So then impeachment is yet another topic which you do not understand. Of course, this admonition will fall on deaf ears yet again:
Learn something about a subject before you pontificate on it!
Grounds for impeachment are not required to be violations of the law -- they
can be, but they are not required to be. One can be impeached for violating one's oath of office, for abuse of power, for corruption, for severe ethics violations, for collusion with hostile foreign powers, for treasonous conduct, etc.
Let's look at collusion more closely. Collusion is not illegal, because there is no law concerning collusion and there is not even any legal definition of collusion, as Mueller explained in his report. Conspiracy, basically collusion taken to an extreme,
is illegal, but can be difficult to prove. But even though collusion in itself is not illegal, it
is valid grounds for impeachment. The Mueller Report clearly shows that Trump and his campaign were up to their necks in collusion, but since Mueller was conducting a
criminal investigation he could do nothing more about it than to report the facts; he left it up to Congress to address the question of collusion with their powers up to and possibly including impeachment.
Treasonous conduct is also sticky. Treason can be difficult to convict someone of because it is narrowly defined (eg, during time of war). However, certain conduct can be determined to be treasonous even without rising to legal level of treason. Such as close collusion with a hostile country (eg, Trump's long private conversations with Putin where no other American was present). Such as handing classified material over to representatives of a hostile country (as Trump did with the Russian ambassador in the Oval Office with no other Americans present -- the Russians leaked that one). Such as compromising national security.
Percy writes:
For the cowardly Democrats in Congress
paying off paramours,
obstructing justice,
accepting emoluments,
hiding his tax returns,
refusing to put his business in a blind trust,
and stonewalling all congressional inquiries
(just to mention the worst) wasn't enough. But apparently inviting campaign help from a foreign country has finally put Trump over the top for these paragons of gutlessness, and now Pelosi believes she finally has sufficient House support to begin impeachment inquiries.
First, none of those things is illegal.
Completely false, as already pointed out by Taq. But to follow the rest of your misunderstandings:
In the case of paying off the paramours is it better to ...
You are deflecting and diverting again. And in playing your tired game of "what about ... ?", you overlook the simple fact that such a sex scandal has sunk many political careers. But that's not the question here.
What Trump did in engineering those pay-offs was in clear violation of campaign finance laws. Mike Cohen is already in prison for his part in it and in the cover-up (hey, if it's so innocent an act, why try to cover it up?). Trump has been identified as an "unindicted co-conspirator" in that case. The only thing that is preventing Trump's indictment in that case is that OLC memo preventing the indictment of a sitting president. Once Trump leaves office in or before 2021, then he can be indicted and prosecuted for his part in that crime.
In the meantime, his part in that criminal conspiracy would qualify as one of the many grounds for impeachment that are hanging over his head.
Percy writes:
obstructing justice,
But he did no such thing.
Absolutely false! First, obstructing justice is most definitely a crime, one for which many people have been convicted and have gone to prison for.
The Mueller Report cites and describes at least 10 instances in which Trump acted to obstruct justice. Remember, it's the attempt to obstruct that counts, not whether the attempt succeeded. That would be like arguing that you can't prosecute a bank robber because he was arrested in the middle of an attempted bank robbery. And again, it was only that OLC memo that prevented Mueller from indicting Trump for obstruction, but rather he had to leave it up to Congress to follow through. And once Trump leaves office, then he can be indicted and prosecuted for those acts of obstruction.
But Trump's acts of obstructing justice (and Congress) are continuous. Trump commits obstruction every time that he blocks an investigation and that he orders his people to block an investigation. That includes, but not limited to, ignoring subpoenas, violating federal laws (eg, keeping the DNI from delivering whistleblower reports to Congress as required by federal law, keeping the IRS from providing tax information to Congress as required by federal law), refusing to enforce federal laws.
Obstruction of justice and of Congress are illegal. Also note that one of the articles of impeachment against Nixon was ignoring a Congressional subpoena, so there is precedence.
Percy writes:
accepting emoluments,
For what? There's nothing wrong with accepting money as long as it's legal and there's no reason to think anything he accepted wasn't.
Receiving emoluments, both foreign and domestic, is explicitly forbidden by The Constitution of the United States of America
and grounds for impeachment.
The President may not accept any money outside of his pay. Penultimate (ie, next to last) paragraph of Article II Section 1:
quote:
The President shall, at stated Times, receive for his Services, a Compensation, which shall neither be encreased nor diminished during the Period for which he shall have been elected, and he shall not receive within that Period any other Emolument from the United States, or any of them.
Receiving emoluments is in violation of the Constitution and
is an impeachable offense.
Percy writes:
hiding his tax returns,
You mean refusing to allow public scrutiny of his private life which is his right?
A president's finances are no longer private, but rather are a valid concern of Congress serving their Constitutional duty of oversight. Any conflict of interest that may exist must be known and dealt with.
That does not mean that those tax returns would be released to the public, but it does mean that the appropriate congressional committees are absolutely required access to those returns. For that reason,
federal law requires that the IRS SHALL release anybody's tax returns to Congress upon request.
Now, Trump is infamous for leaving a large number of government positions unfilled, yet he was very careful to appoint his people to the top positions of the IRS, three layers of delegation down. He was very careful to have his people in position to block any request for his tax returns
by directly violating federal law. This ordering someone to violate the law is yet another count of obstruction of justice against Trump -- like I said, Trump's crimes just keep piling up day after day.
Now, before you try to deflect and divert again with false claims that "no other President has ever had to endure this before!", that's just yet another bullshirt liie. Every president's tax returns have been subject to examination and review. Sitting presidents are routinely under tax audit. The only difference is that this president refuses to be audited and there is no limit to the extremes that he will go to to keep his finances secret. This is a blatantly obvious cover-up, so just what is he so desperate to cover up?
My own personal suspicion is that they will show how much money he was getting from Russian sources. Records from Deutsche Bank would also be very illuminating, given their past record of laundering Russian oligarch money.
Percy writes:
refusing to put his business in a blind trust,
Apparently also his right and perfectly legal?
This is an ethics violation. Putting your business in a blind trust is a measure to eliminate conflicts of interest. There is no law requiring it (not yet!) but there is a moral and ethical requirement for it. Since Trump has no sense of morality nor ethics, he ignored it.
Now what would happen if Trump had to take measures against a country where he has financial interest? That would be a conflict of interest. Which would come first, country or personal financial interests? Of course, for Trump his personal finances come first above everything, except possibly his ego. He had financial interests in Russia and look how he has constantly pandered to Russia. When you look at the list of countries in his infamous Muslim ban, conspicuous in their absence on the list were the Muslim countries where he had financial interests.
That is precisely why a president must put his business in a blind trust, in order to avoid those conflicts of interest. And Trump's acting on his conflicts of interest is clearly grounds for impeachment.
It should also be pointed out that keeping his businesses provides a conduit for receiving emoluments (effectively bribes). Also a conduit for Trump to funnel government money into his own pocket every time he goes golfing at one of his own resorts, which is almost every weekend.
Percy writes:
and stonewalling all congressional inquiries
Which are all nothing more than harassment, not in any sense legitimate inquiries
More bullshirt liies! Oversight of the Executive is one of Congress' constitutional duties. Those inquiries are a necessary part of their oversight duty without which they cannot possibly perform that duty.
And every time he blocks a congressional inquiries and orders an underling to ignore or block an inquiry, he commits yet another act of obstruction, which is illegal.
Thoroughly impeachable.
Percy writes:
inviting campaign help from a foreign country has finally put Trump over the top
We're still waiting to find out if there's anything to this but I guess they think there must be? One thing I keep hearing is that the "whistleblower" got his information secondhand, which means he's not legally a whistleblower.
It was help from Russia that got Trump into office to begin with. The other day a commentator quoted the old black women in her church: "The devil doesn't have any new tricks." Trump knows what got him into office so he's seeking that same kind of help again.
You're hearing spin. We need for that whistleblower to testify before congressional committees. But even without that whistleblower report, the transcript that the WH released shows Trump shaking down the Ukrainian president.
Well, wait and see what comes of this ongoing Democrat vendetta based on nothing but hatred of Trump.
No, what we have is a long litany of offenses by Trump who is endangering our country.
But if Trump is so innocent and all that, why doesn't he just produce the requested documentation that would clear him, that would exonerate him completely? If he has nothing to hide, why is he so adamant about hiding everything at very great financial expense (armies of lawyers don't come cheap)?
I remember that Trump himself said that taking the Fifth is an admission of guilt, because if you were actually innocent that you wouldn't need to take the Fifth. All of Trump's actions are effectively taking the Fifth. By his own standards, he must be guilty as sin.
ABE:I forgot to mention another federal law that Trump violated when he broadcast a false weather warning and then falsified an official weather map, so then two counts of violating that federal law. This is also known as "SharpieGate".
Edited by dwise1, : ABE: SharpieGate
Your Democrats are far to the right of our Conservatives. 
™ Version 4.2
(1)
