It's Draft Time: Impeachment Edition

[xxlt]

(05-18-2017, 11:17 AM)hollodero Wrote: I don't think it's meaningless just because it's not verifiable by a third witness. If it is as portrayed, it's not a sole reason for a conviction. But it's still reason for additional suspicion.

I agree though, Comey's word might not be enough for an actual impeachment. The sum of things, however, that's a different picture. (Probably still not enough, though, but what do I know.)

Comey's words, no. Trump's words, yes.

https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2017/may/11/donald-trump-james-comey-firing-russia-investigation

He admitted to obstruction of justice in this interview. He said he decided to fire Comey because of the Russia investigation. Case closed.

The only defense for that is to say Trump was lying - everything he said before and after that to Holt was a lie - example, Comey asked for the meeting; no he didn't. And if you are a Trump supporter or lawyer you bolster the claim of everything in the interview being a lie by saying, "Look, he's a pathological liar. We can show you an hours long highlight reel of him lying in public and contradicting his own lies with other lies and he hasn't even been in office 6 months." And that is true. At which point you remove him from office under Article 25 of the Constitution.

So he is impeached and removed from office for obstruction of justice and a half dozen or so other crimes (several with multiple counts) or he is removed under Article 25. Even right wing nut Russ Douthat has called for that, as has hard core right wing bloviator George Will.