The closest I've heard is it is perfectly constitutional for the Senate to agree he did bad things but not rise to the level of removal and dismiss the case, with the example being Bill lying under oath. Bad? Yes. Worthy of getting the boot? No. I dont agree with that chain of thought but i understand it.
So what was the cheating that took place the second time? I mean the actual cheating, not the attempt at cheating.
1. Is attempted cheating not as bad as actual cheating? I mean, if he didn't get caught, he would have cheated. 2. We don't know (yet) what other countries have been approached for bullshit investigations or other actions intended to help Trump in the 2020 election. Do you think it was just Ukraine? Trump is such a class act that he just tried this with Ukraine, got caught, that was it, everything else is clean?
So if you get caught in the act, you get a third go? I really don't understand your argument at all. We found out the Ukraine scam was prevented mere days before the scheme was about to come to fruition. We have no idea what cheating Trump is doing now, or will do in the future, but we do know Rudy has been in back at it Consequence needs to be strict, otherwise the President can cheat with impunity
We live in the upside down. No one was talking about Hunter Biden a year ago. Now suddenly lots of conservatives are very worried about him If only Joe had thought to make him a white house adviser, then conservatives would have been cool with it
1 - When we are talking about crimes committed (regarding impeachment), we need to be specific. Somebody doesn't attempt to murder somebody and then get charged with murder. What Individual One did is very clear. He attempted to influence the election/bribe Ukrainian officials. It was not successful, it was a failed attempt. Jitty's phrasing suggested says that the cheating was successful. 2 - I agree we don't know, and I would think he did attempt. But what we don't know, we can say it exists. This is not Schrodinger's cat. We actually need to know/have the evidence.
If the Patriots film someone's practice, but still lose, they didn't "attempt to cheat." They cheated. If you steal the signs and still strike out, kick your ball our of the trap and then four putt, have sex with the neighbor's wife without orgasm, there's no "attempted" to it-- its cheating, even if you get an indulgence from the pope.
So you're just having a semantics argument with Jitty then, correct? You think Trump attempted to cheat but didn't actually accomplish the act? Okay, but taking that as your premise, you aren't arguing that the attempt isn't enough, are you? Taking your example, attempted murder is certainly still a serious crime.
The pivoting of some of the posters in this forum since 2016 has been a depressing, but entertaining and confirming read
This is has awoken my inner lawyer now "Cheating" as a relatively generic verb covers what Trump did IMO, even if he was ultimately unsuccessful with it. He did the act with the intent to gain an illegitimate advantage - therefore he cheated, whether or not the advantage was gained.
It would be so ironic if Biden became President, then went full fash, reliant on the 37 senator rule, and locked up all the opposition
US seems to be headed towards a reality where if you can seat a corrupt AG, then POTUS can commit any crime, so long as he has 37 senators to rub together who will acquit, (or controls the House). The only check on this situation is the public getting fed up and voting them all out - which is the final guardrail we are about to test in 2020
I am posting this as a tweet because I can't find it on YouTube which shows the stupidity of the current rule (or lack thereof). Anyway the source of OAN. Rudy continues to cheat, and here is the beginnings of the media effort A "documentary" will explain how Trump is innocent, and smear his political rivals. LOL. 1206303020813819904 is not a valid tweet id