This was the question that Washington Post columnist and associate editor Eugene Robinson asked on MSNBC's Ari Melber show, The Beat, a few hours ago.
How much more does Trump have to do to warrant impeachment? Shoot someone on 5th Avenue?
What do you think?
Mueller Reiterates Investigation Didn’t Exonerate Trump, Hints At Impeachment
???
Lakhota and
Rambunctious
It's not a matter of being bad, disliked, or a political opponent of insiders.
It's a matter of what can be proven in court where it is worth
the legal cost of pursuing.
This is why the ACA was only challenged on particular points
that legal teams could present in court and win on.
(the whole law was arguably unconstitutional by violating standards on process
and discriminating by creed against citizens of opposing beliefs, but that
argument would have been too burdensome to prove in court, so opponents
found it more cost effective to focus on campaigning for elections to
correct the problems by followup legislation instead of going through courts)
Even Clinton could not be cornered on criminal arguments
because "intent" could not be proven. It's possible to prove it now
if you take the information obtained by Judicial Watch as "proof of
criminal intent".
Trying to argue that Trump committed obstruction (when what he
said, did and ordered still fall within his executive authority and
can equally be argued as consistent without any conflicting intent)
or that any of his business ventures constitute "emoluments"
are just as ambiguous if not harder to prove than Clinton's case
of denying that any actions she took had any conflicting or criminal intent.
It's legally difficult to prove intent without someone admitting it.
The burden of proof is on the accuser, and our legal system
has always been biased on the principle of innocent until proven guilty.
We can continue abusing media to declare people guilty until proven innocent,
but can't expect that to compel the legal system to judge people that way.
