The impeachment should be on its way because he insists that the elections were a fraud without any evidence, of course he hasn't ordered the assault to the senate, that would be definitive but we can't blame only to the protesters when Trumps keeps with his belicist narrative.
The other day with the leaked audios were clear that he is still manipulating everything he can to remain in the power. What more evidence do you need to see in Trump a potential dictator.
What he has to say "Just kill'em all"?.
Questioning the election isn't a crime, though. And like I said in my post, there are still a lot of questions from millions of people going ignored and unheard. In that sense he's doing what his people want him to do, have their voices heard, but now even he's being blocked from having questions answered, riots ensue.
As for the audio, there's equal strength to prosecution and defense. Like I said above his team literally says 'if the votes are correct, that's fine'. They spend most of the hour asking to see the data and being refused. I think there are some kind of legal reasons for not showing, I'm not certain, but it's weird that lawyers would be involved in that call and neither side saying anything about that if so.
The call ended with the opposition saying they will get in touch about getting data to them, which is, in the end, all it was about. Trump saying shit with a bit of frustration and anger, isn't illegal.
He does follow some patterns of a dictator, such as 'create fear only he can protect you from', but a dictator also does this on the provision that you give him almighty power and sacrifice your freedoms. Trump on the other hand is a constitutionalist, as all evidence seems to point out. So far there's no evidence that he would break the constitution by trying to stay in office beyond what he thinks is legal.
Him breaking the law seems much more due to him being an idiot and not knowing the legal consequences of his motor mouth, rather than him being a meticulous dictator driven on ruling the world.
What he has to say - well, if you think from a legal teams perspective, he does need to do things 'beyond reasonable doubt'. So far, it's nowhere near that. The call can in some places be interpreted as a kind of subtle, hidden threat. But at the same time you can listen to it and it just sounds like nothing whatsoever, just part of the conversation. The other team didn't sound at al under threat, they didn't make any pleas or apologies, both sides were in control of their own points of view and nobody directly said anything incriminating.
Whether it actully goes to court and they decide to interpret it either way, well, I'm not a lawyer or a judge so I guess either outcome is possible, but for the impeachment due to tyrannical violence? Nonsense
Isn't a crime while you accept the results after all the investigations and court appeals are done, the court hasn't accepted any of his arguments against the election and he keeps telling the "elections were stolen from us" bullshit.
He even tried to convince to Mike Pence to not signing the recognition of Biden as president.
What part of the constitution gives to the president the choice of accepting or not the elections after all the process has been done. Votes recounted and all the legal stuff it's done. That's not a constitutionalist attitude by far. He also passed the constitution by his balls when separated kids from their fathers with all the inmigration policy.
Indeed he follow patterns of a dictator, he is one step from that, to give orders to military and police to support him as the legit president, and he has already changed a lot of military and White House's security personnel recently, why would he do that if he had to leave the presidence now?.
Yes, and this is a perfectly legal practice. Democrats have done this at least 4 times in the past and the first time in the late 1800's I think, it went through successfully, turned out that there was fraud all over the place, and the republicans ended up winning. No joke.
The most recent time from the democrats was merely 2017!
The other attempts did happen but like this one, didn't go through. Just because it's not common, doesn't mean it's not legal.
That's backwards. What part of the constitution outlaws a president voicing his opinion on a matter? If he was to act upon it and, say, form a militia keeping him housed inside the whitehouse, that would be another story. But just whining and complaining about it is perfectly fine - as long as he leaves on the due date.
Key word there: attitude. It's not unconstitutional, but you may find it's not the right 'etiquette' of a president. But when was Trump ever 'presidential' in attitude? He's just some rich guy.
True, and I have no doubt he has almost violated the constitution countless times, but then, so has Obama (a cliche comparison I know). Forbes even wrote a 'Top 10 constitutional violations in 2013' article.
It's not very useful to say that because every president crosses the line from time to time. The severity of that constitutional breach seems to be the key - and the media's attention to it which drives up the emotions of the people and pushes the agenda further.
I don't personally care how much people hate Trump, however, it's my hope that this level of pure skepticism and outrage will continue through the Kamala Harris era, rather than giving her and Biden a free ride simply on the basis that they are 'not Trump' and faux-left wing.