it’s war and a whole lot of horrible things happen to both sides.
It’s pretty ####ing simple, if terrible.
This is all about running the 2020 campaign out of the HOR on the taxpayer’s dime.
A feverish attempt to damage the president as much as possible for their weak field.
Bump for later read
There needs to be an investigation into the Democrat Party to see if any of them has ties to America.
You cannot change the article titles.
Not enough 'if proven's.
Here, I'll help:
If proven, the fact is that, if proven, a quid pro quo to, if proven, force the investigation, if proven, of a political rival, if proven, in exchange for military aid can, if proven, be impeachable, if proven.
Turley is a Lib; but a brilliant legal analyst.
He’s only saying that (with two “if proven* qualifiers in the same sentence; that a ‘quid pro quo’ is impeachable if proven - which - strictly speaking, is true.
He then goes on to destroy the Dems strategy and entire impeachment premise.
They leave out the little fact that the political rival was extorting the other country with our money.
If the political rival was bragging about being engaged in a crime. Shouldn't the president look into it? political rival or not ?
If that's true then the House,alone,decides who's impeached and who isn't.
I didn’t get an “alleged” out of that guy...
When you base your whole article on a lie, you have all ready lost the debate.
Here is the problem for the Democrat Fascists and their toadies in the Fake New Media.
We will let them assume EVERYTHING is true and accurate in the “transcripts. We allow this nonsense of hearsay, feeling and assumptions to be allowed as “evidence”.
There is still no crime here.
If “Quid Pro Quo” or “bibery” or what ever they are lyinging call it today is a “Crime”, Joe Biden is guilty of one while VP.
Watch the video of him bragging about it.
The President would have a legal obligation to investigate this “crime” So if it is a crime, Trump was doing his duty, it is is NOT a crime what Biden did it would still need to be investigated to verify. In either case Trump is not guilty of anything.
It is either a crime or it is not. It cannot be a crime for Trump but not for Biden. If it is a crime, Trump is legally obligated to help investigate Bidens actions. .
Either way there is no legal standing to this continuing farce in the US House.
Schiff does not know who the whistleblower is but vouches for his integrity. Hardy har har.
When you base your whole article on a lie, you have all ready lost the debate.
Here is the problem for the Democrat Fascists and their toadies in the Fake New Media.
We will let them assume EVERYTHING is true and accurate in the “transcripts. We allow this nonsense of hearsay, feeling and assumptions to be allowed as “evidence”.
There is still no crime here.
If “Quid Pro Quo” or “bibery” or what ever they are lyinging call it today is a “Crime”, Joe Biden is guilty of one while VP.
Watch the video of him bragging about it.
The President would have a legal obligation to investigate this “crime” So if it is a crime, Trump was doing his duty, it is is NOT a crime what Biden did it would still need to be investigated to verify. In either case Trump is not guilty of anything.
It is either a crime or it is not. It cannot be a crime for Trump but not for Biden. If it is a crime, Trump is legally obligated to help investigate Bidens actions. .
Either way there is no legal standing to this continuing farce in the US House.
I think this guy is missing the fact that even if there was a quid-pro-quo to investigate biden, it does not automatically follow that it was for the purpose of finding dirt on an opponent. There is more then enough evidence that biden and his son are dirty and Trump has an obligation to get to the bottom of it. In a multi beneficial effort that is both good for America and good for Trump’s re-election, you can not automatically assume Trump’s intent. AKA plausible deniability. The dems are benefiting from the impeachment inquiry by dirtying-up Trump, yet no one is claiming it is to gain a political advantage. And we all know that is the motivation of the dems in going after Trump. It really pisses me off the the repubs and msm are giving the benefit of the doubt to the dems, but not Trump,
They are building a giant self detonating HMS Hood type of exploding case which will leave them destroyed and destitute!!
“”””The fact is that, if proven, a quid pro quo to force the investigation of a political rival in exchange for military aid can be impeachable”””””
Biden wasn’t a rival five years ago when he held up aid if the prosecutor wasn’t fired.
Today makes you think if AOC is really the Dumb one ,LOL
In the Senate where the actual trial would be held the “heard it from him, who heard it from him, or I felt like this meant that” shouldn’t be valid testimony.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.