Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly it's inappropriate. I'm not sure if criminal, more sloppy incompetence.

But it's not impeachable, and there is zero chance for the Senate to convict.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being an impeachable high crime and 1 being jaywalking, this is maybe a 6 or 7.

The term "high crime" refers to the position of the person doing the crime, not to the type of crime. That said, "bribery" is specified in the Constitution as an impeachable offense. Both by the modern US legal definition and by the definition of the term "bribery" as the authors of the Constitution understood it, the current president and vice president appear to have committed the offense.

Seriously, of perjury about a blowjob is impeachable, how is this not impeachable? What would constitute an impeachable offense in your mind?

Good question. Treason. True bribery where the president is personally enriched (Illinois governor selling Senate seats). Nixon level obstruction. Not sleazy incompetence like this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly it's inappropriate. I'm not sure if criminal, more sloppy incompetence.

But it's not impeachable, and there is zero chance for the Senate to convict.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being an impeachable high crime and 1 being jaywalking, this is maybe a 6 or 7.

The term "high crime" refers to the position of the person doing the crime, not to the type of crime. That said, "bribery" is specified in the Constitution as an impeachable offense. Both by the modern US legal definition and by the definition of the term "bribery" as the authors of the Constitution understood it, the current president and vice president appear to have committed the offense.

Seriously, of perjury about a blowjob is impeachable, how is this not impeachable? What would constitute an impeachable offense in your mind?

Good question. Treason. True bribery where the president is personally enriched (Illinois governor selling Senate seats). Nixon level obstruction. Not sleazy incompetence like this.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP is why we need to bring back civics in high school. Or OP is Russian.

+1

I'm a pretty good civics student. Political science major fwiw.

Out of 60 or so presidential terms, there have been 4 impeachment inquiries, 0 convictions, and lots and lots of political scandals and bad acts. The ACT has to be so bad that it rises above partisanship and the president's own party clearly recognizes the bad behavior and the danger to the country. This doesn't qualify.

The fact that we all know that the Senate is not going to convict, that there really isn't even a chance for the Senate to convict, means by definition it is not a high crime. unless you truly think that a majority of the Senate, the most politically insulated office holders in our entire country other than judges, are evil brainwashed people. That is absurd.

I’m the PP who said you are an argument for bringing back civics. I have a degree in Pol Sci too since you mention it. You don’t understand government but I’ll let you off the hook because I’m assuming you might be 19. Either you’re interning with the Heritage Foundation , or you’ll learn with time.

Just turned 50 but not sure how that's relevant? I've read the Constitution, studied the Constitution, read all the Federalist papers, studied the history and interpretation. I'm sure you have as well. If you have, assuming you don't live in a bubble, then you would know there are other views here that are not exactly obscure.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Clearly it's inappropriate. I'm not sure if criminal, more sloppy incompetence.

But it's not impeachable, and there is zero chance for the Senate to convict.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being an impeachable high crime and 1 being jaywalking, this is maybe a 6 or 7.

The term "high crime" refers to the position of the person doing the crime, not to the type of crime. That said, "bribery" is specified in the Constitution as an impeachable offense. Both by the modern US legal definition and by the definition of the term "bribery" as the authors of the Constitution understood it, the current president and vice president appear to have committed the offense.

Seriously, of perjury about a blowjob is impeachable, how is this not impeachable? What would constitute an impeachable offense in your mind?

Anonymous wrote:Clearly it's inappropriate. I'm not sure if criminal, more sloppy incompetence.

But it's not impeachable, and there is zero chance for the Senate to convict.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being an impeachable high crime and 1 being jaywalking, this is maybe a 6 or 7.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP is why we need to bring back civics in high school. Or OP is Russian.

+1

I'm a pretty good civics student. Political science major fwiw.

Out of 60 or so presidential terms, there have been 4 impeachment inquiries, 0 convictions, and lots and lots of political scandals and bad acts. The ACT has to be so bad that it rises above partisanship and the president's own party clearly recognizes the bad behavior and the danger to the country. This doesn't qualify.

The fact that we all know that the Senate is not going to convict, that there really isn't even a chance for the Senate to convict, means by definition it is not a high crime. unless you truly think that a majority of the Senate, the most politically insulated office holders in our entire country other than judges, are evil brainwashed people. That is absurd.

I’m the PP who said you are an argument for bringing back civics. I have a degree in Pol Sci too since you mention it. You don’t understand government but I’ll let you off the hook because I’m assuming you might be 19. Either you’re interning with the Heritage Foundation , or you’ll learn with time.

Anonymous wrote:Clearly it's inappropriate. I'm not sure if criminal, more sloppy incompetence.

But it's not impeachable, and there is zero chance for the Senate to convict.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being an impeachable high crime and 1 being jaywalking, this is maybe a 6 or 7.

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.

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

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, majority favors impeachment and removal.

There is no other explanation for the senators to not stand up to trump as he destroys our national security, unless many of them are beholden to Putin via NRA donations and plants in their home states (cough McConnell) and other Russian money, and the rest are too chickenshit to vote on their conscience.

The paranoia over Russia just kills me. I vividly remember Obama mocking Senator Romney for mentioning Russia as a severe threat.

Paranoia? Our national security agencies have confirmed that they interfered in the election. Cambridge Analytica, anyone? Just shut up with paranoia. It just makes you sound like a bot. .

They interfere with every election and have been doing it since the Bolsheviks. Labor unions weree always infiltrated with Soviets.

Anonymous wrote:Clearly it's inappropriate. I'm not sure if criminal, more sloppy incompetence.

But it's not impeachable, and there is zero chance for the Senate to convict.

On a scale of 1 to 10, with 10 being an impeachable high crime and 1 being jaywalking, this is maybe a 6 or 7.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP is why we need to bring back civics in high school. Or OP is Russian.

+1

I'm a pretty good civics student. Political science major fwiw.

Out of 60 or so presidential terms, there have been 4 impeachment inquiries, 0 convictions, and lots and lots of political scandals and bad acts. The ACT has to be so bad that it rises above partisanship and the president's own party clearly recognizes the bad behavior and the danger to the country. This doesn't qualify.

The fact that we all know that the Senate is not going to convict, that there really isn't even a chance for the Senate to convict, means by definition it is not a high crime. unless you truly think that a majority of the Senate, the most politically insulated office holders in our entire country other than judges, are evil brainwashed people. That is absurd.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, majority favors impeachment and removal.

There is no other explanation for the senators to not stand up to trump as he destroys our national security, unless many of them are beholden to Putin via NRA donations and plants in their home states (cough McConnell) and other Russian money, and the rest are too chickenshit to vote on their conscience.

The paranoia over Russia just kills me. I vividly remember Obama mocking Senator Romney for mentioning Russia as a severe threat.

Paranoia? Our national security agencies have confirmed that they interfered in the election. Cambridge Analytica, anyone? Just shut up with paranoia. It just makes you sound like a bot. .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, majority favors impeachment and removal.

There is no other explanation for the senators to not stand up to trump as he destroys our national security, unless many of them are beholden to Putin via NRA donations and plants in their home states (cough McConnell) and other Russian money, and the rest are too chickenshit to vote on their conscience.

The paranoia over Russia just kills me. I vividly remember Obama mocking Senator Romney for mentioning Russia as a severe threat.

Paranoia? Our national security agencies have confirmed that they interfered in the election. Cambridge Analytica, anyone? Just shut up with paranoia. It just makes you sound like a bot. .

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:Again, majority favors impeachment and removal.

There is no other explanation for the senators to not stand up to trump as he destroys our national security, unless many of them are beholden to Putin via NRA donations and plants in their home states (cough McConnell) and other Russian money, and the rest are too chickenshit to vote on their conscience.

The paranoia over Russia just kills me. I vividly remember Obama mocking Senator Romney for mentioning Russia as a severe threat.