Has Trump Committed Bribery?

[RiverDog]

One thing I've noticed over the past few weeks is that Democrats are beginning to characterize Trump's behavior in the Ukrainian scandal as bribery. This is almost certainly in response to the Republican's defense of him as being an act that rises to the level of a "high crime or misdemeanor" as outlined in the Constitution. As we all know, bribery and treason are the only two crimes that are called out in the Constitution as being impeachable offenses.

So the question I have is do you think what Trump has done fits the definition of bribery? One can find several definitions of the term, most referring to the encouragement of an otherwise involuntary act in exchange for anything of value, which this alleged crime certainly fits. But I've seen other language that speaks of payments and personal gain, which would suggest something of monetary value has to be given/received. Additionally, one could look at bribery as seeking to benefit personally from his/her office, not necessarily politically, as is the case with the Ukrainian scandal.

It's my opinion that Trump has definitely abused his office in an effort to retain power, but I'm not sure it fits the definition of bribery as the framers intended it to. It could be that they were thinking of a situation where a POTUS was trying to gain some sort of personal financial benefit from his/her office. Any Constitutional experts out there?

[c_hawkbob]

They're using bribery because they don't want to use quid pro quo anymore, in an effort to make it clearer just what is going on to Joe Everyman. Bribery and quid pro quo are synonymous: 'you do this for me I'll do that for you'.

[RiverDog]

They're using bribery because they don't want to use quid pro quo anymore, in an effort to make it clearer just what is going on to Joe Everyman. Bribery and quid pro quo are synonymous: 'you do this for me I'll do that doe you'.

I hadn't thought of the possibility that you mentioned, ie that the Dems are trying to simplify the charges. A lot of people don't know what "quid pro quo" means, so what you say makes a ton of sense.

But I'm not so sure that "quid pro quo" is synonymous with "bribery", or at least some of the definitions of bribery that I've seen, which refers to things of value and payments of a personal nature, which would suggest money directed towards personal gain.

The Dems have pretty much proven that there was a quid pro quo. The question now is does it rise to the level of impeachment? More so than simplifying the charges, they need to convince others, specifically Republicans, that Trump's actions fits the wording used in the Constitution.

Honest question: Have you or anyone else done any reading on what the framers of the Constitution meant with the phrase "bribery, treason, or other high crimes and misdemeanors?" I've done some reading on certain aspects of their intent writing the Constitution, the 2nd Amendment and the electoral college to mention a couple, but not on impeachment.

[I-5]

Great question, Riv. I too have been wondering what exactly are 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. According to wiki:

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed, the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for 'intentional, evil deeds' that 'drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency' — even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws."

i don't see any difference in the definition of quid pro quo and bribery, except one is in latin. In both cases, it involves, 'you do this, i'll give you this', or 'I'll give you this if you do this'.

[I-5]

Moreover, Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused." James Madison said that "impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."

Damn, these guys had a long-term vision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crim ... sdemeanors

[RiverDog]

Great question, Riv. I too have been wondering what exactly are 'high crimes and misdemeanors'. According to wiki:

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials. Offenses by officials also include ordinary crimes, but perhaps with different standards of proof and punishment than for non-officials, on the grounds that more is expected of officials by their oaths of office. Indeed, the offense may not even be a breach of criminal statute. See Harvard Law Review "The majority view is that a president can legally be impeached for 'intentional, evil deeds' that 'drastically subvert the Constitution and involve an unforgivable abuse of the presidency' — even if those deeds didn’t violate any criminal laws."

i don't see any difference in the definition of quid pro quo and bribery, except one is in latin. In both cases, it involves, 'you do this, i'll give you this', or 'I'll give you this if you do this'.

I'm not sure how much relevance the textbook definition of the term "high crimes and misdemeanors" has in the Constitution. For example, "misdemeanors" was not a legal term in use during the 16th century as they did not differentiate between criminal acts and misdemeanors as we do today. That only makes sense. No one is going to argue that failure to pay a parking ticket is an impeachable offense. Even the word "high", which we would assume means "more serious", might not have been what the framers meant. Here's an excerpt from an article I read:

I have carefully researched the origin of the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" and its meaning to the Framers, and found that the key to understanding it is the word "high". It does not mean "more serious". It refers to those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons.

https://constitution.org/cmt/high_crimes.htm

In any event, I'm not necessarily saying that your opinion (or Cbob's) is wrong and mine is right. I just thought it would be interesting to look at this issue from different POV's as it might give us some insight as to what's going on in the minds of those who are sitting in judgement.

[RiverDog]

Moreover, Benjamin Franklin asserted that the power of impeachment and removal was necessary for those times when the Executive "rendered himself obnoxious," and the Constitution should provide for the "regular punishment of the Executive when his conduct should deserve it, and for his honorable acquittal when he should be unjustly accused." James Madison said that "impeachment... was indispensable" to defend the community against "the incapacity, negligence or perfidy of the chief Magistrate." With a single executive, Madison argued, unlike a legislature whose collective nature provided security, "loss of capacity or corruption was more within the compass of probable events, and either of them might be fatal to the Republic."

Damn, these guys had a long-term vision.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crim ... sdemeanors

It never ceases to amaze me how smart people that lived before us were. At the risk of going off subject, my favorite example of this is a man named Eratosthenes, a Greek that lived 200 years before the birth of Christ and during a time when most thought the world to be flat who calculated the circumference of the Earth to a degree of accuracy over 95%. Those people who wrote our Constitution were indeed wise men that were every bit as smart as the most intelligent men/women are today.

That's good stuff, and in general, I agree with it. I only wish that our framers gave us some alternate method of disciplining officials besides removal from office, something like the reduction of their veto authority from 2/3's to 50%+1 for a certain period of time, or let the Supreme Court have a voice rather than it being exclusively the duty of the Legislative branch.

[Aseahawkfan]

It never ceases to amaze me how smart people that lived before us were. At the risk of going off subject, my favorite example of this is a man named Eratosthenes, a Greek that lived 200 years before the birth of Christ and during a time when most thought the world to be flat who calculated the circumference of the Earth to a degree of accuracy over 95%. Those people who wrote our Constitution were indeed wise men that were every bit as smart as the most intelligent men/women are today.

That's good stuff, and in general, I agree with it. I only wish that our framers gave us some alternate method of disciplining officials besides removal from office, something like the reduction of their veto authority from 2/3's to 50%+1 for a certain period of time, or let the Supreme Court have a voice rather than it being exclusively the duty of the Legislative branch.

Love how you guys claim the Founders were so smart, but weren't smart enough to see the advancement of weapons technology when writing the 2nd Amendment. I think they did myself. The 2nd Amendment is about ensuring the people have the ability to violently dissolve the government should it become necessary. It was never based on how advanced our weaponry would become.

Yeah. I agree. The Founders were far seeing and The Constitution covers a lot of possible situations that The People would need to address.

[RiverDog]

Love how you guys claim the Founders were so smart, but weren't smart enough to see the advancement of weapons technology when writing the 2nd Amendment. I think they did myself. The 2nd Amendment is about ensuring the people have the ability to violently dissolve the government should it become necessary. It was never based on how advanced our weaponry would become.

Yeah. I agree. The Founders were far seeing and The Constitution covers a lot of possible situations that The People would need to address.

That was only part of the motivation of the 2nd Amendment, ie being able to provide the people the means to rise up against a repressive government.

But the other part of the 2nd, the "well regulated militia being necessary to a free state" allowed for the government's ability to assemble a defensive force in the event of an invasion or other military act from a hostile power and was written before the government was able to establish a military force capable of repelling an enemy.

[Hawktawk]

Due to my unfortunate but temporary unemployment I've had lots of time to catch up on this Ukraine/impeachment scandal. I agree with the poster above who said its about clarifying the message to say bribery instead of quid pro quo. Republican defenders of Trump say its a reach. But I think it fits. From everything I've seen its clear Trump, perhaps at the urging of Giuliani became obsessed with digging dirt on Biden and also helping out his buddy Vlad Putin with this crowdstrike DNC server garbage. He decided to play tough guy NY real estate developer with a brand new president of an ally who was in desperate need by withholding aid and a WH visit .

Plenty of politicians of both parties have done the same thing, abused their trust and the power of the purse for a personal or political benefit and they get arrested and do time and it's often called bribery. Trump was quoted by Gordon Sondland as saying he "does not give a F@#K about Ukraine, just the investigations". Sondland said under oath that Trump isn't really as worried about the investigations as having Zelinski go to a microphone and announce the investigations. It was naked solicitation of a very specific political favor using the power of his office to block needed aid. Trump directed it to be done and like everything else he does his servants scramble madly to get it done.

What was learned in the last week coupled with the massive Email dump last Friday shows EVERYONE was in the loop. Bolton, Pompeio,Mick Mulvaney, possibly even Pence were quite well aware of what Trump was doing and what he wanted. Emails from the Friday dump show Mulvaney and other cabinet officials exchange hundreds of Emails when news of the whistleblower complaint surfaced trying to establish a legal rationale for withholding aid, months after the fact.The aid was released just a couple of days later. There is so much guilt here...

[I-5]

I know Ukraine is on everybody's lips...but how many of us would be shocked if it was limited to just Ukraine in terms of Trump trying to get something of PERSONAL value out of every foreign relationship the US has? That's what he's ALWAYS been about. Why change it now, despite the responsibilities of the office? It would explain Putin, Prince Bin Salman, Erdogan, Kim....

[RiverDog]

I know Ukraine is on everybody's lips...but how many of us would be shocked if it was limited to just Ukraine in terms of Trump trying to get something of PERSONAL value out of every foreign relationship the US has? That's what he's ALWAYS been about. Why change it now, despite the responsibilities of the office? It would explain Putin, Prince Bin Salman, Erdogan, Kim....

Obviously it's possible, but it wouldn't make sense. I'm not saying that it has to make sense, but when you think of it, Trump already has billions in personal fortune and is 73 years old. Most normal people that age that already "have it made" go through a phase where money is of little consequence anymore.

Realizing that I've just stuck a lightning rod up in the air for Hawktalk to bolt to, we all realize that you don't consider Trump to be a "normal" person.

[I-5]

Riv, I wasn't implying that personal value strictly means dollars...for example, if Putin has kompromat on him(which only makes sense out of how Trump behaved in Helsinki), that is something of a highly PERSONAL value. Just one example. Also, don't think Trump is that rich...we really don't know his true $$ wealth. We know enough he is peanuts compared to Bloomberg, and Bloomberg himself is not that rich compared to the upper echelon. So no, Trump is not above anything.

And you're correct, 'normal' does not apply in any of this conversation.

[RiverDog]

Riv, I wasn't implying that personal value strictly means dollars...for example, if Putin has kompromat on him(which only makes sense out of how Trump behaved in Helsinki), that is something of a highly PERSONAL value. Just one example. Also, don't think Trump is that rich...we really don't know his true $$ wealth. We know enough he is peanuts compared to Bloomberg, and Bloomberg himself is not that rich compared to the upper echelon. So no, Trump is not above anything.

And you're correct, 'normal' does not apply in any of this conversation.

When you said "that's what he's ALWAYS been about", I assumed that you meant money.

We don't know exactly how much Trump is worth, but it can be estimated. Wikipedia estimates his net worth as being north of $3B. It's peanuts compared to people like Bloomberg, Gates, Bezos, et al, but he's worth 15 times as much as the net worth of Barak Obama, George W. Bush, Bill Clinton, and Jimmy Carter COMBINED. As a matter of fact, Donald Trump's $3.1B, adjusted for inflation, makes him the richest President in the history of the United States, with the next highest being George Washington at a miniscue $587M. He's not hurting for money.

I'm not necessarily disagreeing with your theory. I'm simply saying that a normal person that's worth as much and is as old as Donald Trump is wouldn't be motivated by money.

[I-5]

I agree, and I'm not at all saying he's motivated by money.

[Hawktawk]

Beyond the Brazen shakedown of Ukraine and the collusion with Russia there's the FACT Trump was negotiating a TT Moscow deal until basically election eve.Cohen is doing a few extra months in part for lying about that to the congress. John Bolton said last week that Trump's decisions on Turkey, getting off a phone call and announcing an immediate withdrawal so Turkey could attack the Kurds were based in part on "personal interests". It's worth noting Trump reportedly has over 100 separate business interests in Turkey, more than any other foreign nation.

From Saudi Arabia, Russia, you name it, why would his unknown behavior be any different than what's right in front of us? It's all about money and winning for Trump(Except the blackmail from Russia), everything he does. Always was and always will be.

How any patriotic American can be OK with Trump grifting off this office is beyond me. I'm proud I had the good sense and love of country to loathe Trump. I'm sad he is so unacceptable and repugnant I have to. Even sadder so many Americans do not give a rip about the constitution, the rule of law, the dignity and decorum of the office, whatever.

[Hawktawk]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/29/politics ... index.html

It would be humorous if it weren't so sad. Even the Rs in congress in their heart of hearts detest this guy and know the right thing to do but since the Trump base is in too big a trance they won't jeopardize their seat.
We the Trump people have become useful idiots for the most corrupt president ever.

[RiverDog]

https://www.cnn.com/2019/11/29/politics/charlie-dent-congress-trump-behavior-cnntv/index.html

It would be humorous if it weren't so sad. Even the Rs in congress in their heart of hearts detest this guy and know the right thing to do but since the Trump base is in too big a trance they won't jeopardize their seat.
We the Trump people have become useful idiots for the most corrupt president ever.

I don't doubt that a lot of what's in that article is true, that there are at least some R pols that fit that description, but to what extent is anyone's guess.

And let's not be so naïve to assume that the Democrats are the Holier than Thou party that would refuse to embrace a corrupt POTUS if the consequences were that they'd lose their seat. The vast majority are a bunch of spineless, selfish career politicians.

[Hawktawk]

I don't doubt that a lot of what's in that article is true, that there are at least some R pols that fit that description, but to what extent is anyone's guess.

And let's not be so naïve to assume that the Democrats are the Holier than Thou party that would refuse to embrace a corrupt POTUS if the consequences were that they'd lose their seat. The vast majority are a bunch of spineless, selfish career politicians.

I've heard that same report from numerous press and media people quoting anonymous sources,also Democratic members although Dent is the first R to go public after recently retiring. The Rs in the congress hate the guy and have since about day 1. Beyond that there were numerous credible reports of cabinet officials mulling the 25th amendment on at least 2 separate occasions,one very early in his presidency, rumors even Pence would have been on board. There's the letter and the book by "anonymous" who has pledged to come into the public before the election and says other current cabinet officials are contemplating the same. Plus 3 other tell all books that all paint the same picture of dysfunction and backstabbing and paranoia at Trump's adult day care.There has never been an administration remotely as chaotic, a commander in chief so scatterbrained and compromised.

And still although the cabinet almost universally despise him and the same goes for the congress they will stand behind him because the base will stand behind him. And as long as the base is glued to Hannity and Judge Jeanine and tuned in to Rush they will never change their mind because they dont even know what the facts regarding this president are.

Generally I agree on the democrats being holier than thou, they proved it during Clinton's impeachment although the evidence used to Impeach Clinton was pretty easy to attack and his 65% popularity was also a factor. I do believe they launched this particular inquiry based on principle and it may well cost them their majority in the 40 or so red/purple districts flipped last cycle. I'm becoming curious whether the full house will vote to remove at all as I've heard a few Dem house members making the case that it's wrong but not impeachable. They can't lose very many.

The way I see it if the Dems impeach in the house they might lose next November. If they blink now and vote to censure (Repubs will not even support that anyway) as opposed to impeaching thay will DEFINITELY lose next Nov. It's like the Alamo at this point. There's no back door.

[RiverDog]

I've heard that same report from numerous press and media people quoting anonymous sources,also Democratic members although Dent is the first R to go public after recently retiring. The Rs in the congress hate the guy and have since about day 1. Beyond that there were numerous credible reports of cabinet officials mulling the 25th amendment on at least 2 separate occasions,one very early in his presidency, rumors even Pence would have been on board. There's the letter and the book by "anonymous" who has pledged to come into the public before the election and says other current cabinet officials are contemplating the same. Plus 3 other tell all books that all paint the same picture of dysfunction and backstabbing and paranoia at Trump's adult day care.There has never been an administration remotely as chaotic, a commander in chief so scatterbrained and compromised.

And all that added together doesn't amount to a hill of beans as far as removing Trump goes. His core supporters are tone deaf and won't listen to a word out of the impeachment hearings and the moderates would have moved away from him by now if they were going to move at all.

Generally I agree on the democrats being holier than thou, they proved it during Clinton's impeachment although the evidence used to Impeach Clinton was pretty easy to attack and his 65% popularity was also a factor. I do believe they launched this particular inquiry based on principle and it may well cost them their majority in the 40 or so red/purple districts flipped last cycle. I'm becoming curious whether the full house will vote to remove at all as I've heard a few Dem house members making the case that it's wrong but not impeachable. They can't lose very many.

The way I see it if the Dems impeach in the house they might lose next November. If they blink now and vote to censure (Repubs will not even support that anyway) as opposed to impeaching thay will DEFINITELY lose next Nov. It's like the Alamo at this point. There's no back door.

Pelosi was under pressure from the majority of Dems and risked losing her speakership in 2020 if she didn't accede to their demands. Most of the party was itching for an impeachment fight ever since November of 2016, so I don't see any principle they've stood on as being virtuous. Outside of that, I agree with your analysis. They've pushed all their chips to the center. If they don't bring it to a halt shortly after the first of the year, it will be a campaign issue and they'll be forced to defend themselves in the purple districts you mentioned.

[idhawkman]

One thing I've noticed over the past few weeks is that Democrats are beginning to characterize Trump's behavior in the Ukrainian scandal as bribery. This is almost certainly in response to the Republican's defense of him as being an act that rises to the level of a "high crime or misdemeanor" as outlined in the Constitution. As we all know, bribery and treason are the only two crimes that are called out in the Constitution as being impeachable offenses.

So the question I have is do you think what Trump has done fits the definition of bribery? One can find several definitions of the term, most referring to the encouragement of an otherwise involuntary act in exchange for anything of value, which this alleged crime certainly fits. But I've seen other language that speaks of payments and personal gain, which would suggest something of monetary value has to be given/received. Additionally, one could look at bribery as seeking to benefit personally from his/her office, not necessarily politically, as is the case with the Ukrainian scandal.

It's my opinion that Trump has definitely abused his office in an effort to retain power, but I'm not sure it fits the definition of bribery as the framers intended it to. It could be that they were thinking of a situation where a POTUS was trying to gain some sort of personal financial benefit from his/her office. Any Constitutional experts out there?

As meant in the Federalist papers, no. He hasn't committed bribery which in those papers it was where a president was being bribed and then blackmailed because of the bribery.

The real question is whether every president has committed bribery if held to this standard that the dems are proposing. Let's take for example any of the SALT treaties where the then president required the Russians to do something (that would make our president look good) in exchange for us doing something.

I would submit that all diplomacy is you do this and I'll do that. "IF" us doing "that" is bad then why would we do it? If them doing "this" is good then every president benefits their re-election prospects because of it.

Lastly, if the president is not above the law then why would a presidential candidate be above investigation especially when talking about the Bidens and what they've openly admitted to on video tape?

[RiverDog]

One thing I've noticed over the past few weeks is that Democrats are beginning to characterize Trump's behavior in the Ukrainian scandal as bribery. This is almost certainly in response to the Republican's defense of him as being an act that rises to the level of a "high crime or misdemeanor" as outlined in the Constitution. As we all know, bribery and treason are the only two crimes that are called out in the Constitution as being impeachable offenses.

So the question I have is do you think what Trump has done fits the definition of bribery? One can find several definitions of the term, most referring to the encouragement of an otherwise involuntary act in exchange for anything of value, which this alleged crime certainly fits. But I've seen other language that speaks of payments and personal gain, which would suggest something of monetary value has to be given/received. Additionally, one could look at bribery as seeking to benefit personally from his/her office, not necessarily politically, as is the case with the Ukrainian scandal.

It's my opinion that Trump has definitely abused his office in an effort to retain power, but I'm not sure it fits the definition of bribery as the framers intended it to. It could be that they were thinking of a situation where a POTUS was trying to gain some sort of personal financial benefit from his/her office. Any Constitutional experts out there?

As meant in the Federalist papers, no. He hasn't committed bribery which in those papers it was where a president was being bribed and then blackmailed because of the bribery.

The real question is whether every president has committed bribery if held to this standard that the dems are proposing. Let's take for example any of the SALT treaties where the then president required the Russians to do something (that would make our president look good) in exchange for us doing something.

I would submit that all diplomacy is you do this and I'll do that. "IF" us doing "that" is bad then why would we do it? If them doing "this" is good then every president benefits their re-election prospects because of it.

If it wasn't for the fact that the "something" in Trump's case was getting dirt on a political opponent, then I'd agree. Funny how you just brushed over that little fact. Heck, even most Republicans say what Trump did was wrong, they just don't think it rises to the level of an impeachable crime.

Lastly, if the president is not above the law then why would a presidential candidate be above investigation especially when talking about the Bidens and what they've openly admitted to on video tape?

The Bidens? Hunter Biden is a private citizen that does not hold nor is seeking elective office, and there's no evidence that Joe Biden did anything legally or ethically wrong. It's pretty obvious that Hunter Biden was taking advantage of his dad's name and although I find it ethically abhorrent for Junior to be interjecting himself into international politics for monetary gain and the old man for either being ignorant or not acting to clean up his son's act, there's probably nothing illegal in what either of them did.

Having said that, Joe Biden's relationship with his son and his business dealings are fair game in the political arena and I do not oppose opening an investigation into his role in the Ukrainian scandal if any evidence of wrongdoing can be produced. But regardless of what Biden did or didn't do, it doesn't change a single thing with regard to Trump's abuse of power/bribery charges he's facing. This is nothing but a smoke screen designed to distract attention away from Trump's extremely foolish attempt to dig up dirt on what at the time was the biggest threat to his re-election.

[Hawktawk]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-l ... d=67420879

But they will claim its unfair as they make sure they dont have high powered legal representation there to defend themselves
It started with" these secret hearings are rigged". Then it went to "all these live witnesses are never trumpers making up stuff". Then it became" yeah he did it but there's nothing wrong with it". Now it's "he did it, it's wrong, but its not impeachable and it's all the democrats fault".
It would blow my mind if it weren't so predictable. Repubs who said if there were a quid pro quo it would be a real problem have seen it laid bare that its worse than they could have ever imagined and suddenly its just fine, all the democrats fault.

RD is exactly right. Wouldn't matter what Hunter Biden was doing with Burisma which was a bad look for sure but he was one of many high profile westerners brought in to sit on the board as the company attempted to craft a new image and fight corruption within itself. The POTUS CAN NOT use the power of the purse to hook himself up like that.

[RiverDog]

https://abcnews.go.com/Politics/trump-lawyers-wont-participate-upcoming-impeachment-hearing-sources/story?id=67420879

But they will claim its unfair as they make sure they dont have high powered legal representation there to defend themselves
It started with" these secret hearings are rigged". Then it went to "all these live witnesses are never trumpers making up stuff". Then it became" yeah he did it but there's nothing wrong with it". Now it's "he did it, it's wrong, but its not impeachable and it's all the democrats fault".
It would blow my mind if it weren't so predictable. Repubs who said if there were a quid pro quo it would be a real problem have seen it laid bare that its worse than they could have ever imagined and suddenly its just fine, all the democrats fault.

RD is exactly right. Wouldn't matter what Hunter Biden was doing with Burisma which was a bad look for sure but he was one of many high profile westerners brought in to sit on the board as the company attempted to craft a new image and fight corruption within itself. The POTUS CAN NOT use the power of the purse to hook himself up like that.

You forgot to say that one of the R's arguments used to be that "there was no quid pro quo". Now that there's nearly ironclad proof that there was exactly that, they've changed their tune to "it doesn't rise to the level of an impeachable crime".

With the exception of the Presidency, I'm probably going to vote Republican this time around if I'm convinced that a Democrat is going to beat Trump come next November, which at this point seems more likely than not. I want divided government so as to prevent the Dems from advancing their socialist agenda yet I want that buffoon out of office.

[I-5]

Riv, I'd like to go with your belief that a democrat is going to beat Trump next year....what do you base that on?

[RiverDog]

Riv, I'd like to go with your belief that a democrat is going to beat Trump next year....what do you base that on?

Trump's popularity has never gotten close to 50%. As a rule, when an incumbent President has a sub 50% approval rating, it means trouble for them. There's been several off year special elections in states that Trump won in 2016 that went for the Dem (LA and KY). Although I haven't seen the latest polls, Trump was in trouble in several swing states, including FL, WI, and PA.

We're still a long ways out, but if the Dems nominate a moderate like Biden, I don't think they'll have much trouble winning back the White House.

[Hawktawk]

Well to update having been tuned in to these proceedings more than Id like here's the new R spin.

He did nothing wrong whatsoever, either with Russia or especially Ukraine. He's just doing his job, he has every right to do whatever he wants. He can't be questioned, subpoenaed, have any oversight of his activities whatsoever...So even though these people know that what trump has done is wrong and impeachable they are going to stand with him, enable and embolden him.

So to characterize what they are doing they are in fact KNOWINGLY putting a pedophile in charge of a daycare. They are buying a known alcoholic with 3 DUIs a case of whiskey and handing him the car keys. Or maybe the best analogy is they are giving an arsonist 5 gallons of kerosine and a big box of matches and saying knock yourself out..Can you imagine a post Impeachment Trump and how he will deal with the world when he made the phone call that blew this scandal open ONE DAY AFTER Muellers testimony????...Imagine if he does get 4 more years with no guardrails, the only congressional remedy for a despot already deployed unsuccessfully? Because this guy aint gonna change, ever.

The lack of moral fabric among these politicians who will endanger the very foundations of our democracy in order to win is disgusting. That's including the weasels in the D party that might roll the dice on voting no to try to save their seat in a purple district. What they have already done is give Trump talking points which will be plastered all over the TV for 11 months and I think the anger among Ds and Is and women towards Trump will cost them reelection anyway.

As for the Dems beating Trump lets see. I think Biden beats him like a drum assuming he's the nominee.He is the only D that leads trump comfortably nationally and in most of the battleground states. Hes ahead in Iowa by a whisker after being 10 points down a couple of weeks ago with Sanders on his heels. If he can get to N Carolina in decent shape he's the likely nominee. Warren has really faded which I am happy for. Her policies are the second most radical to Sanders. Either of those two will lose to Trump. He will pigeonhole them as socialists which polls terribly among voters.Their combined total % among left wingers in the D party appears to be around 35% so the moderate vote is the largest slice of the electorate. The party just needs to not allow enough candidates to hang around to allow an outlier to pick off winner take all states with 35% of the vote or less.Ask Reince Priebus

Buttigeig has emerged as both the young somewhat moderate challenger to Biden but also as the darling of the progressive far left and LGBT community strictly due to his sexual orientation. I like the guy politically, how he speaks , his intellect and his positions on many issues are plausible to me. But I just think he will lose to Trump strictly based on his sexual orientation and gay marriage. America is not ready although Id take the guy in a heartbeat over the porn star president.
Bloomberg is interesting and got a pretty good initial bump with his slick commercials.

One other wild card I've just heard of could really shake up the race. For one 45 state parties have used their apparatus to kill any republican primary, basically snuffing out Weld or Walsh from being able to potentially embarrass Trump. More interesting is that the Trump campaign is considering skipping the debates altogether. I dont think its ever been done before but it might be the smartest thing he can do. I think Trumps style in 2016, his supposed tough talk attracted a lot of voters. 4 years later they are worn out, 53% dont want to hear one word out of his piehole. They have a massive war chest to spend on narrated commercials that will likely only feature trump saying "I approve this message". Still I wonder how that will play with voters. And imagine Bidens commercials"what are you hiding from coward?" It might be fascinating. Stay tuned !!!:D

[RiverDog]

As for the Dems beating Trump lets see. I think Biden beats him like a drum assuming he's the nominee.He is the only D that leads trump comfortably nationally and in most of the battleground states. Hes ahead in Iowa by a whisker after being 10 points down a couple of weeks ago with Sanders on his heels. If he can get to N Carolina in decent shape he's the likely nominee. Warren has really faded which I am happy for. Her policies are the second most radical to Sanders. Either of those two will lose to Trump. He will pigeonhole them as socialists which polls terribly among voters.Their combined total % among left wingers in the D party appears to be around 35% so the moderate vote is the largest slice of the electorate. The party just needs to not allow enough candidates to hang around to allow an outlier to pick off winner take all states with 35% of the vote or less.Ask Reince Priebus

Buttigeig has emerged as both the young somewhat moderate challenger to Biden but also as the darling of the progressive far left and LGBT community strictly due to his sexual orientation. I like the guy politically, how he speaks , his intellect and his positions on many issues are plausible to me. But I just think he will lose to Trump strictly based on his sexual orientation and gay marriage. America is not ready although Id take the guy in a heartbeat over the porn star president.
Bloomberg is interesting and got a pretty good initial bump with his slick commercials.

One other wild card I've just heard of could really shake up the race. For one 45 state parties have used their apparatus to kill any republican primary, basically snuffing out Weld or Walsh from being able to potentially embarrass Trump. More interesting is that the Trump campaign is considering skipping the debates altogether. I dont think its ever been done before but it might be the smartest thing he can do. I think Trumps style in 2016, his supposed tough talk attracted a lot of voters. 4 years later they are worn out, 53% dont want to hear one word out of his piehole. They have a massive war chest to spend on narrated commercials that will likely only feature trump saying "I approve this message". Still I wonder how that will play with voters. And imagine Bidens commercials"what are you hiding from coward?" It might be fascinating. Stay tuned !!!:D

I pretty much agree with this, although I don't think Biden will beat Trump "like a drum". Trump will still win in enough deep red states in the Midwest and south to earn him 200 or so electoral votes. My guess is that the Dems flip about 5 or 6 states that HRC lost, including PA, MI, WI, FL, and AZ.

Agree about the wisdom of Trump skipping the debates. He's horrible on his feet and without access to a teleprompter. It also means that he has to study and rehearse, and he's too lazy to put in the amount of work it takes to prepare for such events. The problem is that Biden isn't a whole lot better, and has made numerous gaffes and can be counted on to say something Trumpian. I also agree that the time isn't quite right for a homosexual candidate, but I could be wrong. Of all the younger Dems, I like Buttigieg the best and would strongly consider voting for him should he be the nominee.

[Hawktawk]

Biden has definitely lost some heat on his fastball. he sort of speaks in word salad sometimes but still...he would sound eloquent next to DT.

Trump speaks at about a 5th grade level according to speech pathologists. Biden would seem so smooth, under control, competent. sane relative to Trump. He's gotten far worse in the last 3 years. Just yesterday he tweeted 125 times!!!!! He couldn't keep any job in america carrying on like that other than running his company or POTUS. It's a hell of a note.

[I-5]

I for one appreciate that we are on a football forum, and talking about a gay candidate without a trace of homophobia. I think that shows how far we've come, and also how well Pete communicates who he is.

[RiverDog]

Biden has definitely lost some heat on his fastball. he sort of speaks in word salad sometimes but still...he would sound eloquent next to DT.

Boy, I don't know. Biden has made some gawd awful gaffes over the years. All he needs to do is to start talking about how FDR used to reassure Americans in the fireside chats he made over TV and all hell would break loose. I can see the ads now: "And you want to replace Trump with this clown?" If I were Biden's campaign manager, I wouldn't let him wander 10 feet away from a teleprompter.