trump, if they are presented with proof that he committed crimes, then donald trump will be impeached and he will be removed from office even if republicans still control the senate because that would mean that enough republican voters turned against donald trump that 16 or 17 republican votes to convict the president in the senate would be possible. impeachment is a quasi legal, quasi political process. if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the president committed crimes, then the legal elements of impeachment would be satisfied. but the votes on impeachment would still be a political calculations. if the democrats win the house of representatives, then the impeachment process will surely begin, with the united states senate serving as the jury in the trial. removing an impeached president from office requires 67 votes in the united states senate. when senators cast those votes in bill clinton s impeachment trial, they all checked the
after all of this they would still vote for donald trump again, how many of them will change their minds if they are presented with evidence beyond a reasonable doubt that donald trump committed crimes. the paula duncans out there have the future of donald trump s presidency in their hands now. because if some of them, if half of them turn against donald trump, if they are presented with proof that he committed crimes, then donald trump will be impeached and he will be removed from office even if republicans still control the senate because that would mean that enough republican voters turned against donald trump that 16 or 17 republican votes to convict the president in the senate would be possible. impeachment is a quasi legal, quasi political process. if there is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the president committed crimes, then the legal elements of impeachment would be satisfied. but the votes on impeachment
$86,000 is more like it. you hear the woman in the back saying 8600. very much foiled. interesting, quasi-legal, these revelations about what kind of husband is he and what he put her through, had that speculation come out during the trial do you think it would have made any kind of difference? it s always interesting in a trial, you want the human element of someone, right, because trials are about you want to connect with the jury and of course he didn t testify although he can argue he did by virtue of all the testimony that was admitted with his videotaped depositions. i think it does make a difference. people want to know the person who sits in that defendant chair, chris, who are you? what type of person are you and are you the type that is able or capable to commit a crime like that. i said had they come out because almost no way to put the wife on the stand against the husband. no, because of the spousal privilege. you can do it as a character witness but whenever d