A serious request: I would like someone who opposes impeachment explain to me why impeachment proceedings aren't required if you have credible evidence a president obstructed justice?
-
-
Let's say, arguendo, that impeachment is politically unwise & agree it's not required. We're still left with the problem of president who has clearly, obviously & in front of our eyes obstructed justice. What is the remedy for that?
Show this threadThanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
All of this folderol because of a DOJ policy memo preventing indicting a sitting President...not a law. One of the first orders of business for whenever Dems take over the House, Senate & White House is to get rid of that memo.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I will never understand the attitude that the Senate will acquit so it's useless. They did weeks on Benghazi and got front page articles about the scandal of email management. Republicans would have impeachment hearings every day till the election if the situation were reversed.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
"bad politics" Bahhh! It's about messaging. Make the case. Instead, Pelosi and fall-in-line Dems have been trying to drive down public opinion on impeachment since Feb 2017. And once again, everyone wants to ignore this pre-Mueller-report poll:https://twitter.com/JohnJHarwood/status/1095300867027275778 …
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
While I agree with that answer I also note that as a legal matter prosecutorial discretion permits not bringing charges even when the law has been clearly violated.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
This is a VERY bad take. It would mean the GOP enablers in Congress are acting in a perfectly legitimate manner: placing political considerations above the rule of law.
Thanks. Twitter will use this to make your timeline better. UndoUndo
-
-
-
I think 'politics' here is misleading or prejudicing the question. I think many opponents don't think the 'politics' is bad but that it's not the most effective way to remove Trump from office. Also, the reasons it's not required is that it's literally not required.
-
The term "required" is thrown around a LOT by liberals when it completely ignores enforcement. Mnuchin is "required" to hand over the tax return, but if he's not punished IT DOESN'T MATTER. Pelosi clearly knows that. The word sounds great but doesn't actually matter...
End of conversation
New conversation -
-
-
I’m not against impeachment, but if I were I would say this: if a president obstructs a federal investigation and he was not guilty of the underlying crime, he could pardon any guilty party associated with the investigation anyway. So the obstruction is just preempting the pardon
-
I’d kinda follow the logic that the Supreme Court gave for why Governor McDonnell’s conviction was overturned, and what constitutes official acts. Of course the logic wouldn’t cover obstructing state investigations, because the President can pardon state convictions.
End of conversation
New conversation -
Loading seems to be taking a while.
Twitter may be over capacity or experiencing a momentary hiccup. Try again or visit Twitter Status for more information.