Sorry, but this bad behavior is not a High Crime

[Anonymous]

The whole point of impeachment was that, once they had settled on the term of the president, they recognized that there had to be a way to punish a president who abused the powers of his office. That isn't confined to treason or bribery, and it is not confined to acts that are subject to normal criminal penalties, for the very reason that the president has unique powers that nobody else has. The high crimes and misdemeanors phrasing was in use centuries before the Constitution. They knew perfectly well that the voters could express their views once it was election time, but viewed elections in themselves were not a sufficient curb on presidential conduct, especially since sometimes misconduct could be used to help secure re-election--which they certainly discussed and was certainly Trump's motive here.

As to "high crimes and misdemeanors", "The impeachment of the King's Chancellor, Michael de la Pole, 1st Earl of Suffolk in 1386 was the first case to use this charge.[2][3] One charge under this heading alleged that de la Pole broke a promise to Parliament to follow the advice of a committee regarding improvement of the kingdom. Another charge said that because he failed to pay a ransom for the town of Ghent, the town fell to the French." -- Wikipedia.

Interesting that the first charge against the chancellor is akin to Trump's conduct regarding Zelensky and military aid.

It doesn't matter that ultimately the efforts did not come to fruition in literal terms (just like when the hitman you hire turns out to be an undercover law enforcement officer). The attempts in themselves constitute abuse of office sufficient for impeachment.

No question that other presidents have engaged in egregious conduct and managed to avoid impeachment, sometimes because the story did not come out until long after they held office. But disregarding this would be willfully turning a blind eye to misconduct of the president.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:The whole point of impeachment was that, once they had settled on the term of the president, they recognized that there had to be a way to punish a president who abused the powers of his office. That isn't confined to treason or bribery, and it is not confined to acts that are subject to normal criminal penalties, for the very reason that the president has unique powers that nobody else has. The high crimes and misdemeanors phrasing was in use centuries before the Constitution. They knew perfectly well that the voters could express their views once it was election time, but viewed elections in themselves were not a sufficient curb on presidential conduct, especially since sometimes misconduct could be used to help secure re-election--which they certainly discussed and was certainly Trump's motive here.

As to "high crimes and misdemeanors", "The impeachment of the King's Chancellor, Michael de la Pole, 1st Earl of Suffolk in 1386 was the first case to use this charge.[2][3] One charge under this heading alleged that de la Pole broke a promise to Parliament to follow the advice of a committee regarding improvement of the kingdom. Another charge said that because he failed to pay a ransom for the town of Ghent, the town fell to the French." -- Wikipedia.

Interesting that the first charge against the chancellor is akin to Trump's conduct regarding Zelensky and military aid.

It doesn't matter that ultimately the efforts did not come to fruition in literal terms (just like when the hitman you hire turns out to be an undercover law enforcement officer). The attempts in themselves constitute abuse of office sufficient for impeachment.

No question that other presidents have engaged in egregious conduct and managed to avoid impeachment, sometimes because the story did not come out until long after they held office. But disregarding this would be willfully turning a blind eye to misconduct of the president.

I like this, but we'll need to find a way to put it in pictures on two pages - nothing longer. Otherwise, none of his hardcore supporters will get it.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:NP here.

I agree with the OP on one point: there aren’t enough votes in the senate to remove him from office.

What is the end game in the impeachment process? Exposing the information and doing their jobs are both important, but I worry it’s going to backfire next November.

It's not going to backfire in November.

They are now investigating if he lied to Mueller and trying to go back 8 years on tax records=the Ukraine thing is over

no

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:He is acting exactly the way the voters knew he was going to act. Are you telling me that calling the president of Ukraine and bringing up dumb stuff and then withholding aid for a few weeks is the WORST action by an American president ever? Or tied with Nixon? Again, its horrible behavior but not worth the death penalty.

Huh? Removal from office is not the death penalty.

And the argument that "this is not the worst action by an American president ever" is truly illogical. Try using that as a defense next time you get pulled over for speeding. "Well officer, I was not the worst speeder. Or hey, someone else out here is probably under the influence so let me go." WTF? And they let you vote?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:The whole point of impeachment was that, once they had settled on the term of the president, they recognized that there had to be a way to punish a president who abused the powers of his office. That isn't confined to treason or bribery, and it is not confined to acts that are subject to normal criminal penalties, for the very reason that the president has unique powers that nobody else has. The high crimes and misdemeanors phrasing was in use centuries before the Constitution. They knew perfectly well that the voters could express their views once it was election time, but viewed elections in themselves were not a sufficient curb on presidential conduct, especially since sometimes misconduct could be used to help secure re-election--which they certainly discussed and was certainly Trump's motive here.

As to "high crimes and misdemeanors", "The impeachment of the King's Chancellor, Michael de la Pole, 1st Earl of Suffolk in 1386 was the first case to use this charge.[2][3] One charge under this heading alleged that de la Pole broke a promise to Parliament to follow the advice of a committee regarding improvement of the kingdom. Another charge said that because he failed to pay a ransom for the town of Ghent, the town fell to the French." -- Wikipedia.

Interesting that the first charge against the chancellor is akin to Trump's conduct regarding Zelensky and military aid.

It doesn't matter that ultimately the efforts did not come to fruition in literal terms (just like when the hitman you hire turns out to be an undercover law enforcement officer). The attempts in themselves constitute abuse of office sufficient for impeachment.

No question that other presidents have engaged in egregious conduct and managed to avoid impeachment, sometimes because the story did not come out until long after they held office. But disregarding this would be willfully turning a blind eye to misconduct of the president.

I like this, but we'll need to find a way to put it in pictures on two pages - nothing longer. Otherwise, none of his hardcore supporters will get it.

+ 1

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Wrong. Clinton was impeached for far less.

And how did that end??

He found someone else to do it.

[Anonymous]

Ugh this stupid thread needs to die.

OP and anyone who agrees with him/her is an idiot.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is acting exactly the way the voters knew he was going to act. Are you telling me that calling the president of Ukraine and bringing up dumb stuff and then withholding aid for a few weeks is the WORST action by an American president ever? Or tied with Nixon? Again, its horrible behavior but not worth the death penalty.

No one is suggesting the death penalty. We are suggesting his immediate removal from office. He is unfortunately unfit.

It's the death penalty - telling the voters that your view is more important than their vote.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh this stupid thread needs to die.

OP and anyone who agrees with him/her is an idiot.

Lol. So over half the Senators are idiots?

[Anonymous]

Trump to-do list:

Lie.
Cheat.
Lie some more.
Cheat again.
More lies.
Keep getting fatter.
Lie some more.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Ugh this stupid thread needs to die.

OP and anyone who agrees with him/her is an idiot.

Lol. So over half the Senators are idiots?

This is a question?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Ugh this stupid thread needs to die.

OP and anyone who agrees with him/her is an idiot.

Yes, please

[Anonymous]

Bored now.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Bored now.

Read a book.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:He is acting exactly the way the voters knew he was going to act. Are you telling me that calling the president of Ukraine and bringing up dumb stuff and then withholding aid for a few weeks is the WORST action by an American president ever? Or tied with Nixon? Again, its horrible behavior but not worth the death penalty.

Huh? Removal from office is not the death penalty.

And the argument that "this is not the worst action by an American president ever" is truly illogical. Try using that as a defense next time you get pulled over for speeding. "Well officer, I was not the worst speeder. Or hey, someone else out here is probably under the influence so let me go." WTF? And they let you vote?

Lol. How dumb are you? Millions of drivers have speeding tickets. In the history of our country, not one president has been removed from office.