More reasons why businesses are at risk in Blue progressive cities. If your business touches the culture in any way you will be targeted Companies that had to leave blue states...Gun manufacturers, NRA, Media will learn this (Fox), Charter school companies.....
opinions are like assholes... on Clinton impeachment: He also testified during the Clinton impeachment hearings.[5] Turley, in his capacity as a constitutional scholar,[61] testified in favor of the Clinton impeachment.[62][63] on Trump impeachments: On December 4, 2019, Turley testified before the House Judiciary Committee regarding the constitutional grounds for presidential impeachment in the impeachment inquiry against Donald Trump, arguing against a Trump impeachment.[4][66][67][68] In his testimony, Turley objected to the effort to craft articles of impeachment around four criminal allegations: bribery, extortion, obstruction of justice, and campaign finance violations.[69] He argued that the evidence did not meet the standard definitions of those crimes, contrary to the testimony of the three Democratic witnesses that such legal definitions have always been used as a measure for impeachment deliberations.[69] It was observed that his prior reasoning for the impeachment of President Bill Clinton contradicted the opinions he shared against the impeachment of President Donald Trump.[66][67][68] Turley sought to clarify his positions regarding the two impeachments the next day in an op-ed.[73] Turley noted that in both hearings he stressed that a president could be impeached for non-criminal acts, including abuse of power, and House Judiciary Chairman Jerry Nadler ended the Trump impeachment hearings by quoting him to that effect. After the second impeachment of Donald Trump he said there could not be a trial after Trump left office.[80] Turley's views were also cited on the House floor in the second impeachment of President Donald Trump in January 2021, particularly his opposition to what he called a "snap impeachment."[81] Turley opposed the decision to forego any hearing to consider the implications of such a rapid impeachment, consider changes to the language, and allow for a formal response from President Trump.[82] While Turley said that Trump's conduct could amount to impeachable conduct, he expressed reservations over the specific language of the article on free speech grounds.[82] He condemned Trump's speech before the riot on Twitter when it was still being given and opposed the challenge to the electoral votes from the outset.[83] He argued for a bipartisan, bicameral vote of censure to condemn Trump for the harm that he caused the nation with his speech.[83] Turley declined to represent President Trump[84] but did speak to Republican senators before both the first Trump trial[85] and the second Trump trial.[86]
Whoa, starting to get rough out there on the playground. Of course, eventually there will be all the ads showing veterans sleeping on the streets of America, and seniors eating to dogfood while showing piles of money going to Ukraine. As they say, "politics is a blood sport."
What’s important here is the motivating factor behind the payoff. What really matters is the evidence the prosecutors have developed to this effect. I, for one, don’t see the point in pursuing this so many years later. However, I would like to point out that some geniuses on the right advocated the prosecution of Hillary Clinton under the espionage act so how you can square supporting that and oppose this takes a lot of pretzel bending.
Don't be ridiculous. What is important here is that the defendant is Donald Trump and he has been targeted for political reasons. That is the "motivating factor" as you call it. Sheesh. Get real, man.