Is the extortion of an allied country to investigate a political opponent an impeachable offense by the President?

[volfanjustin]

I suppose extortion by an official of other foreign officials, if it can be proved, would be a "high crime". It would be impeachable. Just hope the now gleeful anti-Trumpers would hold any of their future Democrat presidents to the same standard. Somehow I doubt it.

You mean like a certain former VP who is now running to be President?

 

[luthervol]

Bring charges then.

Shiff is just marking time to get closer to the election with the hopes that the economy tanks. It's your only hope.

The economy tanking is not necessary; but if it does, Trump has zero chance.

 

[NashVol11]

And that would be the “yes that kind of conduct is clearly impeachable however no such proof has been provided” option however since the poll was loaded to purposely avoid an honest distribution on the answers we’ve got this BS. Like I said above working as intended.

That option is just "yes, it's impeachable." It's not missing. Everyone already knows Republicans would add "but this is all a hoax"

 

[NashVol11]

When the extortion never happened and is a made up hoax from the radical left, no it's not an impeachable offense. Next

*Avoids the question*..."Next!"

 

[luthervol]

And the ones who determine it hasn’t won’t vote in this BS poll. Your point?

That we're in agreement. It's an impeachable offense. It boils down to whether or not you determine it proven.

 

[NorthDallas40]

That option is just "yes, it's impeachable." It's not missing. Everyone already knows Republicans would add "but this is all a hoax"

Stupid.Game.

 

[Boston Vol]

So is extortion now what they’re using? I guess quid pro quo wasn’t working. I know they’ve been tossing around a lot of words that sound bad, like bribery and extortion. I guess after some trial balloons extortion it is.

 

[NorthDallas40]

That we're in agreement. It's an impeachable offense. It boils down to whether or not you determine it proven.

Kinda would have been nice to have a broad spectrum of choices to chose from and reflect that then huh? Maybe the dumbazz would have gotten a relevant distribution of replies? Naaaaaaaaah.

 

[RockyTop85]

And that would be the “yes that kind of conduct is clearly impeachable however no such proof has been provided” option however since the poll was loaded to purposely avoid an honest distribution on the answers we’ve got this BS. Like I said above working as intended.

I see what you’re saying in your other post but this is roughly how I construed the “yes” answer. I didn’t see it as an endorsement of what had been proven but I see what you’re saying.

 

[NashVol11]

Kinda would have been nice to have a broad spectrum of choices to chose from and reflect that then huh? Maybe the dumbazz would have gotten a relevant distribution of replies? Naaaaaaaaah.

I disagree, polls with like 15 answer choices are trash

 

[MontyPython]

Fusion GPS received their funding from the DNC/Clinton campaign (one in the same since the Clinton's bailed out the party) and Uranium One was a deal struck where the Clinton Foundation cut the deal in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.

Lawdy. Fusion GPS funding was originally from a Republican. Uranium One conspiracy theory has been thoroughly debunked.

 

[NashVol11]

Stupid.Game.

The game isn't the problem, you're just unwilling to answer a question that may not include all the talking points you want. If someone asked "is running a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor a bad thing?" I'd say yes, without needing a bunch of qualifiers about whether it actually happened.

 

[luthervol]

Kinda would have been nice to have a broad spectrum of choices to chose from and reflect that then huh? Maybe the dumbazz would have gotten a relevant distribution of replies? Naaaaaaaaah.

I think the point was to determine if people found what Trump is accused of an impeachable offense.
If so, the choices are appropriate.

 

[NashVol11]

I suppose extortion by an official of other foreign officials, if it can be proved, would be a "high crime". It would be impeachable. Just hope the now gleeful anti-Trumpers would hold any of their future Democrat presidents to the same standard. Somehow I doubt it.

Sam here actually said yes. It's not that hard.

 

[NorthDallas40]

I disagree, polls with like 15 answer choices are trash

Ok we disagree. I can live with that. But I’d also submit for a useful pointed discussion here it would require only four choices since there are really only two variables. Is it an impeachable offense and do you believe he did it. But... that isn’t a loaded proposition so...

 

[RockyTop85]

That’s too broad

Disagree. Somebody would bitch about that, too. Anybody complaining about the way the OP was phrased knows enough about what’s going on to tailor their response to the set of facts at issue.

Coy, over-broad answers like “high crimes and misdemeanors” would be obviously evasive in this context.

 

[NorthDallas40]

The game isn't the problem, you're just unwilling to answer a question that may not include all the talking points you want. If someone asked "is running a child sex ring out of a pizza parlor a bad thing?" I'd say yes, without needing a bunch of qualifiers about whether it actually happened.

Yeah the game actually is the problem. See post 65 above. But that doesn’t fit the current sales job so...

 

[NorthDallas40]

Somebody would bitch about that, too. Anybody complaining about the way the OP was phrased knows enough about what’s going on to tailor their response to the set of facts at issue.

Then why not ask the question in a manner which would actually elicit useful discourse?

Bitching here will happen anyway. Might as well at least attempt some discourse on the topic at hand.

 

[NashVol11]

Ok we disagree. I can live with that. But I’d also submit for a useful pointed discussion here it would require only four choices since there are really only two variables. Is it an impeachable offense and do you believe he did it. But... that isn’t a loaded preposition so...

Meh, I don't disagree with the four choices, but I'm also okay with just two and with someone voting yes and then posting "voted yes, but I don't believe that happened here." Four choices is probably the best option, but I don't think this is dramatically worse. I'm fine with either one

I'd probably take off the "by the President" part of the thread title, though, since depending on your reading it implies that Trump did it

 

[Mick]

Fusion GPS received their funding from the DNC/Clinton campaign (one in the same since the Clinton's bailed out the party) and Uranium One was a deal struck where the Clinton Foundation cut the deal in exchange for donations to the Clinton Foundation.

You're citing a work of fiction all the while Trumps charity was proven to be a sham. I find it hard to make a big deal about approving the sale of a Canadian company to Russia .
Uranium One produces a small and dwindling amount . Last year, it mined just 23 tons in the U.S. — about 2 percent of the small U.S. production. Think of Uranium One's share as 2 percent of 2 percent. Or 0.04 percent of world production.

The Alternative 'Russia Scandal'

 

[SamRebel35]

What conduct would convince you that Trump should be removed from office?

I would consider impeachment if he supplied automatic rifles to the drug cartels. May also consider it if he uses the IRS to target people for political purposes. Using his foundation to pay for his daughter's wedding may also be up for consideration. If he instructed the NSA to conduct mass surveillance of the populace, that would definitely fit the bill for grounds of impeachment. If Trump were to sell 20% of our Uranium to Russia in exchange for tens of millions of dollars to his foundation, I might consider that an impeachable offense.

 

[NorthDallas40]

Meh, I don't disagree with the four choices, but I'm also okay with just two and with someone voting yes and then posting "voted yes, but I don't believe that happened here." Four choices is probably the best option, but I don't think this is dramatically worse. I'm fine with either one

I'd probably take off the "by the President" part of the thread title, though, since depending on your reading it implies that Trump did it

Ding ding ding! Loaded proposition.

 

[volfanjustin]

*Avoids the question*..."Next!"

answered it with the only proper response

 

[tvolsfan]

For those who answer “no,” are you arguing the president should feel free to do this?

 

[NorthDallas40]

For those who answer “no,” are you arguing the president should feel free to do this?

The fact that you even felt the need to ask that shows exactly how loaded this whole diatribe is and how piss poor this thread construction really is.