Sorry, but this bad behavior is not a High Crime

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Even with the media in the bag the polls aren't moving to drastically support this impeachment.

Not sure how one “drastically supports” something, but this is movement.

Lol. It is flatlining since the testimony started.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

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.

You speak with such authority. lol Seriously if you think this isn't impeachable, then you also must conclude that the Constitution is a highly flawed, poorly written document.

Not at all. the most brilliant political document in the history of mankind.

To remove a sitting president is to take democracy away from the voters. It's a very big deal. And something truly shocking, a real high crime, would have no trouble getting 2/3 of Senators to agree.

Is the Electoral College also taking "democracy away from the voters"? The president is elected via the Electoral College (see the Constitution). The president can be removed through impeachement (see the Constitution). As in the Constitution, the person who wins the popular vote doesn't necessarily get to be president. As in the Constitution, the president doesn't necessarily get to stay the president if impeached and removed from office.

Impeachment is part of the Constitution. It's not a coup. Duh. But b it's VA high high bar and was designed that way. we have had some really horrible presidents the last 200 years and the Senate has not removed one from office. Why is that? the founders wanted a stable democracy. A stable system. With short terms of four years the voters will keep the truly bad seeds from occupying office too long.

The bad seeds are paying very close attention to the outcome of impeachment. If Trump is not removed from office, it will be game on for every snake and megalomaniac in this country. Trump will just be the beginning.

This impeachment is ALL about 2020. unless a lot more comes out, he's not getting removed by the Senate. This is all about making him look bad for 2020. And that's fine because the voters will have a chance to decide.

No, you are misreading tea leaves. Impeachment was avoided by the Democrats for as long as possible because it is dangerous to impeach a president so close to an election. You would think after the Mueller Report came out they would have impeached, when so many of his co-conspirators (he is Individual 1, after all) were falling like dominoes. They did not, and Trump took that as carte blanche to continue on his way, and with his plans of committing crimes. He had Barr whispering in his ear that he is above the law as president, which is exactly what he wanted to hear.

Democrats were pushed in to a corner because his crimes are throwing the whole country under the bus now. The question is only if Republicans are willing to trash the country and their party for the next few decades by letting him remain in office. The elections just now of Republican states that now have a D governor or managed to keep a D governor show just how much he has trashed the party. Will they put either their party or the country first and check him?

I don't know. But what I do know is that Pelosi and D leadership did NOT want to impeach him. It reached a point where they had no choice. If Rs don't see that they are at that point too now, then they are so far up his and Putin's asses that they are delusional.

Good take, but you are too far in the trees to see the forest. Pelosi didn't want this because she is smart. She simply couldn't hold back her lunatic left fringe any longer. Even with the media in the bag the polls aren't moving to drastically support this impeachment.

I also think Democrats are worried about the report coming out on the origins of the Russian nonsense. It could be politically very damaging if shortcuts were taken in the spying on US citizens. That's a big deal.

Any sentient human being can see that Trump is hopelessly compromised and should have been removed a long time ago. Barr can make up however many lies he wants to re ‘the Russian nonsense’, but the truth will inevitably come out. The only reason the Senate is going along with this farce is that they are as compromised as Trump. I’m sorry that you can’t face the fact that you fell for a despicable lying carnival barker, but you can’t use ignorance any longer as an excuse to allow this madman to ruin our country. Really, how could you possibly be this stupid?

[Anonymous]

bribery is not a crime? Using the power of one's position to attack one's election opponents, not a crime? Cool. Good to know.

[Anonymous]

So are we believing the people who are testifying before the US Congress under oath, or the people who are spouting off on TV, but not under oath as well as the people who are refusing to testify?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Even with the media in the bag the polls aren't moving to drastically support this impeachment.

Not sure how one “drastically supports” something, but this is movement.

Lol. It is flatlining since the testimony started.

There’s no data since the testimony started, dummy. The chart reads “as of Nov. 11.”

[Anonymous]

It really does not matter if the behavior is a high crime, misdemeanor etc. If the House passes articles of impeachment and the Senate convicts, the Supreme Court will not review or overturn the decision. It is a purely political action.

[Anonymous]

No one has claimed that this hasn't happened. They've even admitted it. Therefore if rhis is not impeachable then it is acceptable. If it wasn't for the whistleblower the aid would not have been released. Zelenskyy had scheduled the public statement on Faried Zakaria's show.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:No one has claimed that this hasn't happened. They've even admitted it. Therefore if rhis is not impeachable then it is acceptable. If it wasn't for the whistleblower the aid would not have been released. Zelenskyy had scheduled the public statement on Faried Zakaria's show.

Dumb. Clearly it was inappropriate. Not acceptable. But the punishment for every crime is not the death penalty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has claimed that this hasn't happened. They've even admitted it. Therefore if rhis is not impeachable then it is acceptable. If it wasn't for the whistleblower the aid would not have been released. Zelenskyy had scheduled the public statement on Faried Zakaria's show.

Dumb. Clearly it was inappropriate. Not acceptable. But the punishment for every crime is not the death penalty.

Impeachment is not the death penalty.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has claimed that this hasn't happened. They've even admitted it. Therefore if rhis is not impeachable then it is acceptable. If it wasn't for the whistleblower the aid would not have been released. Zelenskyy had scheduled the public statement on Faried Zakaria's show.

Dumb. Clearly it was inappropriate. Not acceptable. But the punishment for every crime is not the death penalty.

No one is suggesting the death penalty. But rather that the President's illegal actions are beyond the acceptable for the office he holds. Why is it okay for the President to use national assets for personal gain?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has claimed that this hasn't happened. They've even admitted it. Therefore if rhis is not impeachable then it is acceptable. If it wasn't for the whistleblower the aid would not have been released. Zelenskyy had scheduled the public statement on Faried Zakaria's show.

Dumb. Clearly it was inappropriate. Not acceptable. But the punishment for every crime is not the death penalty.

Then what should the punishment be?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has claimed that this hasn't happened. They've even admitted it. Therefore if rhis is not impeachable then it is acceptable. If it wasn't for the whistleblower the aid would not have been released. Zelenskyy had scheduled the public statement on Faried Zakaria's show.

Dumb. Clearly it was inappropriate. Not acceptable. But the punishment for every crime is not the death penalty.

Then what should the punishment be?

Voters deciding, not the Senate

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has claimed that this hasn't happened. They've even admitted it. Therefore if rhis is not impeachable then it is acceptable. If it wasn't for the whistleblower the aid would not have been released. Zelenskyy had scheduled the public statement on Faried Zakaria's show.

Dumb. Clearly it was inappropriate. Not acceptable. But the punishment for every crime is not the death penalty.

Then what should the punishment be?

Voters deciding, not the Senate

So you're cool with future president being able to do this to their political rivals? And you're cool with Trump doing this again? Just want to make sure I don't misunderstand.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has claimed that this hasn't happened. They've even admitted it. Therefore if rhis is not impeachable then it is acceptable. If it wasn't for the whistleblower the aid would not have been released. Zelenskyy had scheduled the public statement on Faried Zakaria's show.

Dumb. Clearly it was inappropriate. Not acceptable. But the punishment for every crime is not the death penalty.

Then what should the punishment be?

Voters deciding, not the Senate

. Just keep the Russians out of the system then. Which can’t be done thanks to Moscow Mitch et al

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:No one has claimed that this hasn't happened. They've even admitted it. Therefore if rhis is not impeachable then it is acceptable. If it wasn't for the whistleblower the aid would not have been released. Zelenskyy had scheduled the public statement on Faried Zakaria's show.

Dumb. Clearly it was inappropriate. Not acceptable. But the punishment for every crime is not the death penalty.

Then what should the punishment be?

Voters deciding, not the Senate

So you're cool with future president being able to do this to their political rivals? And you're cool with Trump doing this again? Just want to make sure I don't misunderstand.

How often do candidates have kids engaging in obviously corrupt, probably illegal, behavior in sketchy overseas countries? Hopefully this precedent lowers the instances.