Sorry, but this bad behavior is not a High Crime

[Anonymous]

KAC is the greatest gas lighter trump has going for him. Wait til it turns out she is anonymous. The ultimate gas light. I for one will be last in line to pat her on the back for blowing which way the wind blows based on the daily weather report

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Maybe OP started this inane thread simply to see how fast it will get deleted.

Why would it possibly get deleted? This is likely the position of most US Senators.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One major concern I have is the media. CNN reportedly gave a report from the Capitol reading from a paper provided by Dem house members. How do we trust, then, what they say?

CNN has been decidedly pro-Democrat and unequivocally anti-Trump for the past few years. This is nothing new. Balance it out with other sources or just skip CNN altogether.

They have had all sorts of Trump supporters on payroll an on air including Conway and Bannon in the last couple of days. Hardly a monolithic voice.

Yep. Didn't one of their people ask Conway about her husband and said, I know there are issues there, and Conway flew off the handle about it? I thought that was CNN.

That was a complete tabloid move. She was rightly disgusted.

[Anonymous]

Slander
Libel
Witness tampering
Bribery
Election tampering
Tax fraud
Racketeering


Shall I go on?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Slander
Libel
Witness tampering
Bribery
Election tampering
Tax fraud
Racketeering


Shall I go on?

First two are unlikely, but they can sue him. Unpresidential but not a high crime.

Third, unmm no. That's not how that works. Again obviously unpresidential.

Fourth is a real stretch, but it's an interesting case. If not bribery, certainly is some version of abuse of power. Personally I don't find it enough to be impeached over.

Fifth is just dumb.

Sixth is likely given his business history. I'd think THAT is impeachable if recent and bad enough.

Seventh also dumb.

[Anonymous]

Emoluments is the easiest. Not sure why that’s no longer in the mix

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP can you explain, in words, what is "sloppy" and "incompetent" about all this? Either Trump tried to leverage the official power of the U.S. government for personal gain in an election, or he did not. It doesn't even have to be technically bribery. I'm a federal employee, and if I even tried to buy stock in one of my regulated entities, I could be fired or put in jail. It's basic government ethics.

It's definitely not bribery.

It's incompetent because every functional administration has a prepared script when talking with foreign leaders. The staff runs the call with the President adding talking points. This clown puts Ivanka on the calls routinely. It's sloppy because every administration users, to some degree, foreign policy interaction for domestic political gain. You don't do it on a call with dozens listening.

It's not really that material because there was no real damage. Ukraine received the aid, nobody was investigated. The Hunter Biden board membership was obviously inappropriate, so it's certainly topical.

This isn't the worst thing Trump's done this year. The Turkey/Kurds thing was easily 1000x worse. Calling Baltimore names was worse. Insulting allies was worse.

This is inappropriate, but it's not bribery obviously and it's not a high crime.

DP:

"Today, a person commits the crime of bribery by giving or offering a public official or public employee something of value in return for some official action (or in exchange for the public official not doing something he or she is legally obligated to do), benefitting the defendant."

this is exactly what happened. You (public official) perform and publicly declare you will perform a sham investigation on my political rival (official action) and I'll give you this aid (something of value). IF you don't, I won't. Bribery. He needs to go.

By that ridiculous interpretation, EVERY negotiation I've ever had was actually a bribery

And if that negotiation involved you taking or offering something like, oh say Congressionally mandated military aid to Ukraine, in return for something like, oh say the promise to "investigate" your biggest political rival, then you would be impeached.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:One major concern I have is the media. CNN reportedly gave a report from the Capitol reading from a paper provided by Dem house members. How do we trust, then, what they say?

Don't trust the media wholly. Get news from multiple sources. How about you just read the closed door testimonies or watch the televised hearings?

Yeah, you have access to the actual source, so use it. I suppose the problem, though, is that if you don't understand why this is a huge problem in the first place, you need someone to explain it to you.

Then you watch PBS Newshour. Problem solved.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:KAC is the greatest gas lighter trump has going for him. Wait til it turns out she is anonymous. The ultimate gas light. I for one will be last in line to pat her on the back for blowing which way the wind blows based on the daily weather report

I wouldn't be surprised if she is anonymous. Most of his other people have gone to prison.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Slander
Libel
Witness tampering
Bribery
Election tampering
Tax fraud
Racketeering


Shall I go on?

First two are unlikely, but they can sue him. Unpresidential but not a high crime.

Third, unmm no. That's not how that works. Again obviously unpresidential.

Fourth is a real stretch, but it's an interesting case. If not bribery, certainly is some version of abuse of power. Personally I don't find it enough to be impeached over.

Fifth is just dumb.

Sixth is likely given his business history. I'd think THAT is impeachable if recent and bad enough.

Seventh also dumb.

My four year old at bath time: "No, that's dumb."
You at impeachment time: "No, that's dumb."

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Slander
Libel
Witness tampering
Bribery
Election tampering
Tax fraud
Racketeering


Shall I go on?

First two are unlikely, but they can sue him. Unpresidential but not a high crime.

Third, unmm no. That's not how that works. Again obviously unpresidential.

Fourth is a real stretch, but it's an interesting case. If not bribery, certainly is some version of abuse of power. Personally I don't find it enough to be impeached over.

Fifth is just dumb.

Sixth is likely given his business history. I'd think THAT is impeachable if recent and bad enough.

Seventh also dumb.

My four year old at bath time: "No, that's dumb."
You at impeachment time: "No, that's dumb."

Racketeering is dumb, come on. "Bribery", in this context, is not dumb but not impeachable on these facts.

[Anonymous]

It's simple, the facts are out there and it is obvious that it is true. Nobody is defending his actions as ethical. The only question is whether it is an impeachable offense.

For me, the calculus is simple. Is this something I think presidents shouod be allowed to do?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It's simple, the facts are out there and it is obvious that it is true. Nobody is defending his actions as ethical. The only question is whether it is an impeachable offense.

For me, the calculus is simple. Is this something I think presidents shouod be allowed to do?

That's not the standard thankfully. It has to truly be shocking and this isn't it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It's simple, the facts are out there and it is obvious that it is true. Nobody is defending his actions as ethical. The only question is whether it is an impeachable offense.

For me, the calculus is simple. Is this something I think presidents shouod be allowed to do?

That's not the standard thankfully. It has to truly be shocking and this isn't it.

Most americans disagree, that is why most americans are polling for impeachment AND removal.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Slander
Libel
Witness tampering
Bribery
Election tampering
Tax fraud
Racketeering


Shall I go on?

First two are unlikely, but they can sue him. Unpresidential but not a high crime.

Third, unmm no. That's not how that works. Again obviously unpresidential.

Fourth is a real stretch, but it's an interesting case. If not bribery, certainly is some version of abuse of power. Personally I don't find it enough to be impeached over.

Fifth is just dumb.

Sixth is likely given his business history. I'd think THAT is impeachable if recent and bad enough.

Seventh also dumb.

My four year old at bath time: "No, that's dumb."
You at impeachment time: "No, that's dumb."

Racketeering is dumb, come on. "Bribery", in this context, is not dumb but not impeachable on these facts.

To the contrary, the thing Trump has been doing is EXACTLY what the framers had in mind when they added the impeachment process and bribery specifically to the impeachment process.

“So they agreed that Congress should have the power to impeach a president—but on what grounds? The initial impeachment clause borrowed from established concepts in English law and state constitutions, allowing impeachment for “maladministration”—basically incompetence, akin to a vote of no confidence.

James Madison and others argued this was too vague a standard. They changed it to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

But what did this mean?

One of the biggest fears of the founding fathers was that the new nation might fall under the sway of foreign powers. That’s what had happened in Europe over the years, where one nation or another had fallen prey to bribes, treaties and ill-advised royal marriages from other nations.

So those who gathered in Philadelphia to write the Constitution included a number of provisions to guard against foreign intrusion in American democracy. One was the emoluments clause, barring international payments or gifts to a president or other federal elected official. The framers of the Constitution worried that without this provision, a president might be bribed by a foreign power to betray America.

The delegates to the Convention were also concerned that a foreign power might influence the outcome of an election.

They wanted to protect the new United States from what Alexander Hamilton called the “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.“ Or as James Madison put it, protect the new country from a president who’d "betray his trust to foreign powers.” Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who initially had opposed including an impeachment clause, agreed to include it in order to avoid “the danger of seeing the first Magistrate in foreign pay.”
https://prospect.org/impeachment/would-the-founding-fathers-impeach-trump/