Sounds About Right

Funny, the Democrats still haven't identified an actual crime....

Can you just list all the crimes please. Thanks.

U.S. Constitution, Art. II, Sec. IV: "High crimes and misdemeanors." As intentionally loose phrase which ultimately gets to be defined by Congress. Pre-defining all the possible abuses of office that a President could engage in would be an impossible task, so the Founders didn't even try.

Now! https://intelligence.house.gov/report/

Hurting the feelings of pussies isn't a crime.

There are some high crimes and misdemeanors and plenty of obstruction in here. https://intelligence.house.gov/report/

Is that a Schiffty link?

You forget Obama spied on Trump's campaign staff? Not that you're a Obamite or anything.

I said it before and I'll say it again: The FBI and Obama both tread ridiculously lightly around Trump and his team in the run-up to Nov. 2016 given what they already knew about his team's Russian contacts.

So the FBI altering Carter Page's emails for the FISA court was 'treading lightly'?

As far as Ed Snowden, the NSA spies on EVERYBODY.

"So the FBI altering Carter Page's emails for the FISA court was 'treading lightly'?"

Imma need a citation for that.

What I mean by "treading lightly" is this: Obama and other top people knew Trump's campaign was in contact with Russians, but they kept it under wraps because they did not want the heavy hand of presidential interference in an upcoming U.S. election.

...HMMMMM...

What does that whole "presidential interference in an upcoming U.S. election" thing sound like?

Oh yeah! This Hunter-Biden-election-dirt-witch-hunt thing! https://intelligence.house.gov/report/

The IG report spelled it out clearly. Probably only Fox reported on it in any way.

My bad, amazingly CNN did.

https://www.cnn.com/politics/live-news/inspector-general-report-russia-investigation/h_789c45ab138034b081b8efc2e802f2bb

Comey misrepresented the Steele dossier as collaborated. They did not tread lightly.

I saw that article too when I Googled, wanted to make sure we were on the same page

Without getting too into the weeds here: we have to compare apples to apples. It’s not entirely proper to compare the activities of a low-level FBI lawyer (let’s just assume it’s all true) to those of the POTUS.

I’ve compared A. Obama‘s admirable restraint when presented with verifiable, incriminating information that could have sunk the Trump campaign, with B. Trump’s hamfisted and impromptu attempts to dig up election dirt in a country half a world away that could potentially damage Joe Biden (and using the implicit threat of withholding military aid to do so)

I think that is the proper comparison here

1. U.S. Constitution, Art. II, Sec. IV: "High crimes and misdemeanors." (discussed above) +
2. Articles of Impeachment -- https://www.documentcloud.org/documents/6572303-Articles-of-Impeachment.html -- defining said "high crimes and misdemeanors."

Does not equal "nothing"

Those are laws. You did not express the CRIMES. Explain the CRIMES not the laws. We know there are laws what are the exact Specific CRIMES? No faking and making it up this time chicky chick. Be specific. High crimes and misdemeanors. Ok WHAT high crime and Misdemeanor? Name just a couple. Quid pro Quo? What is the crime for a President investigating a country before giving them money? Is quid pro quo even illegal? This is gonna backfire on your party.

You don't know the crimes. Neither does the Democrats. Holding back aid would mean every President would have committed a crime. Good luck proving that one.

It would be a waste of time and would exceed comment length for me to simply copy-paste or re-type the information set forth in the Articles of Impeachment. The specific answers to the questions you are looking for are in there. The Articles are rather succinct at 9 double-spaced pages. The full House impeachment report which is over 600 pages (including dissenting views) may be found here: https://apps.npr.org/documents/document.html?id=6579566-House-Judiciary-Committee-Impeachment-Report

I've already explained why this exact particular conduct by Trump was not pre-criminalized.

Because it would simply be impossible to foresee all the possible ways a president could abuse his office. Arguably, it could be considered unconstitutional and a violation of separation of powers itself for Congress to try to pass laws placing prior restraints on presidential conduct.

Nonetheless, if Congress judges that a President *has* abused his office by engaging in "high crimes and misdemeanors," the Constitution provides impeachment as a checks-and-balances function.