Can TRUMP be ‘FIRED’?: IMPEACHMENT in US politics – VisualPolitik EN
Articles,  Blog

Can TRUMP be ‘FIRED’?: IMPEACHMENT in US politics – VisualPolitik EN

We’ve all heard about the impeachment process
against Donald Trump. However, how many really understand what this
means, what impeachment actually consists of and the history of this process in the
United States? I can already tell you that this process is
much, much more complex than a mere debate about the President’s impeachment. You see, the American Constitution defines
impeachment as a tool to be used only in extremely exceptional cases. With it, the legislative power can practically
reverse the people’s will. A will expressed through the election of the
president. Therefore, under very serious circumstances,
an impeachment implies the overriding of the democratic electoral regime. We’re talking about a process designed for
cases in which the president has committed serious crimes, crimes that must be clearly
demonstrated after a thorough prior investigation by the House of Representatives. Mainly, these crimes include cases of treason,
bribery, and other serious unspecified crimes. However, even with this explanation, we still
need more information to be able to fully understand how impeachment works. That’s why in this video we’re not only
going to talk about this curious process, we’re also going to take a look at its history
and talk about past cases of impeachment in the United States, the circumstances that
caused them and the outcomes. And yes, why not, we’ll also do a round
up on the impeachment that the current President of the United States, Donald Trump, is facing. Listen up. (IMPEACHMENT, A KEY COUNTERWEIGHT) Something good about American democracy is
that it was designed specifically to limit the power of politicians. You see, the curious thing about the United
States is that both the Constitution and the US Bill of Rights are limiting. This means that if you read the US Constitution,
you’ll soon realize that what it truly says helps prevent the State – or the people
who control the state – from exercising excessive power over the rest of the citizens. This strongly differentiates it from most
of the world’s constitutions, which focus on defining the rights and obligations of
the people. And this is fundamental, essential for understanding
the meaning of impeachment in the United States. Allow me to explain; the Founding Fathers
established the possibility of dismissing the president and other senior officials from
the very beginning. They defined the process as a political instead
of a criminal trial. That way, the president could be removed from
his functions due to serious crimes without any judge ruling for or against him at any
moment during the process. In fact, the only judge present during the
entire impeachment process is the president of the Supreme Court, who’s responsible
for overseeing the operation of the political trial once it passes to the Senate. But the “sentence” – in this case, dismissal
– is decided solely and exclusively by the senators. By this point many of you may be thinking… But, wait, if this is a political process,
then it could be used against any president who the opposition simply doesn’t like,
right? Well, the truth is, no. In practice, that isn’t possible in the
North American system. To prevent the process being abused, a series
of complicated steps were established to not only guarantee the completion of a justified
impeachment process, but also to limit the number of cases beginning. So much so that to this date, in the almost
250 years of United States history, not a single effective impeachment has yet occurred. Not even one. Moreover, in that entire time only two processes
have been started, well, three if we take the current one against Donald Trump into
account. Three in the entire history of the US. Now, how exactly does this process work? What are the steps that lead to dismissal? Well, first there needs to be a reason, evidence
that the president was involved in one of the crimes mentioned in the Constitution. With this, any member of the House of Representatives
can propose an impeachment or political trial under oath. In Trump’s case it was the President of
the House of Representatives, Nancy Pelosi. Then, the committees responsible for investigating
the case and determining the facts attributable to the impeachment are designated. Finally, these committees write one or several
articles that are voted for individually or jointly by the House of Representatives. This step is equivalent to presenting charges
against the President. To understand this better, the House of Representatives’
mission in this case is to present charges. If it does, the impeachment or political judgment
truly begins and the entire process is transferred to the Senate, which plays the main role in
this entire story. So in fact it’s actually there, in the Senate,
where the political trial takes place. In this way, the Senate acts as a court. But instead of judges, prosecutors and jurors,
the members of the House of Representatives act as prosecutors, and the Senators as jurors. So, if the senators vote in favor of dismissal
with a two-thirds majority, this is equivalent to a jury convicting the accused in a normal
trial. A successful impeachment means nothing other
than the automatic removal of the president and the transfer of his powers to the Vice
President. It seems complex, doesn’t it? Actually, it is, but it’s also quite logical. Think about it for a moment, it has to be
a very stringent process so that a president can’t be dismissed impulsively, like someone
grabbing a bargain on Black Friday. But, now that we know how it works, the next
big question is: what can we learn from the history of political trials in the United
States? As we told you earlier, besides Trump, there
are only two more cases to examine: those of Andrew Johnson and Bill Clinton. And… in the case of Richard Nixon, well
his presidency actually ended with a premature resignation and, despite what is commonly
thought, the impeachment process never even started. But do you want to know more about what happened
in those cases? Let’s take a look! (TWO IMPEACHMENTS, ONE RESIGNATION AND ZERO
REMOVALS) The history of political trials in the United
States is short, very short. Only two presidents have been submitted to
them and neither one was dismissed. Perhaps the least known case is that of Andrew
Johnson. And it’s not surprising, because we’re
talking about a man who was president between 1865 and 1869… But… what did this man do to end up being
judged by the American Senate? Well… after President Lincoln’s assassination
in 1865, Johnson, who was his vice president, became president. After he took command, his policies moved
far… far away from Lincoln’s. He was basically a cowboy. To give you an idea, Johnson was both a member
of the Democratic Party and a dedicated white supremacist. That is, he was extremely racist. Someone who would make Trump look like a poster
boy for multiculturalism and diversity. Yes, Andrew Johnson strongly defended the
slavery of African-Americans and dedicated himself to vetoing each and every one of the
bills that Congress had passed to recognize the rights of freed slaves. He also began pardoning generals of the Confederate
States of America, who were the ones who had rebelled against the United States by starting
the Civil War. Those states, the states that rebelled, considered
Lincoln a threat to white supremacy, and they strongly opposed his plan to abolish slavery
throughout the country. This really didn’t sit well with them. And you also have to remember that some of
these states had a slave population of 49%. But if his actions already seem serious, wait
till I tell you about the final straw. Johnson had the brilliant idea of ​​personally
firing and appointing secretaries for his government, bypassing Congress’s validation,
which, as you can imagine, isn’t legal. Well… you can get an idea of just how complicated
it is to dismiss a president, when despite all these serious accusations, Johnson was
saved by just one vote in the Senate. A single vote that prevented them from reaching
the necessary two thirds majority. He was barely saved, but saved all the same. In fact, this was by far the closest a US
president got to being dismissed. The next “attempt” came with Richard Nixon,
more than a century later, after the infamous Watergate Scandal in 1972, which I’m sure
you’ve all heard about. To refresh your memory, the Watergate Case
was a scandal that involved the president and several CIA agents who were spying on
the Democratic Party. They raided Democratic party headquarters
and tapped calls to gain an advantage in Nixon’s reelection as president. Later, during the investigation, it was discovered
that this illegal eavesdropping had been controlled directly by the White House. This news triggered calls for an impeachment
process against the president in 1972. In fact, dear friends of VisualPolitik, the
thing got so serious that literally everyone turned their backs on Nixon. And because he didn’t want the investigation
to proceed – in case dirtier issues came up, because, let’s face it, Nixon was a
rather shady president – after seven months of deliberations he resigned the day before
the House of Representatives were to vote to start the process. One day before. So, the truth is that the impeachment mechanism
was never launched in Nixon’s case. But it was launched against Clinton. Oh Clinton, Clinton… Bill Clinton really messed up! And he messed up very deeply. I’m sure many of you have heard the name
Monica Lewinsky. Am I wrong? At the end of the 90s, the affair, the slip,
the… extramarital meetings between the then intern, Monica Lewinsky, and Bill Clinton
were common knowledge in Washington, without his wife, Hillary, knowing anything about
it. But don’t be mistaken. The reason why an impeachment process was
started against Bill Clinton didn’t have anything to do with the president being unfaithful
to his wife. Not at all. The real reason, or at least the reason for
which the process was justified, were Clinton’s lies, as well as his pressuring of others
around him to also lie to hide a sordid story that took place behind the closed doors of
the Oval Office. And believe me when I tell you that in the
United States – at least until Trump arrived – catching a president in a lie – and
forcing those around him to lie – wasn’t viewed well, not at all. So now that we’ve looked at past impeachments
and how they work … What about Trump? Well… now it’s his turn. The truth is that things don’t look very
good, because everything indicates that he’s done something very serious. So what exactly are the accusations against
Trump? Can this process affect him in 2020? Listen up. (TRUMP, BIDEN AND UKRAINE. A JUICY PLOT?) Trump’s case… started a long way back. And far away as well. More specifically, in Ukraine. But… What on earth does Trump have to do with Ukraine
and why is Joe Biden in this section’s title? Well, the truth is that this is none other
than the latest chapter in the – often absurdist – Trump presidency. Basically, everything indicates that Trump
asked the new Ukrainian president, Volodímir Zelenski, directly by phone, to investigate
Biden and his relations with the gas company Burisma, in which Hunter Biden, the son of
Joe Biden, who was Barack Obama’s former vice president and one of the future Democratic
candidates for the White House, was a board member. Shortly before this call, Trump froze almost
$400 million in military aid to Ukraine, apparently as a pressure method. This could be considered a bribe in exchange
for a favor. A quid pro quo. But it doesn’t end there. Even the US Ambassador to the EU, Gordon Sondland,
acknowledged being pressured by Trump to force the Ukrainian government to investigate a
supposed theory that Ukraine would have interfered with the 2016 American presidential elections. And no, this time it wasn’t to favor Trump,
which Russia is accused of having done, but to favor Hillary. And you can imagine how Ukraine’s investigations
are handled, especially if they’re done under pressure from Washington. In other words, Trump seems to be using the
United States government’s means and resources to pressure governments from foreign countries
that have a more than questionable rule of law to dig up dirt against his opponents. Unbelievable! Given the
seriousness of these claims, Congress decided to open an impeachment process to thoroughly
investigate this entire matter, and to figure out if President Trump bribed the Ukrainians
to gain campaign data. And it doesn’t end there. Apparently, Trump created a kind of “parallel
diplomacy” with Ukraine, which lay outside the institutional channels. He used his personal lawyer Rudy Giuliani,
even forcing Gordon Sondland to answer to him. Now, is this enough to kick out the president? We don’t know, but what we do know is that
information keeps being uncovered, further complicating Trump’s situation. Information like this. (AUDIO: “New Documents Reveal Details of
Pompeo’s Role in Ukraine Affair Emails and documents released by the State
Department support testimony showing Secretary of State Mike Pompeo enabled the Ukrainian
pressure campaign at the center of the impeachment proceedings”. The New York Times) (AUDIO: “According to testimony in the impeachment
inquiry, Ukrainian diplomats in Washington knew there was a problem with aid as early
as July 25, the day Mr. Trump spoke with the Ukrainian president by phone and asked him
to investigate his rivals”. – The New York Times) The truth is that, for the time being, the
Republican Party doesn’t seem to want to turn its back on the president under the current
accusations. Especially when the elections are so close… Politicians! All this could change however if what is known
in the United States as a “smoking gun” is unleashed, that is, if information that
could bring down the president, and that is 100% proven, demonstrated and explosive, is
revealed. But until that happens, and if it happens,
it’s normal for the Republicans to support Trump in order to hold on to the presidency. Also remember that in the Senate, which is
where the impeachment is decided, Republicans hold a majority. As it stands, the Democrats’ only hope would
be to find flagrant evidence that Trump really bribed the Ukrainian authorities to do all
that is claimed. Undoubtedly, this is quite the drama. We’ll be watching to see how this mess develops. But now it’s your turn. After knowing how impeachment works, how past
cases happened and why they happened, do you think Trump could be dismissed or will this
process end up as another failed case? What do you think of the political trial process
as a counterweight to the presidents’ power? Leave your answer in the comments. So I really hope you enjoyed this video, please
hit like if you did, and don’t forget to subscribe for brand new videos. Don’t forget to check out our friends at
the Reconsider Media Podcast – they provided the vocals in this episode that were not mine. Also, this channel is possible because of
Patreon, and our patrons on that platform. Please consider joining them and supporting
our mission of providing independent political coverage. And as always, I’ll see you in
the next video.


  • Suhel Shaikh

    It all ends up with..”MAJORITY WINS”…the senators are politicians first and for their party guys… doesn’t matter what evidence holds good.. they are working for their party and then come the citizens… if you are in majority then the law is in your favor and you can change the truth in the way you want to show the citizens… our founding fathers missed something for this majority situation….🤔.. ?!

  • China Expat


  • hitempguy

    Yea, you are way off base here Simon, your true colors have been showing lately. You keep saying "house of representatives" which is a blatant MISREPRESENTATION of the fact that strictly democrats voted for impeachment, with some even voting against.

    Its bullshit, and you know it. If Trump had actually done something criminal, republicans would support axing him.

  • kashiandevs

    I don't think he will be dismissed because that will be humiliating to the Republican party and they will support him as best as they can to cover their own asses. The best case scenario would be that this whole ordeal would make him less than ideal as a candidate to win the next elections, which aren't so far away anyway.

  • A Knight that says Nee

    When you compared President Trump to Andrew Johnson you implied that President Trump is a racist, just not to the degree of Johnson. Good way to lose subscribers! The only way to call President Trump a racist is to listen to the fake news media take and twist his words out of context. Yes, he is a Nationalist, as am I, but by no means is he or I a racist. I’ll be watching with more discretion and less thumbs up from now on.
    Okay,, I digress. After watching the video further and how you deliver the accusations against Trump, it is obvious that your sources of information are fake news media, probably CNN. Today is December 19th, whatever happened to this quid pro quo that you were so sure about? I’m unsubscribing.

  • China Expat


  • thnktank1

    I dont know how old tgis video is but literal audio of the phone call provides that smoking gun. Furthermore, its worth noting that the President went outside our intelligence apparatus in his attempt to create or procure information on Hunter Biden. Egregious at best.

  • Marcelo Nunes

    The key point here is: Impeachment is a political trial. Like him or not, Trump approval rate is still very high for a politician in his situation, Maybe it is not 50%, as he claims, but nobody denies he has at least 40% of approval rating. Just for comparison, Brazil's impeachment process is a carbon copy of the US process and when president Rousseff was impeached in 2016, her approval rate was 5%, according to the pro-government media. There were hundreds of "smoking gun" evidences, the currency was melting, the unemployment rate was increasing fast and street violence went out of control. Only then the impeachment was viable.
    Of course, the USA is a much more developed democracy than Brazil, but democracy is still supported by public opinion because, in the end, the laws are created by the ones elected by the people. and elections are just snapshots of a much more complex dynamics of society.

  • Michael Berman

    In this day and age, it is remarkable how many stupid, racist, unethical, crooked people live in the states, with no sense of morality, or justice whatsoever.
    The Baffoon is a crook, a con artist, the worst so-called businessman anyone has ever seen, everything that is true he calls a lie, everything that is a lie he calls true, he has the IQ of an orange and apparently, you certainly won't find any scholars in the us, or every one of you who said he's innocent are related to one another, which I hear is quite common in the us, inbreeding that is.
    Stop getting your news from fox and listening to his tweets.
    It's not like you could lose any more credibility with the rest of the world any way!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

  • The Doom From Latveria

    You did a terrible job on this one. You summed up Bill Clinton too quickly, and then skipped the most important tidbit: it was a political hatchet job; with no bipartisan support. This is the same thing here; but even worse, a skewed and corrupt investigation into the Trump here that wouldn't ever pass any scrutiny in any other case in any other area of the justice system. And no, I am not even talking about 'but it is not a trial'; no, how cases are gathered, as the police, lawyers, etc – long before a trial.

    And then you assumed that the headlines you gave were that damning… Except, when you look at the evidence, no, no they clearly weren't; and then you partially admit to that by mentioning "unless they actually do find some irrefutable evidence" – ie to convince the senators… IE: you have nothing at the moment, just hearsay. And it was politically pushed through anyway. There wasn't even anything wrong with asking for an investigation there anyway; and that isn't even how it went down, given what the president of Ukraine was actually saying themselves. So they had to go with even vague 'abuse of power' (almost any president could have been booked for that depending on how the partisan divide breaks, unless you think people like Obama, Clinton, Bush, etc have nothing that can fit that category? Don't be naive – it is a meaningless thing that sounds scary in name only, pushed usually politically) – and 'obstruction of congress', which all Trump is doing is appealing to the SCOTUS to weigh in; and congress doesn't want to let the judiciary decide (but they are supposed to handle these sorts of disagreements…), and just wants to push it before resolution as a phony hatchet anyway (where Trump here was well within his rights). Besides, with other witnesses that probably would vindicate anything Trump had planned there with Biden, etc being denied the republican examination, it hardly seems like it isn't fair play.

  • Enor Mouse

    As an outsider, I have to admit to being highly sceptical of a process that started on the day that Trump took office, before he had any chance to even commit any 'high crimes'. To an outsider, the whole process looks more politically inspired than fact based. If you believe in the logic of the balance between the three arms of the State, then it must be wrong to seek to politically neuter one of these arms going forward, bearing in mind that Trump's impeachment would set the precedent for future such actions against Presidents of both political persuasions.

  • chris whitenack

    The obvious thing that everyone seems to be missing is that this is a dog and pony show. This isn't designed to get rid of Trump (they won't), this is designed to keep democratic constituents happy. It won't. But it will decidedly upset the power base of the democratic party. Don't believe me, watch.

  • Steffen Berr

    Simon, my apologies for my fellow uneducated Americans who are way too quick to whine when a video doesn't exactly conform to their worldview. Aside from a few technical terms, the video was spot on. Thank you

  • Bikky Ghai

    I do not agree in this video. Simon says NO, that an impeachment can be started only by opposition to remove the ruling president. In this case: Yes. The opposition wants the president out, the opposition feels strengtened by the power of the media, to influence people and bombard them with anti Trump rhetoric. This is especially the case with social media, and the power of Google. When you type in "Trump" you find only negative stories, and when you type obama or Clinton, you find only positive stories. Something here is not right.
    Also something different: I am sure that democrats will have done the same, if they were voted as president, only they can do it more politically correct and more hidden and more polished on the outside.
    I guess that the democrats want the President to impeach, only because of his style of conduct, but this is just what the american public voted for. They did know in advance that his style was not political correct, and he and his character as always a winner, messes with the established political system.
    If you sum it up: Trump is rather succesfull in getting done things for the american interest, despite he continuous being attacked and being humiliated in newspapers like NYT and other secular "progressive" newspapers.
    Greetings from country in Europe.

  • ratchet2505

    Three pieses of paper are needed to impeach trump right out. First, the signed document of trump pausing aid to Ukraine. Second, the paper from the military aid office basically saying this is wrong. And the third, white House office overturning that and ordering the pause over stated advice. That's the smoking gun.

  • Malok K

    4 more years coming up and I can’t wait for the idiots to go into full blown meltdown. Trump will be re-elected if for nothing else than to tell the idiot fringe of the left, we don’t want you or your shit.

  • Norbert

    Trumpsters, you all can dislike and troll every impeachments videos and articles. But you guys still unable to offer any counter-argument other than logical fallacies and harking back to Hillary Clinton. You guys have ZERO defences, NO moral arguments and certainly love defending ochlocractic government, closer to that of authoritarian dirtbags.
    Instead of buying your next guns or bibles, maybe try a brain card instead.

  • Remedy

    Given how anti Trump this channel is (yes the poorly drawn animation of a nuke coming out of Donald Trump's mouth kind of removes any sense of neutral impartiality) it might interest you to know that in the worst case scenario, if by some miracle Trump is removed from office, he simply goes back to being a golf playing, multi billionaire celebrity property developer… and Mike Pence automatically becomes president 😅

  • ronintje

    "Johnson was both a member of the Democratic party and also a massive racist"
    You made it sound like that was a weird thing, however the Republicans are the ones who abolished slavery, not the Democrats as the youth nowadays seems to think.
    De Democrats were the racists who didn't want slavery to stop and untill the 60's of last century they didn't even try to hide it.
    Somehow they managed to change history by makiing people think the Republicans are the racists when the opposit has been the case.
    And now the party that liberated the slaves is compared to the German guy with the weird moustache, despite it being the Democrats who back then adored him and his regime.
    Beat that for changing history, sadly the people won't think for themselves and find out things, but instead believe the propaganda send to them by partisan "journallists".

  • kobi kis

    very good job just in spitting out democrat talking points! for those who are interested in the truth check out the evidence for yourself! TRUMP 2020

  • spiloFTW

    Bides and Clintons are dirty and Trump just tried to find some dirt on them. That is exactly the same thing the dems are doing all these years to Trump. The media have a massive double standard.


    i did only see small bull shit things and not the whole story simon this seems 2 me that you left out way 2 many thing here bad real bad story telling here you did not speak of jo smo and his take on the matter in the Ukraine that he got somone fired it seems 2 me ppl are blind 2 see the whole pic in this fars but know this in 2020 the curupt ppl are going down hard mwhahaha i cant wait 4 it

  • Erik Weijling

    It's funny to see how you outline the supposed wrongdoings of Trump and completely omit the reason WHY he asked the Ukranian president to look into the cases he asked for. Ummmm, Hunter Biden (and the accompanying corruption of his daddy under Obama #Democrat), DMC server in the Ukraine, Steeld Dosier etc. I know this video is about the impeachment process itself but you put on a one sided nerrative in favour of impeaching trump here. just saying.

  • somethingsomethingsomething

    you should do a video on hunter bidens dodgy deal and how biden used his position to enrich his son? more interesting

  • chase clough

    if trump bribed or extorted, why isnt he being impeached for bribery?

    why not mention its the first time only the opposing party voted to impeach. or first impeachment within a year of an election. first out of like 20 ish not just presidential impeachments. or first impeachment to not include a single crime. bribery is a crime which u said alot but he isnt being impeached for that. he is being impeached for being trump.
    abuse of power and obstruction of congress arent crimes.

  • chase clough

    this whole video is way more propaganda then information. not everyone thinks trumps presidency is "absurd" simon. ill stick to today i found out.

  • MrShaun42088

    bullshit- your whole thoughts about the Trump Ukraine deal is way bias. You are omitting relevant facts and are narrating a dem theme. There was no pressure, Trump has done more to help Ukraine than obama, there is a corruption treaty etc.

  • Wayne

    Andrew Johnson did nothing illegal. Congress passed a law to limit his constitutional power to dismiss certain people in positions of power. They than tried to impeach him when he used his constitutional power. After he narrowly dodged the impeachment, the Supreme Court ruled that the law Congress made and used to impeach him was unconstitutional.

  • Elliot Jenner

    Chief Justice of the supreme court, not president. Speaker of the House of Representatives, not president. There is only one President in the US federal government.

  • Ashik Jonathan

    It's going to be an interesting 2020 election?
    trump impeached but removal unlikely
    joe Biden obviously dem nominee will say he was impeached and very bad
    trump will say you helped your son make money at burisma and I ordered investigation

  • Daoistify

    Did you enjoy photoshopping Trump's picture and casually discussing impeaching a President which would be a national tragedy..In today's America, hate is the hip thing. Who can say the nastiest thing, spread the biggest lies and be the coolest meanie on the planet.

  • William Hendrick

    So Clinton was impeached for pressuring the house staff to lie to cover up the affair…
    Then what do you call what Trump has being doing since day one?

  • ivan mills

    The problem with this impeachment is the fact there is no real evidence to support the two articles. Oh, don't take my word for it, just ask Alan Dershowitz,(an actual expert).

  • moz

    I’m in the middle and watching the hearings myself, this seems like vague accusations of impeachment. I need facts to impeach not I think or I feel he did something wrong. My 2 cents. This makes democrats look like they hate him vs he did wrong. We need term limits on congress.

  • Ryuk Cage

    Just want to point out what's wrong with this impeachment:
    The name Joe biden isn't mentioned once in the phone call, he specifically said crowdstrike about the servers, "I would like you to find out what happened with this whole situation with Ukraine, they say Crowdstrike… I guess you have one of your wealthy people… The server, they say Ukraine has it."

    So by definition alone the impeachment is false

  • Tony O

    Trump supporters, I have a question. What information can he produce that would make all of these allegations become unsupported or not factual? Are what the witnesses said who testified under oath not true? The "transcript" he released shows the bribery attempt. Let Pompeo testify. Let Munchin testify. Republicans should cross examine. Why can't the whole truth come out? People scoff when confronted with the possibility that Trump could dismantle the document that has guided this country for almost 250 years but that is exactly what he has been allowed to do up to this point. This is nothing more then a far worse planned watergate. The end result desired by both is the same. Tamper with OUR election process.

  • Ciborium

    Anyone with half a brain can see that this is an attempted coup d'etat by the Democrats and the Deep State to overturn the 2016 election. The Democrats have ignored the direct evidence and used only rumors, hearsay, conjecture, and the lies in Hillary Clinton's Steele Dossier.

  • Caleb Shonk

    This has a lot of the same flavors of the 2016 election. Liberals got caught doing something illegal while in office, conservatives call them out, and liberals allege wrongdoing by conservatives.

    They're not going after Trump because he did something illegal. They're going after him to protect Biden in the election.

  • Royal Satan

    What a stubborn editor you have! lol He doesn't stop putting ear tearing metal music on all videos despite everybody's complaint!

  • Jeremy Mansfield

    i forget we dont follow the rule anymore "innocent until proven guilty" too much hearsay bs from the liberals trying to claw back power

  • Muziks Chilu

    I love your videos but I just fully disagree with your interpretation of the facts. Your perspective is one sided / biased.

  • The future is bright

    I'm waiting for Parnas to spill the beans with his audio and video records in the SDNY case. I hope that could be used against Trump in the Senate. Maybe that'll help Republicans grow a spine. At least 20 of them..

  • David Simonyi

    Hi, could you do episode on current Prime minister of Czech republic Andrej Babis? I'd like to hear your thoughts on his 6 years in major role in parlament

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *