Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1175145)

Start with the Constitution for Dummies version of Art. II Section 4

The President, the Vice President, and other officers of the United States, can be kicked out of office (impeached) if they are found guilty of double-crossing (betraying) the country, offering people money or getting money to do something dishonest, or other really big crimes.

But if your reading comprehension level is higher than that you could move on to this explanation of how Trump’s conduct vis-à-vis Ukraine does rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor under Art. II, § 4 of the Constitution written by Neal Katyal and George Conway and excerpted from WAPO

“The ... phrase ... ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ ... was a historical term of art, derived from impeachments in the British Parliament. ... The framers ... knew what it meant. It meant, as Alexander Hamilton later phrased it, ‘the abuse or violation of some public trust.’”

“The framers viewed the president as a fiduciary, the government of the United States as a sacred trust and the people of the United States as the beneficiaries of that trust.”

”They believed that a president would break his oath if he engaged in self-dealing — if he used his powers to put his own interests above the nation’s. That would be the paradigmatic case for impeachment.”

“That’s exactly what appears to be at issue today. ... It appears that the president might have used his official powers ... to leverage a foreign government into helping him defeat a potential political opponent in the United States.”

“If Trump did that, it would be the ultimate impeachable act. Trump has already done more than enough to warrant impeachment ... with his relentless attempts ... to sabotage the Mueller investigation ....”

“The president’s efforts were impeachable because, in committing those obstructive acts, he put his personal interests above the nation’s: He tried to stop an investigation into whether a hostile foreign power, Russia, ....”

“... tried to interfere with our democracy — ... because he found it personally embarrassing. Trump breached his duties... not only because he likely broke the law but also because, through his disregard for the law, he put his self-interest first.”

“The current whistle=blowing allegations ... are even worse. Unlike the allegations of conspiracy with Russia in 2016 ..., these concern Trump’s actions as president ... and his exercise of presidential powers over foreign policy ....”

“It is high time for Congress to do its duty .... Given how Trump seems ... bent on putting himself above the law, something like what might have happened with Ukraine — abusing presidential authority for personal benefit — was almost inevitable.”

“Yet if that is what occurred, part of the responsibility lies with Congress, which has failed to act on the blatant obstruction ... detailed months ago.

“Congressional procrastination has probably emboldened Trump, ....”

“... and it risks emboldening future presidents who might turn out to be of his sorry ilk. To borrow John Dean’s ... metaphor once again, there is a cancer on the presidency, and cancers, if not removed, only grow.”

”Congress bears the duty to use the tools provided by the Constitution to remove that cancer now, before it’s too late.”

“As Elbridge Gerry put it at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, ‘A good magistrate will not fear impeachments. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.’ By now, Congress should know which one Trump is.”

or this:
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/public...h-misdemeanors

or this:
https://t.co/jh8leocLkk?amp=1

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1175137)

Yea, asking to investigate something where there's no evidence of wrongdoing, subject just happens to be the leading political opponent and you're only interested in corruption that benefits you personally.

Right.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1175141)

Um wha?

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1175146)

"The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

"Leave him alone, he's on a roll."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by The Dad Fisherman (Post 1175146)

"The Germans bombed Pearl Harbor?"

"Leave him alone, he's on a roll."
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1175124)

Keep defending the Liar in Chief, he claims that we fund Ukraine and Europe does not? Just another in the long list of lies.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1175147)

There is no solid evidence, only assumption or conjecture, that Trump asked for assistance for personal gain.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1175151)

I believe he said something to the effect that they don't do enough, not that they didn't do anything. Ukraine President agreed with him and said that the US helps more than other of his European neighbors.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1175153)

If you're speaking of a quid pro quo as far as evidence goes
1. Don’t need one
2. It’s arguably direct
3. It’s certainly indirect

But ask a prosecuting attorney if he would have enough evidence to feel confident of convicting Trump and his co-conspirators on conspiracy, bribery, campaign finance violations and other charges. There are rarely smoking guns in any of those cases, then again most perpetrators don't say I did it, or look it's alright, they committed that crime also.

But it doesn't matter, that is why it is held in Congress. It is a political event. Because what you do as President is and should be held to a far higher standard than what you do as a citizen.

The criminal trial comes later.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1175148)

As an aside, what's laughable, the supposed Trump/Russian collusion was investigated without actual evidence that it existed.

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1175157)

If evidence exists you don't need an investigation, you go to trial.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1175145)

Start with the Constitution for Dummies version of Art. II Section 4

The President, the Vice President, and other officers of the United States, can be kicked out of office (impeached) if they are found guilty of double-crossing (betraying) the country, offering people money or getting money to do something dishonest, or other really big crimes.

Trump has not been found guilty of any of those things while being President. Nor does asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional fall under any of those crimes.

But if your reading comprehension level is higher than that you could move on to this explanation of how Trump’s conduct vis-à-vis Ukraine does rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor under Art. II, § 4 of the Constitution written by Neal Katyal and George Conway and excerpted from WAPO

Oh goodie . . . George Conway. His explanations are gold.

“The ... phrase ... ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ ... was a historical term of art, derived from impeachments in the British Parliament. ... The framers ... knew what it meant. It meant, as Alexander Hamilton later phrased it, ‘the abuse or violation of some public trust.’”

That doesn't explain how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional is a high crime and misdemeanor.

“The framers viewed the president as a fiduciary, the government of the United States as a sacred trust and the people of the United States as the beneficiaries of that trust.”

That doesn't explain how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional is a high crime or misdemeanor.

”They believed that a president would break his oath if he engaged in self-dealing — if he used his powers to put his own interests above the nation’s. That would be the paradigmatic case for impeachment.”

That doesn't explain how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional is a high crime and misdemeanor nor even how it puts his own interests above the nation's.

“That’s exactly what appears to be at issue today. ... It appears that the president might have used his official powers ... to leverage a foreign government into helping him defeat a potential political opponent in the United States.”

"exactly . . . appears"? Appears is conjecture. It can appear any way you want to frame it. But all that is "known" is that he asked for assistance from a foreign power which may have information that could clarify whether or not Americans (including the Bidens) had done something criminal or unconstitutional. Whether that could help him in the eyes of the electorate (which it should if the information so demonstrates) that is an unavoidable collateral result.

“If Trump did that, it would be the ultimate impeachable act. Trump has already done more than enough to warrant impeachment ... with his relentless attempts ... to sabotage the Mueller investigation ....”

"IF Trump did that"? That's supposed to explain how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional is a high crime or misdemeanor?

“The president’s efforts were impeachable because, in committing those obstructive acts, he put his personal interests above the nation’s: He tried to stop an investigation into whether a hostile foreign power, Russia, ....”

Wait, so now we're switching from "if" to "did"? And from the phone call to the Mueller stuff? The Mueller stuff is over and it was determined that he "didn't" in one case and not sufficient evidence that he did in the other. Which in a court of law dismisses both counts.

“... tried to interfere with our democracy — ... because he found it personally embarrassing. Trump breached his duties... not only because he likely broke the law but also because, through his disregard for the law, he put his self-interest first.”

Now this is pure, unsubstantiated conjecture. But you do resort to that a lot.

“The current whistle=blowing allegations ... are even worse. Unlike the allegations of conspiracy with Russia in 2016 ..., these concern Trump’s actions as president ... and his exercise of presidential powers over foreign policy ....”

Asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional is worse? I think his reasoning, or lack of it, is worse.

“It is high time for Congress to do its duty .... Given how Trump seems ... bent on putting himself above the law, something like what might have happened with Ukraine — abusing presidential authority for personal benefit — was almost inevitable.”

You just love this "might have happened" and "almost inevitable" kind of stuff. It's your kind of argumentation. Conjecture, innuendo, possibility, maybe, could be . . . But, problem is, it doesn't explain how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional is a high crime or misdemeanor.

“As Elbridge Gerry put it at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, ‘A good magistrate will not fear impeachments. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.’ By now, Congress should know which one Trump is.”

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1175166)

And it sure does not explain how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional is a high crime or misdemeanor.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1175166)

Apparently Congress (you know, ALL the members of the House and SENATE) don't "know" or agree which one Trump is. But you sure think you do. Trouble is, just piling on one conjecture on top of another, in huge quantities doesn't give validity to any of them. And it sure does not explain how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional is a high crime or misdemeanor.

Originally Posted by scottw (Post 1175167)

Constitution for dummies...

The main role of the executive branch is to enforce the nation's laws. It also leads the country's relations with foreign nations, commands the armed forces, and even participates in the lawmaking process. The Constitution makes the president of the United States the head of the executive branch.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1175182)

This is how investigation’s work. Often you start with hearsay, which helps you identify witnesses, just like what’s in the whistleblower complaint. This is where public corruption investigations often start.
If this was all above board, why was it hidden from the rest of the administration along with communications with Putin and MBS?
As more and more emerges, the narrative gets harder to maintain.
But keep believing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1175182)

This is how investigation’s work. Often you start with hearsay, which helps you identify witnesses, just like what’s in the whistleblower complaint. This is where public corruption investigations often start.
If this was all above board, why was it hidden from the rest of the administration along with communications with Putin and MBS?
As more and more emerges, the narrative gets harder to maintain.
But keep believing
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1175183)

On July 16, 2018 Trump reiterated he took Putin’s word while betraying the United States. Last night we learned in 2017 not only did Trump acknowledge Russia meddled in the 2016 election. He told the Russians in the Oval Office he wasn’t concerned.

Putin’s Puppet
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Originally Posted by spence (Post 1175186)

It’s past hearsay. The IG has already established credibility.

Detbuch can spread all the disinformation he wants, the facts aren’t changing.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1175190)

Remember this
"You don't even have to be convicted of a crime to lose your job in this constitutional republic if this body determines that your conduct as a public official is clearly out of bounds in your role because impeachment is not about punishment. Impeachment is about cleansing the office. Impeachment is about restoring honor in integrity to the office you don't even have to be convicted of a crime. Impeachment is about restoring honor and integrity to the office."

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1175193)

Is this some Progressive interpretation? The Constitution specifies high crimes and misdemeanors. Honor and integrity may well be needed to make our constitutional republic function as it should. But those are subject to the eyes of the beholder.

On the other hand, subjecting the Constitution merely to the eye of the beholder lacks the honor and integrity required to appropriate any meaning to it at all. If it is subject merely to opinion, it is worthless other than a document that permits any slight of hand the beholder employs in order to fool the rest of us.

The Constitution specifies high crimes and misdemeanors in order to impeach. It does not even suggest that accusations of lack of honor or integrity are enough. Suggesting so is dishonorable. It lacks integrity. It is a mischievous trick to falsely use the Constitution as any means to impeach.

Originally Posted by Pete F. (Post 1175194)

It’s a quote from Lindsey Graham in 1999.

Originally Posted by detbuch (Post 1175195)

Is that supposed to make it golden? Lindsey Graham has said a lot of chit in the past. I don't think you particularly like what he has been saying lately. And I don't know the full context of what he was saying. But, as for the snippet you posted, standing alone without further context, the quote amounts to BS. That you give it any credence, for me, just reflects the hypothetical, insinuatory and inflammatory stuff you constantly pedal. And, for me, it lacks sincerity. Are you going to give credence to all the rest of what Graham is saying about the whistleblower stuff, or the collusion stuff, or his praise of Trump's efforts and policies? And BTW Graham, when he was buddy, buddy with McCain, both were semi-Progressives. He seems to have stiffened his "conservative" back lately. Real or not? Maybe depends on which way the wind blows. Lindsey Graham is a consummate politician .