Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. It would be easy if 2/3 of the senate weren’t compromised.

That's just stupid. They aren't compromised. They likely disagree that this nonsense is so severe as to be a HIGH CRIME, but I have no doubt that they will take their constitutional duty very seriously.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. It would be easy if 2/3 of the senate weren’t compromised.

That's just stupid. They aren't compromised. They likely disagree that this nonsense is so severe as to be a HIGH CRIME, but I have no doubt that they will take their constitutional duty very seriously.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. It would be easy if 2/3 of the senate weren’t compromised.

That's just stupid. They aren't compromised. They likely disagree that this nonsense is so severe as to be a HIGH CRIME, but I have no doubt that they will take their constitutional duty very seriously.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. It would be easy if 2/3 of the senate weren’t compromised.

That's just stupid. They aren't compromised. They likely disagree that this nonsense is so severe as to be a HIGH CRIME, but I have no doubt that they will take their constitutional duty very seriously.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Yes. It would be easy if 2/3 of the senate weren’t compromised.

That's just stupid. They aren't compromised. They likely disagree that this nonsense is so severe as to be a HIGH CRIME, but I have no doubt that they will take their constitutional duty very seriously.

Anonymous wrote:Yes. It would be easy if 2/3 of the senate weren’t compromised.

Anonymous wrote:Yes. It would be easy if 2/3 of the senate weren’t compromised.

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.

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.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:So OP I just want to make sure I understand you clearly.
It is your opinion as a patriotic American that a President can ask his personal attorney and a bunch of corrupt people (Igor and Lev) to conspire with a corrupt foreign official (lutsenko) to spread misinformation about a US ambassador to undermine her efforts to follow official US policy (protecting Ukraine from Russia and bolstering anti corruption efforts in Ukraine). It is also ok with you that these efforts jeopardized the personal safety of our Ambassador so she had to leave the country with a few hours notice. Her departure left the way clear for the three amigos (Rudy, Perry and Sondland) to pursue financial deals that benefited them and their donors/associates and also enabled them to pressure the Ukrainian govt to investigate the President’s political opponent. This is in addition to using tax payer funded military aid to extort these investigations and a public announcement by Zelensky on CNN. Thanks to the whistleblower the scheme was not successful but not for want for trying
The other consideration is that every malign foreign actor now knows that all they have to do is influence a highly suggestible US President with a conspiracy theory that is in his personal self interest and he will run with it and even attack his own institutions to pursue it. They can this destroy our national security apparatus from within (our intelligence community, the FBI, the State Department). Our IC agents and our diplomats are increasingly vulnerable. As Yovanovitch stated in her testimony the system is failing when US foreign policy can be hijacked by corrupt foreign actors. OP the stakes are incredibly high.

This article details how foreign governments are now using smear campaigns calculated to play to the President’s biases to get rid of US career diplomats. This is a recipe for widespread foreign influence on US foreign policy

Anonymous wrote:So OP I just want to make sure I understand you clearly.
It is your opinion as a patriotic American that a President can ask his personal attorney and a bunch of corrupt people (Igor and Lev) to conspire with a corrupt foreign official (lutsenko) to spread misinformation about a US ambassador to undermine her efforts to follow official US policy (protecting Ukraine from Russia and bolstering anti corruption efforts in Ukraine). It is also ok with you that these efforts jeopardized the personal safety of our Ambassador so she had to leave the country with a few hours notice. Her departure left the way clear for the three amigos (Rudy, Perry and Sondland) to pursue financial deals that benefited them and their donors/associates and also enabled them to pressure the Ukrainian govt to investigate the President’s political opponent. This is in addition to using tax payer funded military aid to extort these investigations and a public announcement by Zelensky on CNN. Thanks to the whistleblower the scheme was not successful but not for want for trying
The other consideration is that every malign foreign actor now knows that all they have to do is influence a highly suggestible US President with a conspiracy theory that is in his personal self interest and he will run with it and even attack his own institutions to pursue it. They can this destroy our national security apparatus from within (our intelligence community, the FBI, the State Department). Our IC agents and our diplomats are increasingly vulnerable. As Yovanovitch stated in her testimony the system is failing when US foreign policy can be hijacked by corrupt foreign actors. OP the stakes are incredibly high.

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.

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.