Impeachment Doesn’t Require a Crime

[Smyrna]

@NuffSaid

Sorry, but its true.

The only thing that you and i know is true is…you bought it. You actually don’t know squat and neither do I.

[Smyrna]

@Plasmaball

He wasnt…you are promoting a lie from john solomon…

You got suckered…

Coming from you…that’s a compliment. Thanks.

[Plasmaball]

Facepalm

[Camp]

This is well thought through.

I am going to disagree with the Impoundment Control Act and the hold. The President is acting as a final check in the system and did have sufficient cause to want to examine the conditions before approving the release.

Otherwise why have the executive as part of the process at all?

Biden generated a lot of questions with his 2018 video brag and portrayal of how he took credit for Shokin being terminated. Six hours…a billion loan…one prosecutor.

It was too blatant to not examine the circumstances with Hunter Biden, the “dormant” investigation and looking the other way.

There was WAY too much wasted time and election 2020 implication to have me consider that this was in any way the right path. A house censure would have been proper if Trump was so afoul of the Impoundment Control Act that Congress had to intervene.

[NuffSaid]

@Camp

This is well thought through.

I am going to disagree with the Impoundment Control Act and the hold. The President is acting as a final check in the system and did have sufficient cause to want to examine the conditions before approving the release.

So I ask an honest question -

If corruption was so important to Trump, why wasn’t the same hold provisions placed in 2017? 2018? Ukraine didn’t become a corrupt country overnight.

[Camp]

The Biden Brag video.

We just found out Trump was also right about Puerto Rico hurricane relief corruption.

The bad news for D is most middle class voters agree that the amount of $ we toss to corrupt regimes around the world is obscene.

So now we need to figure out for 2020 if the real corruption fighter is Trump or Biden.

[GrandWazoo]

@NuffSaid

Nah, this is it.
One and done.

And what if, when it is over that there will be evidence that nails him? Boy would the Republicans look dumb.

[NuffSaid]

@Camp

The Biden Brag video.

We just found out Trump was also right about Puerto Rico hurricane relief corruption.

The bad news for D is most middle class voters agree that the amount of $ we toss to corrupt regimes around the world is obscene.

So now we need to figure out for 2020 if the real corruption fighter is Trump or Biden.

So you cannot even answer an honest question.

Sad, really.

[Eagle-Keeper]

Good post. I’m pretty much in the same camp you are. I completely agree that looking into how Hunter Biden got that position was completely appropriate. The timing and the approach was not. I would have felt the same way had it been Jeb Bush’s son and Obama decided to look into it. Regarding “high crimes and misdemeanor’s” I agree with you as well. For me and likely the intent of the founders was about harming the country. Holding up foreign does not hurt America (one can of course can make the case that money should rather be used to help Americans) and is not something most (if any) Americans care about for that matter.

[Eagle-Keeper]

@Camp

I am going to disagree with the Impoundment Control Act and the hold. The President is acting as a final check in the system and did have sufficient cause to want to examine the conditions before approving the release.

Good point. Why then have the President involved at all if He/She cannot hold the aid?

[DougBH]

@H_Arendt

I did not say the President was violating foreign policy. I said he was violating his oath of office. There is no way the founders would have accepted the notion that since the President is responsible for formulating foreign policy he can craft that policy for personal gain.

Sounds like you would be someone who would be very concerned about a President or VP crafting foreign policy for the purpose of making his family wealthy. A credible accusation of such a thing should be worthy of investigation, no?

[AmusedObserver]

@Guvnah

@thinkingman

where did trump “clearly” abuse power?

He got elected.

“Some” people will overlook or forgive virtually anything for a few judgeships and a couple extra dollars in their pocket.

[AmusedObserver]

@zantax

How can the person who is constitutionally tasked with setting US foreign policy, subvert US foreign policy?

Using foreign policy as a vehicle solely or primarily for personal gain is an abuse of power.

“Technically not illegal” is not a sufficient defense in this case.

[zantax]

@AmusedObserver

@zantax

How can the person who is constitutionally tasked with setting US foreign policy, subvert US foreign policy?

Using foreign policy as a vehicle solely or primarily for personal gain is an abuse of power.

“Technically not illegal” is not a sufficient defense in this case.

I haven’t made any defense, merely pointing out that an abuse of power is not the same thing as violating US policy by the person tasked with setting US foreign policy.

[H_Arendt]

@DougBH

@H_Arendt

I did not say the President was violating foreign policy. I said he was violating his oath of office. There is no way the founders would have accepted the notion that since the President is responsible for formulating foreign policy he can craft that policy for personal gain.

Sounds like you would be someone who would be very concerned about a President or VP crafting foreign policy for the purpose of making his family wealthy. A credible accusation of such a thing should be worthy of investigation, no?

Hypothetically yes. If you could imagine a high placed White House Official who was desperate to re-finance a very bad Manhattan real estate investment that might lead to some serious conflicts of interest.

[PurpnGold]

@zantax

I haven’t made any defense, merely pointing out that an abuse of power is not the same thing as violating US policy by the person tasked with setting US foreign policy.

Can a governor responsible for the budget plan subvert that budget plan by using the fund for his own personal home or business?

[kingarthur65]

@Safiel

Trump Impeachment Trial: Impeachment Doesn't Require a Crime | National Review

As usual, the National Review gets it right here. Republicans, driven by the obstinacy of the President, are making arguments that are implausible to embarrassing.

Abuse of power can certainly rise to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor. It can also be a peccadillo. Same as if the President committed a named crime.

Republicans should admit that Trump abused his power, as he clearly did. They should then argue that while an abuse occurred, it does not rise to the level of a high crime and misdemeanor and thus does not merit removal from office.

National Review gets it right and I agree with them. Republicans should admit to Trump’s wrong doing, but acquit him as a peccadillo. Then leave it to the voters to affirm or reject that judgement in November.

It’s too late. There have been many jumping off points where Republicans had an opportunity to agree with the accusation, but they have all chosen to deny all evidence that has been presented.

More and more evidence will come out well before November. Changing the position of these politicians will make them look as if they willfully ignored the evidence and undermined the constitutional process our founders created to address potentially harmful acts by our President.

They have missed their opportunity to call this a peccadillo.

[thinkingman]

@AmusedObserver

@Guvnah

@thinkingman

where did trump “clearly” abuse power?

He got elected.

“Some” people will overlook or forgive virtually anything for a few judgeships and a couple extra dollars in their pocket.

what should they “not” overlook?

[thinkingman]

@Safiel

@thinkingman

where did trump “clearly” abuse power?

He ordered the withholding of Ukrainian aid which was legally REQUIRED to be dispensed in accordance with the Impoundment Control Act. Even if it had no practical effect on the actual delivery of aid to Ukraine, it was an abuse of power.

Now, should Trump be removed from office for that abuse.

No.

This PARTICULAR abuse of power amounts to a peccadillo, not a high crime and misdemeanor. But abuse of power can rise to a high crime and misdemeanor.

I support the investigation. I support the impeachment. I would oppose conviction and removal from office. But I do believe the strong rebuke that Impeachment provides is needed to show that this sort of behavior is intolerable.

BTW, in general, I believe that the standards should be very high for removal of a President from office, higher than that for removal of a Federal Judge or a Cabinet member. Presidents are elected and it should be difficult to remove an elected official. On the other hand, they should know clearly that they are not permitted to run amuck.

To summarize:

Trump abused power.

That abuse amounted to a peccadillo, not high crimes and misdemeanors.

The House was right to investigate and impeach.

The Senate will be right to acquit, on the grounds that it was a peccadillo.

if you support impeachment, you support removal of office because that is the purpose of impeachment. so that’s nonsense that you just want “rebuke”

it can be argued that trump has the right to temporarily stop military aid (which was released) in light of potential corruption in ukraine. it is also very debatable that this even violated impoundment.

that you think this is impeachable only exposes your support of the democrat narrative

[AmusedObserver]

@thinkingman

@AmusedObserver

@Guvnah

@thinkingman

where did trump “clearly” abuse power?

He got elected.

“Some” people will overlook or forgive virtually anything for a few judgeships and a couple extra dollars in their pocket.

what should they “not” overlook?

Trump’s attempt to extort / bribe a foreign power, using our tax money, solely for his personal gain.

It’s glaringly obvious to any rational thinking person.