An expert witness gave an incredibly helpful explanation of why Trump’s behavior is impeachable.

[jessilin0113]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... -sMSzC7uTA

Imagine living in a part of Louisiana or Texas that’s prone to devastating hurricanes and flooding. What would you think if you lived there and your governor asked for a meeting with the president to discuss getting disaster aid that Congress has provided for? What would you think if that president said, “I would like you to do us a favor? I’ll meet with you, and send the disaster relief, once you brand my opponent a criminal.”

Wouldn’t you know in your gut that such a president has abused his office? That he’d betrayed the national interest, and that he was trying to corrupt the electoral process? I believe the evidentiary record shows wrongful acts on those scale here.

[Momto2boys973]

Of course he abused his office. He has been doing that for 2 years. Just look at his blatant nepotism. The guy is a Borgia.

[Deleted User 1074]

lol, I cant believe you're using the least credible lawyer the democrats trotted out. they dont have any actual witnesses with 1st hand knowledge so they sought out biased lawyers to tell everyone why orange man is bad, lol.

Here she is in 2017, saying she hated trump so much she had to cross the street to avoid walking by his hotel. NOT BIASED AT ALL!

[KnotaDinghy]

lol, I cant believe you're using the least credible lawyer the democrats trotted out. they dont have any actual witnesses with 1st hand knowledge so they sought out biased lawyers to tell everyone why orange man is bad, lol.

Here she is in 2017, saying she hated trump so much she had to cross the street to avoid walking by his hotel. NOT BIASED AT ALL!

Yeah but don’t spoil their moment. Their bubble will burst soon enough. It’s plain as day that the President did not do what they accuse him of, it’s dangerous for them to follow through and impeach him simply because they can’t accept Hillary lost the election.

[Deleted User 1074]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... -sMSzC7uTA

Imagine living in a part of Louisiana or Texas that’s prone to devastating hurricanes and flooding. What would you think if you lived there and your governor asked for a meeting with the president to discuss getting disaster aid that Congress has provided for? What would you think if that president said, “I would like you to do us a favor? I’ll meet with you, and send the disaster relief, once you brand my opponent a criminal.”

Wouldn’t you know in your gut that such a president has abused his office? That he’d betrayed the national interest, and that he was trying to corrupt the electoral process? I believe the evidentiary record shows wrongful acts on those scale here.

too bad her analogy is crap. this wasnt within our own country, it was a foreign country. we DONT HAVE TO GIVE AID to them. Obama didnt! but even so- there is always strings attached when aid is given, in the case of uraine a known corrupt country, trump wanted corruption investigated. that was literally the same thing joe biden claims he did. so is it just illegal when trump does it?

why arent you interested in the other "expert witness" who also doesnt like trump but claimed he didnt do anything impeachable?

George Washington University's Jonathan Turley, argued that Democrats were making a mistake by pursuing a "slipshod" impeachment that would have long-lasting consequences.

"I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. I believe this impeachment not only fails to satisfy the standard of past impeachments but would create a dangerous precedent for future impeachments," Turley said.

[Deleted User 1074]

lol, I cant believe you're using the least credible lawyer the democrats trotted out. they dont have any actual witnesses with 1st hand knowledge so they sought out biased lawyers to tell everyone why orange man is bad, lol.

Here she is in 2017, saying she hated trump so much she had to cross the street to avoid walking by his hotel. NOT BIASED AT ALL!

Yeah but don’t spoil their moment. Their bubble will burst soon enough. It’s plain as day that the President did not do what they accuse him of, it’s dangerous for them to follow through and impeach him simply because they can’t accept Hillary lost the election.

this woman had so much hatred in her heart, she couldnt help but physically grit her teeth and seethe while mocking trump's child and people should take her seriously?

EVERYBODY!!! Ben Shapiro has a law degree from Harvard, therefore you must believe his opinion that the democrat led impeachment is just a kabuki theater and trump did nothing impeachable must be accepted as FACT.

[KnotaDinghy]

lol, I cant believe you're using the least credible lawyer the democrats trotted out. they dont have any actual witnesses with 1st hand knowledge so they sought out biased lawyers to tell everyone why orange man is bad, lol.

Here she is in 2017, saying she hated trump so much she had to cross the street to avoid walking by his hotel. NOT BIASED AT ALL!

Yeah but don’t spoil their moment. Their bubble will burst soon enough. It’s plain as day that the President did not do what they accuse him of, it’s dangerous for them to follow through and impeach him simply because they can’t accept Hillary lost the election.

this woman had so much hatred in her heart, she couldnt help but physically grit her teeth and seethe while mocking trump's child and people should take her seriously?

EVERYBODY!!! Ben Shapiro has a law degree from Harvard, therefore you must believe his opinion that the democrat led impeachment is just a kabuki theater and trump did nothing impeachable must be accepted as FACT.

That woman clearly had contempt for Trump. Actually they all did in their own ways. But the three that obviously discussed how they would testify beforehand were too biased to take anything they said seriously.

Now, I believe in private votes. They should never have been asked who they voted for in 2016. If they had declared it on their own, that’s one thing. But the shouldn’t have been asked. However, people in their professional positions should have handled that question better. She got so angry I though lt the vein in her forehead would pop. Unprofessional bias hack.

[jessilin0113]

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics ... -sMSzC7uTA

Imagine living in a part of Louisiana or Texas that’s prone to devastating hurricanes and flooding. What would you think if you lived there and your governor asked for a meeting with the president to discuss getting disaster aid that Congress has provided for? What would you think if that president said, “I would like you to do us a favor? I’ll meet with you, and send the disaster relief, once you brand my opponent a criminal.”

Wouldn’t you know in your gut that such a president has abused his office? That he’d betrayed the national interest, and that he was trying to corrupt the electoral process? I believe the evidentiary record shows wrongful acts on those scale here.

too bad her analogy is crap. this wasnt within our own country, it was a foreign country. we DONT HAVE TO GIVE AID to them. Obama didnt! but even so- there is always strings attached when aid is given, in the case of uraine a known corrupt country, trump wanted corruption investigated. that was literally the same thing joe biden claims he did. so is it just illegal when trump does it?

why arent you interested in the other "expert witness" who also doesnt like trump but claimed he didnt do anything impeachable?

George Washington University's Jonathan Turley, argued that Democrats were making a mistake by pursuing a "slipshod" impeachment that would have long-lasting consequences.

"I am concerned about lowering impeachment standards to fit a paucity of evidence and an abundance of anger. I believe this impeachment not only fails to satisfy the standard of past impeachments but would create a dangerous precedent for future impeachments," Turley said.

Except Ukraine had already met the requirements, the strings, if you will, for the aid that was approved by Congress. Remember, the branch that handles the money? If Trump had concerns about the "corruption", he should have presented it to congress and gotten it included in the aid package the proper way, instead of through all these shady methods.

And how come I should listen to Turley? Why aren't you listening to the other three? Like the one who said "if this isn't impeachable, nothing is"?

[Lemons]

I notice Trump’s base never discusses the evidence. Never. And it’s because you don’t follow it. You’ve got it in your head from the very start that everyone hates Trump and that’s the reason for everything. That’s what you’ve been told. Like children, you don’t find out for yourselves. You trust the grownups on Fox.

Who cares about opinions, this one or any other one. It’s the piles of evidence that allows a reasonable person to see the wrongdoing.

lol, I cant believe you're using the least credible lawyer the democrats trotted out. they dont have any actual witnesses with 1st hand knowledge so they sought out biased lawyers to tell everyone why orange man is bad, lol.

Here she is in 2017, saying she hated trump so much she had to cross the street to avoid walking by his hotel. NOT BIASED AT ALL!

[DSamuels]

lol, I cant believe you're using the least credible lawyer the democrats trotted out. they dont have any actual witnesses with 1st hand knowledge so they sought out biased lawyers to tell everyone why orange man is bad, lol.

Here she is in 2017, saying she hated trump so much she had to cross the street to avoid walking by his hotel. NOT BIASED AT ALL!

She was also a big Hillary donor and purported to be on Hillary’s short list for the Supreme Court.