Impeachment?

[LDAHL]

But if they are limited to the articles presented, and there is little dispute as to the facts concerning the two charges, what purpose will additional witnesses serve? What remains to be proved? The Clinton trial was a similar situation: only three witnesses were called.

[LDAHL]

So you think it’s acceptable for a president to extort foreign countries for personal benefit. Duly noted.

I don’t think it’s acceptable. I only wonder it it’s impeachment material. If we impeach every president who puts pressure on other governments to make him/her look more attractive to the voters,
we will be spending a great deal of time on proceedings like this.

[jp1]

I don’t think it’s acceptable. I only wonder it it’s impeachment material. If we impeach every president who puts pressure on other governments to make him/her look more attractive to the voters,
we will be spending a great deal of time on proceedings like this.

I think there's a difference between getting a foreign country to publicly make the president look attractive to voters and seeking a sham investigation into a political opponent and then attempt to keep it secret. The later is an attempt to covertly subvert our elections. If any previous president has attempted to do the later please share details because I'm not aware of it ever happening before.

[bae]

When I was an elected official, it was made very clear to me that it was illegal to use public funds for private gain. Even if the "gain" was pretty minimal.

For instance, I couldn't withhold a payment to the runway paving contractor in order to coerce him into giving me a favorable bid on my own driveway - this would result in fines or jail time. (Or, in the specific case of a Port Commissioner in a nearby Port District, convincing the contractor to deliver "excess" paving material to his own driveway in exchange for the bid was found to be a bit out of line...)

[JaneV2.0]

I'm wondering what Republicans would consider impeachable when it comes to themselves--murder, maybe?
Trump and his henchmen have trampled any conventions of ethical behavior.

[LDAHL]

I’m not saying what Trump did wasn’t wrong. I’m not even saying it wasn’t a crime. I’m saying that we need to set the bar fairly high for the level of criminality we want to remove a president from office for. Otherwise we get into endless political squabbling and wasted time.

Clinton committed a crime when he lied under oath (nobody seemed particularly concerned about sexual harassment in his case). But the Senate decided it wasn’t crime enough to remove him.

Even with Jane’s murder example, what would have prevented a sufficiently motivated Congress from impeaching Obama for murder using some drone strike or assassination he authorized as a pretext?

I think there are eminently practical reasons for holding a US president to a different standard than a local highway commissioner. At least as long as they are in office.

[Alan]

Even with Jane’s murder example, what would prevent a sufficiently motivated Congress from impeaching Obama for murder using some drone strike or assassination he authorized as a pretext?

Or maybe for providing weapons to Mexican cartels which would later be used to kill Americans and using executive privilege to deny Congress access to witnesses and documents for their investigation. I don't recall many Democrats getting their panties in a bunch about that one.

I think there are eminently practical reasons for holding a US president to a different standard than a local highway commissioner.

So do I! Although I'm thinking Jane and JP1 will too when a President Sanders or Buttigieg are impeached for something similar.

[bae]

I think there are eminently practical reasons for holding a US president to a different standard than a local highway commissioner. At least as long as they are in office.

I agree - I think the President should be held to a higher standard.

[LDAHL]

I agree - I think the President should be held to a higher standard.

If we were to do that, we would need to create an office of Prime Minister to administer the executive branch while the head of state was busy defending against the infinite technical and minor violations his enemies would raise.

[JaneV2.0]

Or maybe for providing weapons to Mexican cartels which would later be used to kill Americans and using executive privilege to deny Congress access to witnesses and documents for their investigation. I don't recall many Democrats getting their panties in a bunch about that one.

So do I! Although I'm thinking Jane and JP1 will too when a President Sanders or Buttigieg are impeached for something similar.[/COLOR]

This (IMO ill-advised) policy was part of the "gun walking" started under President Bush to track weapons to Cartel figures to result in their arrests. I'm sure if there were a chance in hell to impeach President Obama, Republicans would have pounced on it.

I'm not in favor of extra-legal assassinations of anyone. I would assume (probably foolishly) that such actions would be subject to military review and forbidden.