...from 10,000 feet:
The "Prosecutors" must identify what laws the President is accused to have broken, if any, with specificity.
They must then produce evidence to prove that the President actually broke those laws; and of course the President's defenders shall have their say. (Everything I've seen is a dubious case of lawbreaking indeed, but I digress).
Assuming the Prosecutors prove their case(s), there is another step in this "trial": The Prosecutors must prove "to a reasonable person" that the President's breaches of law meet the standard of "high crimes & misdemeanors," to the extent that they warrant overturning the votes of 63 million Americans...with in effect only about 6 months remaining in his (first) term.
So what do we know? The President - assuming the worst - tried to get certain Ukrainian officials to make an announcement embarrassing to one of the army of Democrats running against him for President. And while this could inure to the President's benefit in November, the underlying request was arguably appropriate. We had the appearance of impropriety in a former Vice President of the U.S., and the Ukrainians are best positioned to investigate. And if doing something appropriate that also works to my political benefit is a "crime," then we are all living in bizarro-land. It is ridiculous.
It has recently been asserted by the GAO that the President did not have legal or Constitutional authority to delay payments to Ukraine. But there are also legitimate arguments that as long as the funds were released by the end of the Fiscal Year (which they were), then there is no there there. Flip a coin.
Abuse of Presidential power? Gimmeafukkinbreak. EVERY President abuses his power. President Soetoro used the IRS to harass his political critics. There is no secret or question about this. He voided U.S. immigration law with the Dream Bullshit. Abuse of power? Nothing new.
So were is the "crime" that justifies removal of a President from office?
I'm still waiting.
The "Prosecutors" must identify what laws the President is accused to have broken, if any, with specificity.
They must then produce evidence to prove that the President actually broke those laws; and of course the President's defenders shall have their say. (Everything I've seen is a dubious case of lawbreaking indeed, but I digress).
Assuming the Prosecutors prove their case(s), there is another step in this "trial": The Prosecutors must prove "to a reasonable person" that the President's breaches of law meet the standard of "high crimes & misdemeanors," to the extent that they warrant overturning the votes of 63 million Americans...with in effect only about 6 months remaining in his (first) term.
So what do we know? The President - assuming the worst - tried to get certain Ukrainian officials to make an announcement embarrassing to one of the army of Democrats running against him for President. And while this could inure to the President's benefit in November, the underlying request was arguably appropriate. We had the appearance of impropriety in a former Vice President of the U.S., and the Ukrainians are best positioned to investigate. And if doing something appropriate that also works to my political benefit is a "crime," then we are all living in bizarro-land. It is ridiculous.
It has recently been asserted by the GAO that the President did not have legal or Constitutional authority to delay payments to Ukraine. But there are also legitimate arguments that as long as the funds were released by the end of the Fiscal Year (which they were), then there is no there there. Flip a coin.
Abuse of Presidential power? Gimmeafukkinbreak. EVERY President abuses his power. President Soetoro used the IRS to harass his political critics. There is no secret or question about this. He voided U.S. immigration law with the Dream Bullshit. Abuse of power? Nothing new.
So were is the "crime" that justifies removal of a President from office?
I'm still waiting.
