It is UNCONSTITUTIONAL and UNJUST

It almost seems like we would do better to have two completely separate discussions. I meant, for me, I would want to hear from the whistleblower as well as anyone else who might have some unique insight into the entire relationship post Trump being elected, pre phone call, into this whole matter.

That is also because, “High crimes and misdemeanors,” which we both accept as non-clearly defined, is an affirmative charge. Something happened. The, WHY it happened doesn’t necessarily have to be relevant, but it can be. I would maintain that, in this case, the why behind it could also be partially exculpatory. Did Ukraine already agree to do the investigation without being pressured? If they did, then Trump is simply acting to ensure Ukraine does what it already said it was going to do, which is just good foreign relations. It would be inadvisable to signal to a foreign country, even if an ally, that you’re going to hold up your end of the deal (do what you say you will do) even if they don’t hold up to what they said they are going to do…because that can affect completely unrelated things.

Therefore, where you have an ill-defined charge, then what might count as exculpatory is -by extension- also ill-defined. It is for each Senator (and us in the context of having this conversation) to decide the questions:

1.) What is a high crime or misdemeanor?

2.) What happened?

3.) Could what happened even be a high crime or misdemeanor?

4.) Are there factors that could sometimes make it no longer a high crime or misdemeanor? (Exculpatory considerations)

Another potentially exculpatory element would be whether or not there is any reason to believe inappropriate conduct occurred vis-a-vis the Bidens. Granted, that would not change the legitimacy or illegitimacy of withholding the aid, but what it would do is result in the accusation/investigation not being completely unfounded. Even if not, then you get into intent, did President Trump have any reason to believe that inappropriate conduct occurred? Any national official with ties to the Ukraine whatsoever would have knowledge in this regard, perhaps regardless of level.

Here’s a question: If you went to a grocery store and wanted to know how the cash registers work: Would you first ask the owner of the store or a cashier?

I agree that there is no need for the whistleblower to tell me about the call itself if I have other accurate means of knowing about the call. I want the whistleblower to tell me about other stuff, per the above. I’m also not inclined to focus on one witness. If we want to even pretend that this Impeachment/Removal is this huge, legitimate, meaningful, non-politically driven and solemn process…then we should want to talk to as many people as possible. That neither side really seems to want that tells me everything that I need to know.

The Republicans don’t want evidence to be introduced that would harm their position, the Democrats would probably prefer nothing that could be seen as exculpatory is introduced. Stalemate. Both of these things are understandable, not legally, but politically. I think both sides are more-or-less fine with where the public opinion status quo is right now, but both would also like to swing it more to their favor a bit. The Democrats made the first move, the Republicans seem to control the terms of the last move, the Democrats don’t like that one bit.

I’ll stipulate that his motives don’t matter.

It is a slippery slope, but the President is the absolute authority for the entire country, from an Executive Branch standpoint, excepting only those things that laws or The Constitution would state to the contrary. I guess also states, he really shouldn’t be involved in Executive affairs that only concern one individual state. I’m not arguing against a mechanism of oversight, I’m arguing in terms of what I think could happen and why I see the possibility as negative. The possibility that you have stated would be positive. In any case, while I do not love the status quo in every instance, a great deal of forethought must go into the potential consequences of disrupting it. At least the status quo is predictable and generally leads to predictable outcomes.

We might come back to this. For now, even if we assume it was illegal, why Impeachment/Removal as opposed to mere censure?

That’s a really hard might come back to this. That bullshit is so far in the weeds that I can definitely understand why it is not the principal argument that is made directly to the public. Of course, considering that those were only two of…perhaps thousands of laws…the notion of a President who has never broken a law of this nature during a full tenure is fantastical to me.

My point? Do we want to Impeach/Remove over every little thing?

They should hire me to do that stuff, instead. He missed a there/their. The first time I read it, I was astounded that such a grammatical oversight would appear on an official Government website. It seemed like Zelensky said he would do, “All of the investigations,” before Biden was specifically mentioned. I want to know what order these things happened in outside of the call.

I guess we have no legal standing to compel Zelensky to testify, but it would be awesome if we did and I think it should, at least, be requested. FaceTime is effective and generally reliable. Also, if the aid was contingent on announcing the investigation, why not announce the investigation? It seemed from what little of the phone call we have that Zelensky was fine with that.

I disagree. I don’t know why I should ever care about what some foreign leader says.

Would it be a lie, though? Is there no evidence sufficient to justify an investigation? These are important questions, at least to me.

I don’t know because I have a problem with the whole underlying thing even being illegal and also understand the motivations. Here is a short list of some of my general thoughts on the matter:

1.) While U.S.-based, Facebook is a company and social media platform offering its services to the entire world. Because of that, there is no responsibility whatsoever for any Russian to not do something on Facebook that would violate U.S. laws unless Facebook has a specific policy that U.S. laws are to be adhered to on Facebook. Even if it did, then the onus would be on Facebook to do something about the Russian user.

2.) Foreign interests can potentially have reasons to be concerned with who wins the U.S. Presidency.

3.) Because of that, I would counter that foreign interests (though it didn’t happen here) should be permitted to influence U.S. Elections in any way that they want to provided that way is transparent and does not directly benefit the candidate by way of the method itself. “Russians for Trump,” is something that I wouldn’t have a problem with, as long as it behaved as its own independent organization.

I know, I know, “But, we don’t want foreign powers buying our elections!”

Thing is, they couldn’t, because the whole thing would be transparent.

“RUSSIA wants Trump to win? Are you serious? Shit, what’s going on in Russia these days? Screw that, no way I am voting for Trump.”

“Russia WANTS Trump to win? Sweet! They could be a very beneficial partner for us to have if we worked with them more closely.”

More than that, the candidates would have the opportunity, if they felt the need, to openly renounce the help of the country that wanted them to win.

One last thing that I would like to pitch into this is that Mr Trump, with all his quirkiness, is acceptable and successful ONLY because the reality of the alternative is and has been so horribly, horribly bad and have more recently proven to be even worse than earlier estimated. Just look at what the socialist/democrat party proposes versus what they could ever deliver.

Before you ever change anything that you think is bad, carefully examine the real, actual alternative, not socialist propaganda fantasy. The reality of Mr Trump is far, far better than the false fantasy of the Left.

There were over 100 presidential candidates. To say all the choices were bad is to be a media whore.

The media lies and lies and lies - it’s a corperatocracy.

Carleas wrote

The Arpaio pardon is an impeachable offense? I thought he did legally separate himself from his business when he took office, signed over his businesses to his kids. I haven’t heard anything to the contrary. I’ll need evidence. Why does he have to read briefing and why can’t he be told what is in them quicker and more succinctly. What are his repeated lies? Name three big ones out of the 1,000,000 that have been reported? Come on the number of lies grows exponentially by the week. I don’t understand your descriptions of your proofs about Trump’s cognitive deficits or general demeanor.

Basically, Trump’s morality is abhorred, end of story?

Which are you disputing?
Arpaio pardon; failure to separate himself from his business interests; refusal to read briefings; likely cognitive deficits;
repeated lies; general demeanor.

See who can take some fucking person that says something like that seriously?

No one who claims as much should be taken seriously unless you’re in the mood to debate something. I’m in the mood and need the practice.

I am Pro-America, Pro-Constitution, Pro-Free-Speech, and Anti-Deep-State.

The Democratic Party has become severely corrupt. Joe Biden committed a Quid Pro Quo, and yet, the DNC wants to launch an impeachment and attempt to remove a duly-elected President, even though Biden has committed the crime that they are charging Trump? Ridiculous! This is completely corrupt and unjust! Democrats have gone way too far. This is an abuse-of-power of Congress, to so blatantly launch 100% purely-Partisan impeachments. Impeachment was never intended to be a Partisan tool, used by a One-party Congress. Furthermore, the corrupt manner in which the impeachment was ran, charged, without Defense, without Rules, without Due Process, and in contempt of the US Constitution, is a smear against the entire US public, our Republic, our system, and even the core of US Governance. It is a dark stain, in Modern History, to attempt such a Coup.

The Deep State is another matter of contention. Trump was elected to ‘Fire’ people. And he does. These lifelong politicians and Deep State operatives have lived comfortably, without threat of being fired for bad jobs, negligence, or for simply not doing their jobs at all. This corruption has festered, which is why Trump was elected in the first place. The DNC, the liberal-left, haven’t figured this out yet. Those who push for Trump, are Anti-Establishment and Anti-Corruption.

Thus the Full Corruption is on display, and struggling to survive. The Deep State, the Media Mob, those who hate America, our Constitution, our Republic, are feeling threatened. And they should be threatened. They should be rooted-out, exposed, and destroyed. These forces are fundamentally evil, and Anti-American.

If anybody threatens to undermine the US Republic, Constitution, and Democracy, as the DNC has done with this sham-impeachment, then a strong counter-force must occur. If you abuse your power, trying to veto the votes of millions of Americans, WITHOUT CAUSE and UNJUSTLY!? Then you must pay a severe price. And I hope this toll is exacted soon, for the liberal-left and DNC.

To attempt to remove a duly-elected President, for NO CRIME COMMITTED?!?! is about as corrupt as you can get, in US history. These are dark days, and perhaps, many more to come, until these corruptions and treasonous forces are rooted-out. It is fundamentally Anti-American.

It isn’t “Fox is #1 and so it’s fair”. Not when you have the next several “news” agencies, clumped-together, CBS, NBC, MSNBC, CNN, Yahoo, Facebook, Google, etc. all pushing agendas and political points of the Radical-Looney-Liberal-Left.

Remember 20 years ago when every fucking commercial on television, was not miscegenation, “here’s a black guy fucking a white woman, marriage, mixed race weird looking progeny, this is so normal” laden in every form of modern mass media? I do.

The “message” pushed by the Radical-Left has gone so far, that it is now obvious, and no longer deniable. That this contaminates all other forms of media, Fake News, and modern socialist-communist “Democrats”, is the point.

One of the core-motivations of those pushing impeachment, is because Trump is fighting back against all this, and he is giving the middle-finger to the Corrupt DNC, Fake News establishment, and all the other corrupt, treasonous Deep Staters, who want their Federal pensions and health insurance (while the rest of the working-class America can “go fuck themselves”). Fuck that.

Grandiose hypotheticals as “what could count” as “foreign election interference”, is a moot-point, even if there was a clear example, which there’s not.

Start with what’s real and practical, which is, the overwhelming dominance of the Liberal-Left, Commie-Socialist, Mass Media, Facebook, Google Search algorithms… until these issues are addressed, there is no ‘foreign’ interference comparable.

“Russia” did not interfere in 2016. Russian soldiers did not fly to the USA, forcing people at gunpoint, to vote for Trump. And until such a thing happens, you had/have no point on the matter.

The fact that DNC wants to push this garbage, trashcan narrative, for 3-4+ years now, is pedantic and childish.

The US voted, and very well knew (most of) the consequences of their vote. Trump was elected as Anti-Establishment. That’s exactly what he’s done. That’s exactly what he’ll continue to do.

DNC should look within, if self-reflection were even possible for the Radical-Loony-Liberal-left?

This is purely opinion.

There is no Law regarding a President’s “decorum” when conducting his sworn and official duty. You can have a foulmouth, abrasive, bully for a President, as there certainly was other times in US history, and that’s just fine.

You cannot impeach a President for such. Well, apparently, now you can, because the DNC have chose to denigrate our Society by spreading their corruption.

It is neither a HIGH CRIME nor MISDEMEANOR to call Schiff a pencilneck, Hillary a crook, or no talent Biden.

The fact that Liberal-Left expose, daily, that the motivations for impeachment are emotionally based, the further solidifies the nature of this argument, and the Unjust composition of this impeachment.

Purely Partisan, by the way. This was the very intent of the Constitution to avoid.

I’ll repeat my earlier point. Impeachment votes should require 66% majority of the House, as with the Senate. That would ‘undo’ this dark stain. But, as the status-quo continues to degenerate, there is only more Partisanship to come.

Hopefully Republicans can take the House, Senate, Supreme Court, and Executive in 2020, and start leveraging corrupt Democrats out of political power for decades to come, soon.

You’re Fired!

The owners of those news stations are either doing what they think is best for business, or promoting political views that they agree with. That’s it. There’s nothing else to it. I promote political views that I agree with, and if inclined, would buy a yard sign…but I’m not as demonstrative as all of that. I prefer to talk quietly about things.

If I created a, “News,” channel, then the presentation would be a fairly boring breakdown of the views of both sides with a big focus on what is or is not statistically accurate. That’s what turns me on. Those sexy, sexy numbers. We’d probably break down, “The letter of the law,” in proposed bills to as great an extent as we could, as well. It’d be like C-SPAN, but with actual hosts, and you could hear what’s going on a lot better.

Yeah, I also remember five years ago when you could have a commercial about an exercise bike and nobody would ever think to bitch about it. I don’t mind a statistically accurate representation of society, I also don’t mind the statistically inaccurate ones, other than it makes it tougher for white actors to get day rate jobs. I mean, when minorities aren’t 50% of the population but you think 50% of the people in your commercials have to be non-white, and of the white ones, at least 20% should be gay, just to be safe…yeah. I could see where some people might resent that. I don’t. I can understand it.

I’m still missing the part where this is a cabal, unless it’s like, literally the worst hidden cabal of all-time. I don’t think, if it is a cabal, that I am one of the only people smart enough to see it. More likely it’s not a cabal.

Topic for a different thread, “What does a cabal look like to You?”
How would you know one if you saw it? Or is it one of those, “if I don’t see it, it doesn’t exist”? I hear that a lot. USIG Horowitz has that disease. The big giveaway is the exact same words and phrases at the exact same time from supposedly competing networks.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=MjLW2l7Hyek[/youtube]

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3lfwkTsJGYA[/youtube]

The Network executives have explicitly biased motives, often times, not only financially driven, but ideologically driven.

Those clips were not expressly about inter-network collusion and anti-trust violations, the “cabal”. Although based on rumor, a woman was accused of leaking that video then had to leave ABC. When hired by NBC due to the rumor was immediately fired. That kind of news of journalist abuse should have been hot for publication between competitors regardless of the Epstein story. Fox interviewed her and broke the story.

Although there is obvious ideological bias from the US mainstream media (Leftist propaganda), that alone is not direct anti-trust evidence. Evidence is the conspicuous collusion between supposed competitors.

A true democracy cannot exist under the reign of unified propaganda. The majority merely merely votes in the direction promoted by the media.

Again, this is a sidetrack subject from this thread.

The following is Dave Rubin of The Rubin Report talking to Bryan Dean Wright (former CIA ops officer) about how the Deep State use leaks to the media like the New York Times and the Washington Post to steer the narrative in a direction more favorable to their interests.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7_RadeyKVHk[/youtube]

That would be a CIA directed cabal if the outlets were aware of the shared source (and on one level very probably are aware. How could they not?). John Brennan and James Clapper come to mind.

Anti-trust is about covertly sharing information or resources.

Do you agree that the record as we have it establishes that the investigation went away as soon as the alleged pressure went away? Once the wistleblower’s complaint was made public, and the military aid was released, Ukraine dropped the investigation.

And if you agree, doesn’t that suggest that the pressure was a necessary part of the motivation for the investigation?

This is true, but its reach is not unlimited. On the other margin, if we have one piece of evidence that is a recording of a phone call, we won’t get any additional exculpatory evidence from a second recording of the same phone call. Similarly, we get no additional evidence from a blank tape: if the evidence contains no information, it can’t contain exculpatory information. That kind of question about the usefulness of evidence doesn’t depend on how well-defined the charge is, it’s that there’s no additional information in duplicative or null evidence. (For the null evidence, I mean evidence that doesn’t and wouldn’t be expected to convey information; it’s possible to get information from a blank tape (e.g. Nixon))

That’s not what we have here, but the principle applies to some extent: there isn’t much disagreement about the phone call, so the whistleblower wouldn’t provide anything by just saying that he, too, listened to the call and heard the same things. And the whistleblower isn’t close to Trump, to he doesn’t and wouldn’t be expected to have access to information about Trump’s motivations or similar context.

Your point about the Bidens is fair; I agree that there is a set of answers to your questions that would make knowing whether there was actually misconduct on the part of the Bidens somewhat exculpatory (though I think that set of answers is not a natural set of answers, i.e. you’ll only get to them if your goal is to exonerate Trump is innocent, rather than to find the best answers). But even there, I don’t think the whistleblower is actually a very good witness to the relevant facts, and even there other witnesses with a similar level of facts can provide the same information. And given the intent behind whistleblower protection laws, and given how small a lift it is to just ask one Ukraine expert instead of another about the situation in the Ukraine, we should prefer someone else.

To sum, even to the extent that the whistleblower could answer a question that would provide evidence relevant to the case, we have and should prefer other sources of that same information.

Fair, but if one of the cashiers blew the whistle on the owner’s embezzlement, I would not call that cashier just to describe how the cash registers work. Any other cashier would do.

There’s a difference between ‘talking to’ and ‘calling to testify publicly’. Talking to everyone seems wise. Calling everyone to testify publicly doesn’t, because 1) time is a finite resource, 2) additional testimony doesn’t always move us towards truth, and 3) calling people to testify publicly has a non-zero cost for those people and for other similarly-placed people who might be in a similar position later.

More generally, both-sides-ism is a good prior, but I don’t think it holds up to scrutiny here. Democrats have been significantly less obstructionist on this, and their limited obstruction is much better justified. I know that claim is hard to defend in a world of hyperpartisanship, motivated reasoning, and few common sources of truth, but it’s important that both-sides-ism is the beginning and not the end of the discussion.

This overstates it. The President can’t directly fire most executive branch employees. Granted, he can hire people who will fire people he wants fired, or hire people who will hire people who will fire people he wants fired, but in practice his authority gets more diffuse with every step. Not only that, but firing everyone would be incredibly costly to an incoming president, both directly (because people don’t like people losing their jobs, many of them are unionized, it would be clearly politically motivated, etc.), and indirectly (because so much institutional knowledge is stored in the minds of career civil servants).

I don’t think the illegalness is important, but for sticklers like Urwrong maybe it makes the difference. For me, I’d say impeachment and removal are preferable because he broke the law in order to subvert the democratic order. Just say it out loud: he broke the law to force an ally to announce a non-existent investigation into a political rival to help himself win an election. That is so obviously not what the powers of the presidency are for.

And he kept breaking the law after he was told that it was against the law. It an absolute liability to leave him with the powers of the presidency through the election.

If you ever plan to travel to France, it matters if the president of France declares you an enemy of the state. If you want to not be assassinated, it matters that the Prime Minister of Israel declares you responsible for a terrorist attack.

It’s not about you being insulted, it’s about those words being the driving force behind powerful national machines.

But I think this is mostly a failure of imagination. Being accused of a crime by a foreign leader would ruin your life and you would care.

It would be a lie if there were not investigation and Zelensky announced an investigation. It would be a lie if, in announcing the investigation, Zelensky suggested that it was motivated by anything other than pressure from the US. If he didn’t mention the pressure from the US, it would be a lie by omission.

1. What about buying ads targeting the US? There are national laws that apply to international companies when those companies intentionally target that particular nation, e.g. the GDPR privacy law in the EU.

But more generally, I don’t think the standard is whether Russia has the right to do what it’s doing or the responsibility not to. The US has every reason to be mad at Russia for doing what it’s doing, and to penalize American citizens who support it or seek to benefit from it.

2. Sure, but that doesn’t make their interference legitimate or welcome, or make it wrong to, again, be mad at them for doing it and to penalize Americans who participate.

3. I agree that a transparent influence campaign is very different. Obama endorsed Trudeau, and I don’t think that was untoward (though the optics were not great). If Putin expressly endorsed Trump, I don’t think there would be a problem.

But Russia used deceptive tactics to influence the vote and generally sow discord in the US. That’s the opposite of transparent endorsement.

I addressed these here, can you be more specific?

You have pretty clearly never read the Constitution.

What are your thoughts on the illegality of withholding aid?

He was threatened by US Senators to stand down or else lose support. He isn’t in a position to get into the US political battle so directly.

But much like John Durham, the investigation might well be going on without you knowing it.

Claims to the contrary say that the withholding of aid was due to what was perceived as Ukrainian corruption, in general, including interference related to the DNC server in the 2016 Presidential Election. If that’s true, then the whole thing relating to the Bidens is just correlative with that, but perhaps not causative. In other words, if the aid was withheld for multiple reasons, then picking one out and saying that is THE REASON is kind of cherry-picking.

And, according to this:

newyorker.com/magazine/2019 … verso=true

The Ukrainian Prosecutor General provided Rudy Giuliani (and, by extension, Trump) with information and documents that would point to the existence of corruption involving the Bidens in Ukraine. So, not only had Ukraine (by way of the prosecutor) said they were going to investigate (and didn’t announce it) they claimed they had what they believed was proof. From the source:

So, you have the prosecutor saying, “Hey, here’s what happened.” Then the Administration is asking, “Well, why don’t you investigate it?” It looks to me like they were just asking them to investigate what they themselves were claiming there to be a good reason to investigate. The FBI was involved, the whole nine.

It seems to be that there is a chance that all of these things occurred at some level below Trump. Trump is very much a, “Just the cliff notes,” kind of guy. He’s also not an investigator. “Oh, Biden might have done something bad according to them? Well, that’s good for me. Hell yeah, I want them to investigate it!”

It just seems like there is a lot more involved than the narrative that the Democrats want the public to have which amounts to, “There was no reason to investigate the Bidens. Trump just wanted an announcement of an investigation because Biden’s son was involved with a Ukrainian company and it might look bad.”

I agree with that as relates the phone call recording. I just want the testimony from all of the different parties as to what the problem might have been with Ukraine. I’d like to hear from Giuliani officially. It seems like the whole question of an investigation is a closed matter for now. I don’t see any proof that Trump would have absolutely believed the investigation to be baseless at the time, so the investigation might have the consequence of aiding him politically, but wouldn’t be the sole reason for it. It’s not like he’s saying, “Shit, just make something up.”

As far as whistleblower protection laws, do we know who it is or don’t we? I think we can all agree this whole thing is completely silly. If everyone knows who it is, why are we pretending not to? I’d think being outed would be good for his protection. If I’m Trump, I wouldn’t even so much as let a gentle breeze muss his hair.

How would the cashier know about…? Oh, right, the whistleblower might be a politically convenient frontman…“Look, this can’t come from me, so…”

Pelosi doesn’t seem terribly worried about time. How many people could we have talked to already? I’d like to think who talks and what they say would have an influence on some people. You don’t get 67, I know that, but if a few Republicans vote the Removal route, then I think it at least looks better for Democrats. Similarly if Democrats vote to acquit, like Joe Manchin, then it looks better for Republicans. I could see Manchin being very concerned about the sufficiency of the process and he’s one of the few that I would see as legitimately concerned because he’s one of what…maybe ten (?)…who I think would even consider looking at this with an eye towards what is fair and correct.

Also, I don’t mean, “Ten Democrats,” I mean ten total Senators, both sides included. 90 have already decided, probably more.

In general, I look at testimony like I look at many other things, “It’s better to have it and not need it than to need it and not have it.” Not every testimony needs to be a bombshell. This really ought be a boring process (other than the supposed implications, of which there are none) not political theatre.

It’s really hard to defend a claim of justified obstruction when one of the Articles is specifically for obstruction, yes.

In practice is my point, it’s probably better not to change what happens, in practice, in this regard. In practice, it would be best for the only difference between one day and another to be a different person takes the Oath of Office.

If we’re going to be locked into a strictly two-party and partisan environment anyway, which we shouldn’t be, but which the Constitution essentially necessitates…I think really a ticket should be President and a selected Vice-Presidential candidate from the opposite party. Maybe even codify some duties for the Vice-President outside of breaking Senate ties.

As far as firing, it’s just cost-benefit. I don’t think it’s impossible, I really don’t, where we see one out of every two Presidents Impeached. I mean, one of your supporting reasons basically amounts to, “He’s an asshole,” and I mean no offense when I say that. Well, guess I have to make sure nobody near me thinks I’m an asshole.

I also see increasingly single-party in the top offices as a very negative consequence, so don’t misunderstand that.

If the source above-linked is to be believed, Trump may have believed there was reason for the investigation. That’s the whole thing that I am suggesting could be exculpatory, I’d just never really looked into it.

As to the rest, I don’t know. Any other conversation and I think we could agree that the law is not always, “Good,” and is sometimes justifiably subverted.

Well, yeah, and I’d certainly avoid France if that happened. I don’t know in what way that influences an American election directly. I don’t think being accused of a crime by Ukraine would ruin Biden’s life, similarly. I don’t think it would ruin his campaign. Hell, I think it would have helped him. The Democrats would have been really pissed…but not at Biden.

It was motivated by information that was conveyed prior to Zelensky taking office.

1.) I guess it would depend on:

A.) Were they in physically in Russia?

B.) Are they in U.S. legal reach?

C.) If A. is yes and B. is no, then does Russia itself have a law against it that Russia itself cares to enforce?

2.) I’m just saying it explains their actions. Actions that could have been done openly if such actions were allowed and had to be done in a transparent way. I think anything else is akin to saying that they do not, and should not, have any interest in becomes U.S. President. Of course it affects them.

3.) True, but I don’t even think it has to be the leaders. I think anyone should be allowed to do it transparently.

[youtube]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1eq0X4qDlR0[/youtube]

He didn’t though. That’s where you and the Looney-Liberal-Left are simply dead-wrong. No Quid Pro Quo (unless you mean Biden). No Bribery. Nothing. Furthermore, if you want to press the matter of “favor-for-a-favor” politics, then you may as well impeach 99% of Congress and the rest of the Bureaucrats. That’s always been the matter of politics. Favor for a favor. So Trump is no ‘more’ complicit in the process than any Democratic or Republican politician. “Personal gain”? This is a non-argument. Trump became president at a loss to his Business empire. Thus he is less corrupt then these corrupt Democrats who you back and represent.

As-if we couldn’t go through Obama, Clinton, Pelosi’s backlog and catch hundreds of examples of corruption, bribery, and quid pro quo? As-if Democrats accept campaign contributions and donations “for free”???

Surely you’re not this naive???

You and yours are the ones who want to remove a duly-elected President without cause and for no crimes committed.

THAT is unconstitutional. To attempt to do so, is an attempt to undermine the Constitution, which again, you and yours are guilty of doing.

100% within the directive of the President and Executive Authority.

He can withhold aid for any reason. If you don’t like it, run a Democratic candidate who can win Presidency.

Oh wait, you can’t, because Democrats have fallen out of power, popularity, and favor.

So that relegates you and yours to underhanded, corrupt moves, like 100% Partisan impeachment attempts.