Trump impeachment defense team will include Ken Starr and Alan Dershowitz

[Ray From Cleveland]

I find YOU ridiculous. Why don't you try READING THE CONSTITUTION. It says a president shall be impeached for high CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS (lesser crimes), such as TREASON and BRIBERY. Crimes are against the law. Laws are written down in books. You can look them up. Every impeached president in history was impeached for a crime that was against the law, except Donald Trump.

Abuse of Power IS NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

Obstructing Congress is NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

He was impeached because the Democrats feared they still couldn't beat him, and they simply ran out of time looking for anything better than bogus, drummed up accusations.

And that's why the impeachment will be thrown out of court like Dershowitz said it will be ----------- oh wait.

Using the Clinton impeachment rules there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses. Any bets its dismissed without having any witnesses?
Mitch wants to avoid the circus, and Trump's "dream team" will prove the articles are void very quickly and avoid the circus show trial.

Trump’s dream team isn’t going to “prove” anything. Their strategy is merely to introduce doubt.

Dershowitz said that he wants to "prove" that the Articles are null and void. That they are not only not impeachable crimes, but they are not even Constitutional.
Article-1 is a non-crime that is based on hearsay, which is not allowed in the senate. So Article-1 is dead.
Article-2 was killed by the USSC when they took the Trump v House subpoena for his tax records, which proves that Trump does have due process rights and that is NOT "Obstruction of the House", which isn't even a thing.

The Senate doesn’t pass rules until next week. Your claim that hearsay is against the rules is factually incorrect.

Dershowitz is claiming that impeachment must contain a criminal violation. That is clearly not what the founders intended.

Correct. Why rely on a constitutional scholar when we have you to tell us what the founders intended?

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

There is no law that says a President can't use his executive privilege. There is no law that a President has to explain his decision to hold up money either. These two articles of impeachment do not contain any law broken.

I should be more clear. The Republicans (and Dershowitz) are now claiming that impeachment has to be based on violation of a law. I find that to be ridiculous.

I find YOU ridiculous. Why don't you try READING THE CONSTITUTION. It says a president shall be impeached for high CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS (lesser crimes), such as TREASON and BRIBERY. Crimes are against the law. Laws are written down in books. You can look them up. Every impeached president in history was impeached for a crime that was against the law, except Donald Trump.

Abuse of Power IS NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

Obstructing Congress is NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

He was impeached because the Democrats feared they still couldn't beat him, and they simply ran out of time looking for anything better than bogus, drummed up accusations.

And that's why the impeachment will be thrown out of court like Dershowitz said it will be ----------- oh wait.

Using the Clinton impeachment rules there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses. Any bets its dismissed without having any witnesses?
Mitch wants to avoid the circus, and Trump's "dream team" will prove the articles are void very quickly and avoid the circus show trial.

Trump’s dream team isn’t going to “prove” anything. Their strategy is merely to introduce doubt.

You mean like the normal standard of the Justice system? The accusers need to prove their case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[colfax_m]

And that's why the impeachment will be thrown out of court like Dershowitz said it will be ----------- oh wait.

Using the Clinton impeachment rules there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses. Any bets its dismissed without having any witnesses?
Mitch wants to avoid the circus, and Trump's "dream team" will prove the articles are void very quickly and avoid the circus show trial.

Trump’s dream team isn’t going to “prove” anything. Their strategy is merely to introduce doubt.

Dershowitz said that he wants to "prove" that the Articles are null and void. That they are not only not impeachable crimes, but they are not even Constitutional.
Article-1 is a non-crime that is based on hearsay, which is not allowed in the senate. So Article-1 is dead.
Article-2 was killed by the USSC when they took the Trump v House subpoena for his tax records, which proves that Trump does have due process rights and that is NOT "Obstruction of the House", which isn't even a thing.

The Senate doesn’t pass rules until next week. Your claim that hearsay is against the rules is factually incorrect.

Dershowitz is claiming that impeachment must contain a criminal violation. That is clearly not what the founders intended.

Mitch would be stupid to allow hearsay, so to improve the rationale' for acquittal I'm saying that hearsay is (or will be) gone, (no exceptions) as is the case for most trials.
Objection: Hearsay! What is the hearsay rule, and what are the exceptions to it?

That is the battle line, what is an impeachable offense, and what is needed to remove a president.
Agree that the House can impeach for just about anything, but the senate needs to judge if the "Articles" warrant removal.
Both current Articles are DOA, null and void, so why waste time with witnesses, just dismiss the Articles and tell Nancy to shove them.

Mitch doesn’t get to set the rules by himself. If the Senate adopts the federal rules of evidence, hearsay will be perfectly admissible under the right circumstances. I think they should adopt the federal rules of evidence. Don’t you?

 

[colfax_m]

And that's why the impeachment will be thrown out of court like Dershowitz said it will be ----------- oh wait.

Using the Clinton impeachment rules there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses. Any bets its dismissed without having any witnesses?
Mitch wants to avoid the circus, and Trump's "dream team" will prove the articles are void very quickly and avoid the circus show trial.

Trump’s dream team isn’t going to “prove” anything. Their strategy is merely to introduce doubt.

Dershowitz said that he wants to "prove" that the Articles are null and void. That they are not only not impeachable crimes, but they are not even Constitutional.
Article-1 is a non-crime that is based on hearsay, which is not allowed in the senate. So Article-1 is dead.
Article-2 was killed by the USSC when they took the Trump v House subpoena for his tax records, which proves that Trump does have due process rights and that is NOT "Obstruction of the House", which isn't even a thing.

The Senate doesn’t pass rules until next week. Your claim that hearsay is against the rules is factually incorrect.

Dershowitz is claiming that impeachment must contain a criminal violation. That is clearly not what the founders intended.

Correct. Why rely on a constitutional scholar when we have you to tell us what the founders intended?

Is Dershowitz a constitutional scholar? I thought he was a defense attorney.

 

[colfax_m]

I should be more clear. The Republicans (and Dershowitz) are now claiming that impeachment has to be based on violation of a law. I find that to be ridiculous.

I find YOU ridiculous. Why don't you try READING THE CONSTITUTION. It says a president shall be impeached for high CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS (lesser crimes), such as TREASON and BRIBERY. Crimes are against the law. Laws are written down in books. You can look them up. Every impeached president in history was impeached for a crime that was against the law, except Donald Trump.

Abuse of Power IS NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

Obstructing Congress is NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

He was impeached because the Democrats feared they still couldn't beat him, and they simply ran out of time looking for anything better than bogus, drummed up accusations.

And that's why the impeachment will be thrown out of court like Dershowitz said it will be ----------- oh wait.

Using the Clinton impeachment rules there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses. Any bets its dismissed without having any witnesses?
Mitch wants to avoid the circus, and Trump's "dream team" will prove the articles are void very quickly and avoid the circus show trial.

Trump’s dream team isn’t going to “prove” anything. Their strategy is merely to introduce doubt.

You mean like the normal standard of the Justice system? The accusers need to prove their case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Indeed. I’m just balking at the idea that Dershowitz is going to prove Trump’s innocence.

In the normal standards of justice, the prosecution gets to call witnesses. That should happen, don’t you think?

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

If Biden had no intention to run, this would likely not be an issue. As long as we are speculating, Trump would have never brought him up with Zelinsky. You think Trump actually cares about corruption? I don’t.

Here we go, an example of what this impeachment is all about, mind reading.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Using the Clinton impeachment rules there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses. Any bets its dismissed without having any witnesses?
Mitch wants to avoid the circus, and Trump's "dream team" will prove the articles are void very quickly and avoid the circus show trial.

Trump’s dream team isn’t going to “prove” anything. Their strategy is merely to introduce doubt.

Dershowitz said that he wants to "prove" that the Articles are null and void. That they are not only not impeachable crimes, but they are not even Constitutional.
Article-1 is a non-crime that is based on hearsay, which is not allowed in the senate. So Article-1 is dead.
Article-2 was killed by the USSC when they took the Trump v House subpoena for his tax records, which proves that Trump does have due process rights and that is NOT "Obstruction of the House", which isn't even a thing.

The Senate doesn’t pass rules until next week. Your claim that hearsay is against the rules is factually incorrect.

Dershowitz is claiming that impeachment must contain a criminal violation. That is clearly not what the founders intended.

Correct. Why rely on a constitutional scholar when we have you to tell us what the founders intended?

Is Dershowitz a constitutional scholar? I thought he was a defense attorney.

Maybe you should read up on the people you're commenting on.

 

[colfax_m]

If Biden had no intention to run, this would likely not be an issue. As long as we are speculating, Trump would have never brought him up with Zelinsky. You think Trump actually cares about corruption? I don’t.

Here we go, an example of what this impeachment is all about, mind reading.

The one case of corruption Trump cares about just happens to be a front runner in the race to beat him in an upcoming election.

You believe in coincidences like that?

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

Trump will become the OJ of presidents. Acquitted but not innocent.

No comparison. His defense should be to call bullshit. If assholes like Bill Clinton still show their faces in public, should be no concerns. Dims alleged that Don did something. Scumbag Willy left DNA [emoji3459] evidence. Besties with a notorious peodophille. You morons still worship him. [emoji1787]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trump was far, far tighter with a notorious pedophile. Even admitting that Epstein like girls who were too young.

Completely false. Didn’t Willy take his cross dressing picture with the sweat hog??Clinton and Epstein were Asshole buddies. Keep tryin’. The fact that sweat hog liked little girls was well known by many.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not at all. We have video of Trump and Epstein having out at parties. Epstein was a member of Trump’s club for years and used it to recruit some of his underage victims. Trump visited Epstein’s house many times. They lived in the same city, ran in the same circles.

I have no idea what you’re talking about with cross dressing. Isn’t that a Giuliani reference?

Clinton in a dress. The picture was taken by Epstein. You have seen the picture. Doesn’t matter. He’s going to clear himself, and get a second term. You’re really gonna lose your mind when that happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[colfax_m]

Trump’s dream team isn’t going to “prove” anything. Their strategy is merely to introduce doubt.

Dershowitz said that he wants to "prove" that the Articles are null and void. That they are not only not impeachable crimes, but they are not even Constitutional.
Article-1 is a non-crime that is based on hearsay, which is not allowed in the senate. So Article-1 is dead.
Article-2 was killed by the USSC when they took the Trump v House subpoena for his tax records, which proves that Trump does have due process rights and that is NOT "Obstruction of the House", which isn't even a thing.

The Senate doesn’t pass rules until next week. Your claim that hearsay is against the rules is factually incorrect.

Dershowitz is claiming that impeachment must contain a criminal violation. That is clearly not what the founders intended.

Correct. Why rely on a constitutional scholar when we have you to tell us what the founders intended?

Is Dershowitz a constitutional scholar? I thought he was a defense attorney.

Maybe you should read up on the people you're commenting on.

I’m still right. High crimes and misdemeanors doesn’t limit impeachment only to criminal law.

 

[colfax_m]

Trump will become the OJ of presidents. Acquitted but not innocent.

No comparison. His defense should be to call bullshit. If assholes like Bill Clinton still show their faces in public, should be no concerns. Dims alleged that Don did something. Scumbag Willy left DNA [emoji3459] evidence. Besties with a notorious peodophille. You morons still worship him. [emoji1787]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trump was far, far tighter with a notorious pedophile. Even admitting that Epstein like girls who were too young.

Completely false. Didn’t Willy take his cross dressing picture with the sweat hog??Clinton and Epstein were Asshole buddies. Keep tryin’. The fact that sweat hog liked little girls was well known by many.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not at all. We have video of Trump and Epstein having out at parties. Epstein was a member of Trump’s club for years and used it to recruit some of his underage victims. Trump visited Epstein’s house many times. They lived in the same city, ran in the same circles.

I have no idea what you’re talking about with cross dressing. Isn’t that a Giuliani reference?

Clinton in a dress. The picture was taken by Epstein. You have seen the picture. Doesn’t matter. He’s going to clear himself, and get a second term. You’re really gonna lose your mind when that happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s a painting you’re referring to. Not a picture.

Good lord.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

So let’s say the president ordered an investigation into their political opponent solely to make them look bad. What law would that violate?

The answer is that it doesn’t. There is no law. Therefore it can’t be impeachable.

There is no law that says a President can't use his executive privilege. There is no law that a President has to explain his decision to hold up money either. These two articles of impeachment do not contain any law broken.

I should be more clear. The Republicans (and Dershowitz) are now claiming that impeachment has to be based on violation of a law. I find that to be ridiculous.

I find YOU ridiculous. Why don't you try READING THE CONSTITUTION. It says a president shall be impeached for high CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS (lesser crimes), such as TREASON and BRIBERY. Crimes are against the law. Laws are written down in books. You can look them up. Every impeached president in history was impeached for a crime that was against the law, except Donald Trump.

Abuse of Power IS NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

Obstructing Congress is NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

He was impeached because the Democrats feared they still couldn't beat him, and they simply ran out of time looking for anything better than bogus, drummed up accusations.

And that's why the impeachment will be thrown out of court like Dershowitz said it will be ----------- oh wait.

Using the Clinton impeachment rules there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses. Any bets its dismissed without having any witnesses?
Mitch wants to avoid the circus, and Trump's "dream team" will prove the articles are void very quickly and avoid the circus show trial.

From what I've been watching on Fox news, it's up to a majority vote for witnesses, and thus far, the RINO's are siding for witnesses.

 

[kyzr]

Using the Clinton impeachment rules there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses. Any bets its dismissed without having any witnesses?
Mitch wants to avoid the circus, and Trump's "dream team" will prove the articles are void very quickly and avoid the circus show trial.

Trump’s dream team isn’t going to “prove” anything. Their strategy is merely to introduce doubt.

Dershowitz said that he wants to "prove" that the Articles are null and void. That they are not only not impeachable crimes, but they are not even Constitutional.
Article-1 is a non-crime that is based on hearsay, which is not allowed in the senate. So Article-1 is dead.
Article-2 was killed by the USSC when they took the Trump v House subpoena for his tax records, which proves that Trump does have due process rights and that is NOT "Obstruction of the House", which isn't even a thing.

The Senate doesn’t pass rules until next week. Your claim that hearsay is against the rules is factually incorrect.

Dershowitz is claiming that impeachment must contain a criminal violation. That is clearly not what the founders intended.

Mitch would be stupid to allow hearsay, so to improve the rationale' for acquittal I'm saying that hearsay is (or will be) gone, (no exceptions) as is the case for most trials.
Objection: Hearsay! What is the hearsay rule, and what are the exceptions to it?

That is the battle line, what is an impeachable offense, and what is needed to remove a president.
Agree that the House can impeach for just about anything, but the senate needs to judge if the "Articles" warrant removal.
Both current Articles are DOA, null and void, so why waste time with witnesses, just dismiss the Articles and tell Nancy to shove them.

Mitch doesn’t get to set the rules by himself. If the Senate adopts the federal rules of evidence, hearsay will be perfectly admissible under the right circumstances. I think they should adopt the federal rules of evidence. Don’t you?

I'd vote for the Federal Rules of Evidence except no hearsay and no exceptions, period.
Then there is no arguing over which "exception" is allowed or not.
The Senate can make their own rules just like the House made (and broke) their rules.
Article-1 is still dead
Article-2 is still dead

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Trump will become the OJ of presidents. Acquitted but not innocent.

No comparison. His defense should be to call bullshit. If assholes like Bill Clinton still show their faces in public, should be no concerns. Dims alleged that Don did something. Scumbag Willy left DNA [emoji3459] evidence. Besties with a notorious peodophille. You morons still worship him. [emoji1787]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trump was far, far tighter with a notorious pedophile. Even admitting that Epstein like girls who were too young.

The Epstein Connections Fueling Conspiracy Theories

 

[colfax_m]

Trump’s dream team isn’t going to “prove” anything. Their strategy is merely to introduce doubt.

Dershowitz said that he wants to "prove" that the Articles are null and void. That they are not only not impeachable crimes, but they are not even Constitutional.
Article-1 is a non-crime that is based on hearsay, which is not allowed in the senate. So Article-1 is dead.
Article-2 was killed by the USSC when they took the Trump v House subpoena for his tax records, which proves that Trump does have due process rights and that is NOT "Obstruction of the House", which isn't even a thing.

The Senate doesn’t pass rules until next week. Your claim that hearsay is against the rules is factually incorrect.

Dershowitz is claiming that impeachment must contain a criminal violation. That is clearly not what the founders intended.

Mitch would be stupid to allow hearsay, so to improve the rationale' for acquittal I'm saying that hearsay is (or will be) gone, (no exceptions) as is the case for most trials.
Objection: Hearsay! What is the hearsay rule, and what are the exceptions to it?

That is the battle line, what is an impeachable offense, and what is needed to remove a president.
Agree that the House can impeach for just about anything, but the senate needs to judge if the "Articles" warrant removal.
Both current Articles are DOA, null and void, so why waste time with witnesses, just dismiss the Articles and tell Nancy to shove them.

Mitch doesn’t get to set the rules by himself. If the Senate adopts the federal rules of evidence, hearsay will be perfectly admissible under the right circumstances. I think they should adopt the federal rules of evidence. Don’t you?

I'd vote for the Federal Rules of Evidence except no hearsay and no exceptions, period.
Then there is no arguing over which "exception" is allowed or not.
The Senate can make their own rules just like the House made (and broke) their rules.
Article-1 is still dead
Article-2 is still dead

Sure they can. But that means they’re not interested in an actual trial, just a show. You think the American people can’t tell the difference?

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

I find YOU ridiculous. Why don't you try READING THE CONSTITUTION. It says a president shall be impeached for high CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS (lesser crimes), such as TREASON and BRIBERY. Crimes are against the law. Laws are written down in books. You can look them up. Every impeached president in history was impeached for a crime that was against the law, except Donald Trump.

Abuse of Power IS NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

Obstructing Congress is NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

He was impeached because the Democrats feared they still couldn't beat him, and they simply ran out of time looking for anything better than bogus, drummed up accusations.

And that's why the impeachment will be thrown out of court like Dershowitz said it will be ----------- oh wait.

Using the Clinton impeachment rules there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses. Any bets its dismissed without having any witnesses?
Mitch wants to avoid the circus, and Trump's "dream team" will prove the articles are void very quickly and avoid the circus show trial.

Trump’s dream team isn’t going to “prove” anything. Their strategy is merely to introduce doubt.

You mean like the normal standard of the Justice system? The accusers need to prove their case.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Indeed. I’m just balking at the idea that Dershowitz is going to prove Trump’s innocence.

In the normal standards of justice, the prosecution gets to call witnesses. That should happen, don’t you think?

They should have put together an indictment, and not set up their shit show. That’s what I think. They had no witnesses, just their people who gave opinions with no evidence. I’m well aware of how the criminal justice system works. This ain’t even close.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Butch_Coolidge]

No comparison. His defense should be to call bullshit. If assholes like Bill Clinton still show their faces in public, should be no concerns. Dims alleged that Don did something. Scumbag Willy left DNA [emoji3459] evidence. Besties with a notorious peodophille. You morons still worship him. [emoji1787]


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Trump was far, far tighter with a notorious pedophile. Even admitting that Epstein like girls who were too young.

Completely false. Didn’t Willy take his cross dressing picture with the sweat hog??Clinton and Epstein were Asshole buddies. Keep tryin’. The fact that sweat hog liked little girls was well known by many.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

Not at all. We have video of Trump and Epstein having out at parties. Epstein was a member of Trump’s club for years and used it to recruit some of his underage victims. Trump visited Epstein’s house many times. They lived in the same city, ran in the same circles.

I have no idea what you’re talking about with cross dressing. Isn’t that a Giuliani reference?

Clinton in a dress. The picture was taken by Epstein. You have seen the picture. Doesn’t matter. He’s going to clear himself, and get a second term. You’re really gonna lose your mind when that happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

It’s a painting you’re referring to. Not a picture.

Good lord.

A painting takes longer to sit for. Even creepier.
He’s in a dress. Do you wear a dress. Probably.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Fine. And when you can prove that, then the impeachment is justified. But to say that Democrats ability to read minds is grounds for impeachment is what makes the articles bogus charges.

I’m happy to see you admit that fact.

The accusation against Biden is that he got Shokin fired for personal reasons. How do you know that? Are you reading his mind?

No, I'm going by what Shokin said in that interview. Would you like to see it? I have it right here in my bookmarks.

So Shokin is a mind reader then?

He's not reading anybody's mind. I doubt he's even a leftist. He's explaining in his words what exactly took place. He refused to back off of Burisma, and Joe had him fired for that.

Shokin and Joe Biden have never had a conversation. How could Shokin know that Biden had him fired for "not backing off Burisma" if he wasn't reading his mind?

Because when he was fired, he asked why, and Poroshenko told him it was because of Biden's threat to not provide any aid.

 

[kyzr]

There is no law that says a President can't use his executive privilege. There is no law that a President has to explain his decision to hold up money either. These two articles of impeachment do not contain any law broken.

I should be more clear. The Republicans (and Dershowitz) are now claiming that impeachment has to be based on violation of a law. I find that to be ridiculous.

I find YOU ridiculous. Why don't you try READING THE CONSTITUTION. It says a president shall be impeached for high CRIMES and MISDEMEANORS (lesser crimes), such as TREASON and BRIBERY. Crimes are against the law. Laws are written down in books. You can look them up. Every impeached president in history was impeached for a crime that was against the law, except Donald Trump.

Abuse of Power IS NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

Obstructing Congress is NOT A CRIME in any book of law.

He was impeached because the Democrats feared they still couldn't beat him, and they simply ran out of time looking for anything better than bogus, drummed up accusations.

And that's why the impeachment will be thrown out of court like Dershowitz said it will be ----------- oh wait.

Using the Clinton impeachment rules there will be a vote to dismiss before the vote for witnesses. Any bets its dismissed without having any witnesses?
Mitch wants to avoid the circus, and Trump's "dream team" will prove the articles are void very quickly and avoid the circus show trial.

From what I've been watching on Fox news, it's up to a majority vote for witnesses, and thus far, the RINO's are siding for witnesses.

I'd have Mitch tell the RINOs here's the deal:
1. Vote for a quick dismissal with no witnesses or we will have a 6-month circus, I guarantee you. We will have 10 witnesses attesting to the voracity of each of their witnesses, like Parnas, as an example. We will not subpoena any of the democrat witnesses like Bolton.
2. The defense will be allowed to call Hunter Biden, Joe Biden, Schiff, Chalupa, Ciaramella, Brennan, Clapper, Lynch, Comey, McCabe, Strzok, the Ohrs, Rosenstein, Pientka, Mueller, Zelensky, and anyone else who can show how Operation Crossfire Hurricane setup the Trump campaign and then setup the deep state "coup plots" against Trump.

So vote for a quick dismissal, or the circus of circuses is on.

 

[Ray From Cleveland]

Do we are clear? Can you even type a sentence? For whatever reason whatsoever? Where did you pluck THAT one out of your ass? Trump gave the reason: Biden was using his power as VP to effect changes in Ukraine for personal gain. Now we'll finally get to the bottom of that.

If Uncle Joe had some honest and legit explanation, the Democrats sure have fought hard to keep it from the public.

That’s not the question. Can you answer it?

The president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever. True or false?

The president is allowed to order investigations into his political opponents for any reason whatsoever.

when did that happen?

It’s a hypothetical.

Who cares. ANYTHING can be HYPOTHETICALLY possible and is IRRELEVANT to anything going on in this thread or the real world. Let me ask you this:

Are the House Democrats allowed to make up any reason they want to eliminate a political opponent with specious, unproven charges just to steal an election again?

No members of the House are allowed to make up any reason to eliminate political opponents.

See? Answering hypothetical questions is easy, it just requires some abstract thought. This is an important skill for someone to have. Sorry if that's too much for you to handle.

What are you talking about? These charges in the impeachment articles are just that, all made up. There is no evidence of either of them.