Sorry, but this bad behavior is not a High Crime

[Anonymous]

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.

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/

Original PP. ^^ +1

[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

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

The Russian paranoia here is something. Really scary the way you look for a bogeyman.

[Anonymous]

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.

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/

Original PP. ^^ +1

I'd agree that a president getting paid by a foreign government would be bad.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

The Russian paranoia here is something. Really scary the way you look for a bogeyman.

DP. Voters deciding, and not the senate? Have you forgotten that it is votes from people who decide to identify a representative? You give them power to decide on your behalf when you elect them. All elections have consequences, so it’s the voters responsibility to perform due diligence on the name they put in congressional power.

[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

Voters elected the House and Senate. So, I fail to see your point.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

The Russian paranoia here is something. Really scary the way you look for a bogeyman.

Really scary the way you completely ignore the bogeymen.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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.

Right now we have 3 plus a son in law.

Ok, so, just to clarify, you think it is ok for Presidents to use foreign aid and defense policy for their personal gain. Gotcha. Hey Taiwan, give us the dirt on Elaine Chao otherwise it's China time! Hey Poland, do you like that military base? Sure would be a shame to lose it. Dear Jordan...

[Anonymous]

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.

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/

Original PP. ^^ +1

I'd agree that a president getting paid by a foreign government would be bad.

You say that like it’s not actually happening already.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

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

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

The Russian paranoia here is something. Really scary the way you look for a bogeyman.

DP, but given that our Intelligence Community, Robert Mueller and Roger Stone have all confirmed Russian interference in the 2016 election and given the Senate has refused to take up meaningful election security, it does leave one to wonder.

[Anonymous]

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.

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/

Original PP. ^^ +1

I'd agree that a president getting paid by a foreign government would be bad.

Hmmmm.

“Bolton told the gathering of Morgan Stanley’s largest hedge fund clients that he was most frustrated with Trump over his handling of Turkey, people who were present said. Noting the broad bipartisan support in Congress to sanction Turkey after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan purchased a Russian missile defense system, Bolton said Trump’s resistance to the move was unreasonable, four people present for his speech said. Bolton said he believes there is a personal or business relationship dictating Trump’s position on Turkey because none of his advisers are aligned with him on the issue, the people present said.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/private-speech-bolton-suggests-some-trump-s-foreign-policy-decisions-n1080651

[Anonymous]

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.

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/

Original PP. ^^ +1

I'd agree that a president getting paid by a foreign government would be bad.

Hmmmm.

“Bolton told the gathering of Morgan Stanley’s largest hedge fund clients that he was most frustrated with Trump over his handling of Turkey, people who were present said. Noting the broad bipartisan support in Congress to sanction Turkey after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan purchased a Russian missile defense system, Bolton said Trump’s resistance to the move was unreasonable, four people present for his speech said. Bolton said he believes there is a personal or business relationship dictating Trump’s position on Turkey because none of his advisers are aligned with him on the issue, the people present said.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/private-speech-bolton-suggests-some-trump-s-foreign-policy-decisions-n1080651

No doubt Trump is an idiot who disagrees with his key advisers. But he is the President, thus his views are US foreign policy and not theirs. Obviously this is dysfunctional and crazy to keep recycling through key staff, but it is where we are unless he quits/dies or someone else beats him in 2020.

[Anonymous]

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.

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/

Original PP. ^^ +1

I'd agree that a president getting paid by a foreign government would be bad.

Hmmmm.

“Bolton told the gathering of Morgan Stanley’s largest hedge fund clients that he was most frustrated with Trump over his handling of Turkey, people who were present said. Noting the broad bipartisan support in Congress to sanction Turkey after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan purchased a Russian missile defense system, Bolton said Trump’s resistance to the move was unreasonable, four people present for his speech said. Bolton said he believes there is a personal or business relationship dictating Trump’s position on Turkey because none of his advisers are aligned with him on the issue, the people present said.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/private-speech-bolton-suggests-some-trump-s-foreign-policy-decisions-n1080651

No doubt Trump is an idiot who disagrees with his key advisers. But he is the President, thus his views are US foreign policy and not theirs. Obviously this is dysfunctional and crazy to keep recycling through key staff, but it is where we are unless he quits/dies or someone else beats him in 2020.

You missed the relevant portion - the “personal or business relationship” Bolton believes Trump has with Erdogan.

[Anonymous]

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.

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/

Original PP. ^^ +1

I'd agree that a president getting paid by a foreign government would be bad.

Hmmmm.

“Bolton told the gathering of Morgan Stanley’s largest hedge fund clients that he was most frustrated with Trump over his handling of Turkey, people who were present said. Noting the broad bipartisan support in Congress to sanction Turkey after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan purchased a Russian missile defense system, Bolton said Trump’s resistance to the move was unreasonable, four people present for his speech said. Bolton said he believes there is a personal or business relationship dictating Trump’s position on Turkey because none of his advisers are aligned with him on the issue, the people present said.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/private-speech-bolton-suggests-some-trump-s-foreign-policy-decisions-n1080651

No doubt Trump is an idiot who disagrees with his key advisers. But he is the President, thus his views are US foreign policy and not theirs. Obviously this is dysfunctional and crazy to keep recycling through key staff, but it is where we are unless he quits/dies or someone else beats him in 2020.

You missed the relevant portion - the “personal or business relationship” Bolton believes Trump has with Erdogan.

Trump has strong and wrong opinions based on his lifetime in business and dealings. Not sure how that isn't obvious.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

No doubt Trump is an idiot who disagrees with his key advisers. But he is the President, thus his views are US foreign policy and not theirs. Obviously this is dysfunctional and crazy to keep recycling through key staff, but it is where we are unless he quits/dies or someone else beats him in 2020.

The US Congress, in accordance with years of precedent, supported Ukraine and authorized funds to that end. That was the policy being carried out by the people who swore an oath to the rule of law and the Constitution. Donald Trump and Rudy Guiliani were executing a rogue foreign policy that was counter to the US foreign policy in an attempt to shakedown a vulnerable foreign country for personal gain.

[Anonymous]

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.

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/

Original PP. ^^ +1

I'd agree that a president getting paid by a foreign government would be bad.

Hmmmm.

“Bolton told the gathering of Morgan Stanley’s largest hedge fund clients that he was most frustrated with Trump over his handling of Turkey, people who were present said. Noting the broad bipartisan support in Congress to sanction Turkey after President Recep Tayyip Erdogan purchased a Russian missile defense system, Bolton said Trump’s resistance to the move was unreasonable, four people present for his speech said. Bolton said he believes there is a personal or business relationship dictating Trump’s position on Turkey because none of his advisers are aligned with him on the issue, the people present said.”
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald-trump/private-speech-bolton-suggests-some-trump-s-foreign-policy-decisions-n1080651

No doubt Trump is an idiot who disagrees with his key advisers. But he is the President, thus his views are US foreign policy and not theirs. Obviously this is dysfunctional and crazy to keep recycling through key staff, but it is where we are unless he quits/dies or someone else beats him in 2020.

You missed the relevant portion - the “personal or business relationship” Bolton believes Trump has with Erdogan.

Trump has strong and wrong opinions based on his lifetime in business and dealings. Not sure how that isn't obvious.

I think you’re missing what Bolton is implying by “relationship.”