I dont know how anyone can take this seriously after today.
For the last two months, I have had to listen to all democratic politicians insist that Trump was guilty of an illegal quid pro quo, which then turned into extortion and bribery (because it worked better with focus groups). And if any conservative or independent or even objective democrat, such as Jon Turley, said that the burden of proof was not met for those crimes, the Dems branded that person as a foolish ideologue who just was not paying attention. Literally, bribery was forced down the country's throat for two months, and then ... poof.
There were no charges of bribery nor extortion nor illegal quid pro quo this morning. Instead, we got two absolute absurdities.
The first, abuse of power, that was so vaguely defined that literally any action taken by a president that could potential benefit him politically but that you have a disagreement with on policy could be massaged to fit. Take for example Obama removing troops from the middle east in 2012. This was clearly done to benefit his re-election campaign and it had some objectively real consequences that threatened our national security, such as the creation of ISIS, albeit after the election. Should Obama had been impeached over this?
The second, obstruction, which can not have legally happened yet. Everyone, including the president, has the right to challenge a subpoena in court. It is only until after a judge tells you to testify and you refuse, that you are guilty of obstruction. In Trump's case, not a single challenge has been ruled on yet, which mean obstruction could not have happened yet. By defining that obstruction takes place merely by refusing to testify, even if no court has ruled on the case, means pretty much every past president was guilty of obstruction. Obama did not play along with congress on the IRS or the Fast & Furious hearings. Should he have been impeached?
I am not one to hap hazardously hit "all republican" when I vote, but after this.
The fact is this whole thing is a political farce being use to not only damage Trump, but to also help build the case to agrue that, if Trump is re-elected, that the election was illegitimate. Nadler was on Meet the Press over the weekend and pretty much stated as much.
When the Dems, in 2016, insisted that Trump would not except the election results if he lost and how that action would damage the country, I agreed with them. I now still feel that if a political party does not except the results of an election, it is still a damage to the country, even if the Dems do it as well. The fact is the Dems have shown how willing they are to do so with Stacy Abrams, and it is a dangerous road to go down.
