When will Trump be impeached? -2019 Better late than never- Congratulations!

This "professor" seemingly and/or coincidentally dodged some important information...(don't worry, I did not expect you to actually find some information on your own)....

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

Furthermore, Inspector General's report regarding FISA abuses under the Nobama's watch (also involving the FBI and DOJ) and the fake dossier is/was due sometime during the fall.  This impeachment circus initiated by Dem's is simply a distraction  of that report. 

...and this, as well. 

I believe the President. Trump News aka Fox News tells me so!

I believe the President. Trump News aka Fox News tells me so!

OK, well...that is an issue for you.

So again, what high crime or misdemeanor did the President commit?  Now, if we wish to discuss Creep Joe, going to the Ukraine (while he was the VP) and telling the powers that be there, that the prosecutor overseeing the issue regarding Joe's son and his dealings there (and the money he was receiving), be fired...or else (roughly 1 billion dollars being withheld)....we can do that. 

I believe the President. Trump News aka Fox News tells me so!

OK, well...that is an issue for you.

So again, what high crime or misdemeanor did the President commit?  Now, if we wish to discuss Creep Joe, going to the Ukraine (while he was the VP) and telling the powers that be there, that the prosecutor overseeing the issue regarding Joe's son and his dealings there (and the money he was receiving), be fired...or else (roughly 1 billion dollars being withheld)....we can do that. 

Yeah I guess that would have been a problem if Biden had just stalled military aid, asked for a personal favor to dig up dirt on his major political opponent in an  upcoming election , and then suggested that the Attorney General be contacted to act as his personal attorney in the matter.  If Biden had done that you would have a point as that would have been a rather obvious abuse of power.

The example you gave above though is pretty standard when it comes to Trump helping out his kids but I forget you didn't expect anyone would take you seriously right? 

I believe the President. Trump News aka Fox News tells me so!

OK, well...that is an issue for you.

So again, what high crime or misdemeanor did the President commit?  Now, if we wish to discuss Creep Joe, going to the Ukraine (while he was the VP) and telling the powers that be there, that the prosecutor overseeing the issue regarding Joe's son and his dealings there (and the money he was receiving), be fired...or else (roughly 1 billion dollars being withheld)....we can do that. 

Yeah I guess that would have been a problem if Biden had just stalled military aid, asked for a personal favor to dig up dirt on his major political opponent in an  upcoming election , and then suggested that the Attorney General be contacted to act as his personal attorney in the matter.  If Biden had done that you would have a point as that would have been a rather obvious abuse of power.

The example you gave above though is pretty standard when it comes to Trump helping out his kids but I forget you didn't expect anyone would take you seriously right? 

Please Adel, there is too much factual information there for NS.  The fact that it has been proven that there was no wrongdoing by Biden is something that is chosen to be ignored by trumpists.  Not really surprising.  trump 'tried to' get the Russians help in 2016 and before the ink had even dried on the Mueller report, which clearly didn't exonerate him, he goes and does it again.  he clearly can't do anything legally.  he made his own shitty bed. 

This "professor" seemingly and/or coincidentally dodged some important information...(don't worry, I did not expect you to actually find some information on your own)....

https://thefederalist.com/2019/09/27/intel-community-secretly-gutted-requirement-of-first-hand-whistleblower-knowledge/

Furthermore, Inspector General's report regarding FISA abuses under the Nobama's watch (also involving the FBI and DOJ) and the fake dossier is/was due sometime during the fall.  This impeachment circus initiated by Dem's is simply a distraction  of that report. 

...and this, as well. 

From the sycophants in dishonest don's DOJ--highly uncovincing.

And the many BS investigations they are launching at dishonest don's behest--clear abuse of presidential power and signal of don's desperation. He sees jail bars in his future.

An honest question for North Star and Mr. DeMartino.

Let's imagine that Hilary Clinton had won the 2016 election and, say, Ted Cruz, had won the Republican primaries. It's autumn of 2019 and Donald Trump is leading in the polls for Republican challengers in 2020.

As is well-known, Ivanka Trump has a lot of business dealings in China. So, a whistleblower files a report about Hilary's attempts to leverage American aid money to China in return for dirt on Ivanka. A transcript is released in which Hilary discusses said military aid in a conversation with Xi Jinping, and she repeatedly asks
him for a favor in the form of compromising information about Ivanka Trump. After finding out about the whistleblower report, she orders the conversation reclassified to keep it secret.

Meanwhile, we find out she's had Huma Abedin making multiple trips to China in pursuit of the cause, and Huma keeps going on TV and basically confessing to something that is clearly illegal. We also have a TV interview with George Stephanopolous in which, presented with a hypothetical scenario about the very crime for which she is now accused, Hillary proudly suggests that she would commit the crime.

So, my question... Are you really going to argue that you'd have nothing to say about this? Do you think that Republicans would shrug it off, and that would be the correct course of action?

Since Republicans are constantly advising Democrats on what they need to do if they want to beat Trump (namely, nominate the Democrat who most resembles a Republican), I'm going to offer Republicans some advice on how to save face in this situation.

You're always talking about how Trump shoots from the hip, doesn't play by establishment rules, etc. Just admit that his mouth got him into trouble again. He has terrible impulse control, and  sees life as a winner-takes-all conflict. You've all said it yourselves - "We know he's not perfect." Mr. Grab 'Em By The P***y sometimes says stuff that lands him in hot water.  He did it again here, but this time he crossed the line into a breach of federal election law. Maybe it's a bad law, maybe he didn't know he was breaking it. Trump Jr., Kushner and Manafort got let off the hook for the Trump Tower meeting because Mueller concluded they might've acted differently had they known their actions were illegal. That excuse is unlikely to work a second time, and House Democrats are going to be less forgiving than Robert Mueller.

You might like his immigration stance, his Twitter persona or his tax policies. You can still like those and admit that he screwed up. Because he did, and pretending otherwise is a willful delusion.

You might like his immigration stance, his Twitter persona or his tax policies. You can still like those and admit that he screwed up. Because he did, and pretending otherwise is a willful delusion

I'm on board with that....but a screw up is not necessarily the same as a Constitutional offense, justifying impeachment. 

You might like his immigration stance, his Twitter persona or his tax policies. You can still like those and admit that he screwed up. Because he did, and pretending otherwise is a willful delusion

I'm on board with that....but a screw up is not necessarily the same as a Constitutional offense, justifying impeachment. 

U.S. Constitution Article II

Section 4

The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.

Bribery is the act of giving or receiving something of value in exchange for some kind of influence or action in return, that the recipient would otherwise not offer.

There is no mention of a 'screw up' here, also doing two 'screw-ups', what is that called?  trump's first 'screw-up' was not exonerated by the Mueller enquiry as much as he might like to think he did, which made him think he could do it all again.  So his second 'screw-up'?  What is that? Stupidity?  Arrogance? The more that comes out about this, the worse blindly loyal trumpists look.  Like I keep saying, as the Brit, the only people that make my country's 'leader' not the main laughing stock around the world, is trump and the republicans.  Not an easy thing to do.  seriously. 

You might like his immigration stance, his Twitter persona or his tax policies. You can still like those and admit that he screwed up. Because he did, and pretending otherwise is a willful delusion

I'm on board with that....but a screw up is not necessarily the same as a Constitutional offense, justifying impeachment.

What you don't seem to grasp is that it in this case it is a "Constitutional offense, justifying impeachment." The law is very clear. The transcript is a smoking gun. And for some crazy reason, Giuliani is on TV every five minutes confessing to the crime. The fact that he doesn't think it should be a crime is irrelevant.

Regarding your analogy meme, I think a better one would be to imagine Trump getting caught stealing an expensive television from Wal-Mart. Witnesses saw it and it's clearly visible on CCTV. Pulled into the security office, he offers this by way of defense: "No, I wasn't stealing, I just forgot to pay. Anyway, shoplifting laws are stupid - why can't we just take what we want? Big corporate chains can afford to lose some stock through shoplifting. They've got the resources to cover it. And why aren't you looking into the CEO of Wal-Mart? The Walton family are crooks. You should be investigating them, not me."

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXUWHk7sqe0

Fox news just went up a few points in my book.

You might like his immigration stance, his Twitter persona or his tax policies. You can still like those and admit that he screwed up. Because he did, and pretending otherwise is a willful delusion

I'm on board with that....but a screw up is not necessarily the same as a Constitutional offense, justifying impeachment.

What you don't seem to grasp is that it in this case it is a "Constitutional offense, justifying impeachment." The law is very clear. The transcript is a smoking gun. And for some crazy reason, Giuliani is on TV every five minutes confessing to the crime. The fact that he doesn't think it should be a crime is irrelevant.

Regarding your analogy meme, I think a better one would be to imagine Trump getting caught stealing an expensive television from Wal-Mart. Witnesses saw it and it's clearly visible on CCTV. Pulled into the security office, he offers this by way of defense: "No, I wasn't stealing, I just forgot to pay. Anyway, shoplifting laws are stupid - why can't we just take what we want? Big corporate chains can afford to lose some stock through shoplifting. They've got the resources to cover it. And why aren't you looking into the CEO of Wal-Mart? The Walton family are crooks. You should be investigating them, not me."

Well, if you go back a few posts, perhaps you will learn more about this "whistle blower".

Again, since everyone here, except myself, is Constitutional scholar, please show me what the President did, that would justify impeachment...other than, you don't like him,, or says mean things.

What you don't seem to grasp is that it in this case it is a "Constitutional offense, justifying impeachment." The law is very clear. The transcript is a smoking gun. And for some crazy reason, Giuliani is on TV every five minutes confessing to the crime. The fact that he doesn't think it should be a crime is irrelevant.

The law is very clear for everyone but the President. There are some reasons for this-
1) As head of state of the United States, the President is tasked with overseeing law enforcement (Justice Dept.) AND Diplomacy (State Dept.)
2) Strongly related to this is that if the President feels that something represents a national security threat to the United States, then he has broad powers in both investigation and negotiation.
3) The problem with this for going after Trump is that the Obama administration also attempted to "dig up dirt" on the Trump Administration. Perhaps not Obama directly, but certainly his intel agency heads and the FBI, whose conduct he is ultimately responsible for to varying degrees. The whole Trump-Russia investigation opened up a terrible can of worms. You can't say it was okay for Obama to use international dirt to look into Trump and then say it's wrong for Trump to do that about Biden. It's either okay for both under a broad interpretation of Presidential power or its wrong for both.
4) Every conversation between world leaders is a negotiation, using leverage, and calculated for political effect. Using that standard to go after a conversation is ridiculous. Can we all be adults here and acknowledge that reality at least?
5) All that being said, impeachment is a political tool, not a legal one. If the Dems can whip everyone up and steer things so Trump goes down, even under an unfair standard, that's politics.

I am also on on board with Dr. D's assessment but....

..what is left out, is that the President making a phone call to the power that be in Ukraine, to find out what Creepy Joe  a his sun were up to (and why Joe's sun was being paid), in addition to, Joe telling the powers that be there that they fire the prosecutor that was in charge of his son's hearing ,or else....is NOT a crime. 

It IS getting dirt on Joe (and the Nobama hucksters)...but not a crime.  Is it a revenge?  Possibly....but as Dr. D said..it is politics. 

I also mentioned, that the IG's report was supposed to due this fall...all of this is a distraction, from that (the DNC paying money to a foreign agent to conjure up a fake dossier on then candidate Trump)....because folks know, that the Dem's have a lot to answer for.....

...whilst Republicans stand by and watch it all happen..equally guilty. 

So...again....as I am not a Constitutional scholar and others here are, what high crime has the President committed that warrants an impeachment (other than not being liked, melting snowflakes and saying mean things)?

What you don't seem to grasp is that it in this case it is a "Constitutional offense, justifying impeachment." The law is very clear. The transcript is a smoking gun. And for some crazy reason, Giuliani is on TV every five minutes confessing to the crime. The fact that he doesn't think it should be a crime is irrelevant.

The law is very clear for everyone but the President. There are some reasons for this-
1) As head of state of the United States, the President is tasked with overseeing law enforcement (Justice Dept.) AND Diplomacy (State Dept.)
2) Strongly related to this is that if the President feels that something represents a national security threat to the United States, then he has broad powers in both investigation and negotiation.
3) The problem with this for going after Trump is that the Obama administration also attempted to "dig up dirt" on the Trump Administration. Perhaps not Obama directly, but certainly his intel agency heads and the FBI, whose conduct he is ultimately responsible for to varying degrees. The whole Trump-Russia investigation opened up a terrible can of worms. You can't say it was okay for Obama to use international dirt to look into Trump and then say it's wrong for Trump to do that about Biden. It's either okay for both under a broad interpretation of Presidential power or its wrong for both.
4) Every conversation between world leaders is a negotiation, using leverage, and calculated for political effect. Using that standard to go after a conversation is ridiculous. Can we all be adults here and acknowledge that reality at least?
5) All that being said, impeachment is a political tool, not a legal one. If the Dems can whip everyone up and steer things so Trump goes down, even under an unfair standard, that's politics.

Well number 5 is a problem because it will be up to the Senate to decide to bring it to an actual hearing judgement and that, as we all know, is still in Republican control.

 http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hSszixvo7d8

So...again....as I am not a Constitutional scholar and others here are, what high crime has the President committed that warrants an impeachment (other than not being liked, melting snowflakes and saying mean things)?

I don't understand what you're not getting.

Here is the statute in federal electoral law: https://www.fec.gov/regulations/110-20/2019-annual-110#110-20-h

But Trump's violations could run deeper: https://www.businessinsider.com/laws-trump-could-have-broken-ukraine-whistleblower-case-2019-9

And, once again, even if Trump could wriggle out of this in court, all that's needed is to convince Congress that he is guilty of at least one of these.

What you don't seem to grasp is that it in this case it is a "Constitutional offense, justifying impeachment." The law is very clear. The transcript is a smoking gun. And for some crazy reason, Giuliani is on TV every five minutes confessing to the crime. The fact that he doesn't think it should be a crime is irrelevant.

The law is very clear for everyone but the President. There are some reasons for this-
1) As head of state of the United States, the President is tasked with overseeing law enforcement (Justice Dept.) AND Diplomacy (State Dept.)

Actions such as wielding state resources or compromising national security in order to damage a political opponent would constitute an abuse of this power. There are probably plenty of examples in which Presidents have abused power in this manner. The difference is that they didn't get caught. And that doesn't make it right.
 
2) Strongly related to this is that if the President feels that something represents a national security threat to the United States, then he has broad powers in both investigation and negotiation.

Which is why Trump should have pursued his Biden investigation, assuming there is actually something to investigate, though appropriate channels. Instead he did it privately through an errand boy (Giuliani) and simultaneously in his capacity as President. That was a mistake. To date, we do not know of any specific criminal charges  that can be laid at the feet of anyone in the Biden-Ukraine nexus. That means Trump was acting largely on innuendo, and likely overstepped the bounds of what was permissible before there was an official investigation.

3) The problem with this for going after Trump is that the Obama administration also attempted to "dig up dirt" on the Trump Administration. Perhaps not Obama directly, but certainly his intel agency heads and the FBI, whose conduct he is ultimately responsible for to varying degrees. The whole Trump-Russia investigation opened up a terrible can of worms. You can't say it was okay for Obama to use international dirt to look into Trump and then say it's wrong for Trump to do that about Biden. It's either okay for both under a broad interpretation of Presidential power or its wrong for both.

See above. Obama didn't call Vladimir Putin and say "Give me dirt on Trump in exchange for cash." Or if he did, he didn't get caught. Had he done so, do you not think that Republicans would've been calling for an impeachment investigation? Or would they let it slide?

And that's before we even get to the fact that so far nobody has been able to produce any evidence of wrongdoing by the Bidens. If you want to argue that politicians' children sitting on lucrative Board of Directors contracts is a form of inherent corruption, I'm with you. But to date there is nothing concrete about the Bidens and criminal wrongdoing. Lindsey Graham, Stephen Miller and Jim Jordan's Sunday morning attempts to spin it that way were a disaster, and reveal exactly how little they have to go on. No sane person would've been convinced by those interviews.

4) Every conversation between world leaders is a negotiation, using leverage, and calculated for political effect. Using that standard to go after a conversation is ridiculous. Can we all be adults here and acknowledge that reality at least?

Sure. But there are limits to how that leverage can be used, and for good reason. Legally, a country needs to draw a line somewhere. If Trump gets a pass on this, then what if he wins another term and does it again, with China or Russia? Which countries should be able to externally influence US elections? Canada? Ukraine? Sierra Leone? And what's the upper price tag? If a few hundred million is okay, why not a billion or two billion?

Or is it better to just have a blanket ban on all foreign contributions? Shoplifting is illegal because such laws preserve the integrity of property rights. Outlawing foreign contributions to US elections is an attempt to preserve the integrity of the electoral system.

5) All that being said, impeachment is a political tool, not a legal one. If the Dems can whip everyone up and steer things so Trump goes down, even under an unfair standard, that's politics.

True enough. But you should change "whip everyone up and steer things" to "collect evidence, conduct hearings and make a highly consequential decision based on the information that materializes through such a process."

You are making a well spoken argument...but...I still don't see where the impeachable offense is. 

We may never know  what Creepy Joe was up to because HIS boss at the time told the Ukraine to fire the prosecutor that would have overseen the case against Biden's son, or else the 1 billion dollars of US loans would be withheld.  That is a fact. 

Six in one hand, 1/2 dozen the other.

AND..lets not forget about this terms in which this "whistleblower" filed a complaint and how the dynamics  secretly changed regarding filing said complaint...did read that?  Furthermore, this "whistleblower"...did not even hear the conversation.  The transcripts were released....what...is....the specific...offense? 

A sitting president that is trying to find information regarding a case against the former VP (which stinks anyway) and his son, whilst, negotiating US given loans? 

I don't see it.

There was no case against Biden's son. I don't mean that in the abstract, as in they couldn't make the evidence stick. I mean it literally. He was not charged with a crime, and did not work for Burisma at the time that they were under investigation.