Donnie Just Can't Stop Committing Treason

What ramifications are more serious?

Obama implementing sanctions or Trump lobbying to remove them?

Obama kicking Russia out of the G8 or Trump lobbying to bring them back in?

Obama sending money and armaments to Ukraine to fight Russia....or Trump using it as leverage to help his campaign?

And lest we forget, Trump hired Russia's propoganda minister in Ukraine (paul Manafort) to run his election campaign.

So, Boilerman, who is more "toothless"  in your opinion  when it comes to confronting Russia?

Boilerman will not argue honestly about anything that reflects poorly on his tin god. He has given up completely on attempting to respond to my arguments--wisely, perhaps, because he is incapable of doing so--and instead, spews insults at me like an angry third-grader.

Supporting Trump, the traitor, is in itself an act of treason. Sieg Heil, Trumpers!

"Sieg Heil, Trumpers!"

Ahh, . . . at last, . . . the Godwin's Law moment arrives.

Sorry, Kevin Lewis loses the debate.

Oh, and by invoking the treason accusation against his opponent, Kevin Lewis loses the debate, in any case.

Definition:

treason:  Treason against the United States shall consist only in levying war against them, or in adhering to their enemies, giving them aid and comfort. 

A note for consideration:

In any debate if one is sufficiently ill-prepared to make a legitimtae argument to support his own view and, thereby, out of desperation stoops to simple name-calling or to baseless accusations against his opponent, . . . he loses.   

DonDiego suggests one refrain from doing so.

[n.b. Poor old DonDiego recognizers that his suggestions regarding appropriate debate etiquette are unlikely to be countenanced by any likely offenders, . . . but he can hope.]

Sigh, Don Diego trots out Godwin's Law for the fourth or fifth time since he has been shown quotes of Godwin saying Godwin's law doesn't apply to Trump. 

I suppose it is easier to cry foul than answer the legitimate questions asked of him earlier. I posted them below in bold in case he missed them.

What is your opinion on the legality of bribing foreign governments with taxpayer funds to have them criminally investigate your political opponents? And what is the legality of converting U.S. funds to personal use for the purpose of bribing foreign governments?

I do agree.  In any debate if one is sufficiently ill-prepared to make a legitimate argument to support his own view and, thereby, out of desperation stoops to simple name-calling or to baseless accusations against his opponent, . . . he loses.    

By your own definition, you lost by making a baseless claim that Godwin's rule applies. 

Oh, boy, here we go.  "Aid and comfort"...everything from two aspirin, a glass of wine, a dog, and eventually voting one way or the other on election day.  All will qualify as "treason."

Candy, I will ask you the same questions I asked Don and David. 

What is your opinion on the legality of bribing foreign governments with taxpayer funds to have them criminally investigate your political opponents? And what is the legality of converting U.S. funds to personal use for the purpose of bribing foreign governments?

Mark asks:  What is your opinion on the legality of bribing foreign governments with taxpayer funds to have them criminally investigate your political opponents? And what is the legality of converting U.S. funds to personal use for the purpose of bribing foreign governments?

The Federal Bribery Statute prohibits public officials from taking or soliciting bribes.

__ If, . . . IF President Trump is bribing the Ukranians (with the military aid approved by Congress) to investigate Hunter Biden the statute wouldn't apply, because the Ukranians are not "public officials" as defined by the statute.

__ If, . . . IF President Trump is soliciting a bribe (the investigation of Hunter Biden) in exchange for the military aid, the important question is:  Does investigation of Hunter Biden qualify as "payment of a bribe".  The investigation would, in fact, be an official Government action by Ukraine - unlikely to be considered "payment of a bribe" under the statute.  And if, f'rinstance, the investigation were to find no wrongdoing by Hunter Biden or Joe Biden it would not have any "value" at all. 

Ref: "Trump Didn't Bribe Ukraine"

The referenced article suggests the laws regarding bribery, extortion, campaign finance, etc. do not apply and would be unlikely to result in conviction.  The President is granted lots of powers regarding dealings with foreigh countries.

The article concludes that, in fact, the appropriate course of action is for Congress to impeach the President if they believe the President has committed an impeachable act.  

Poor old DonDiego's opinion is he has not done so.  DonDiego opines Mark is likely to disagree.

Another fake media twisting of the facts and Mark has, once again, taken the bait and is building a mountain out of a mole hill. Some things never change... MAGA

Obama.

The article you cited comes to this conclusion. 

What Trump is alleged to have done is not a garden variety crime; it’s worse. It involved misusing $250 million in aid appropriated by Congress for his benefit—the kind of gross misconduct that easily clears the bar of high crimes and misdemeanors set by the Constitution when impeaching a president. Which means the best way to hold Trump accountable for that misconduct isn’t a criminal trial; it’s for Congress to impeach him.

I agree with the thesis and the conclusion of your article. It seems odd while you agree with the thesis you don't agree with the conclusion.  If taking 250 million dollars belonging to the government and converting it to your own personal use to pay a bribe or to withhold it until another country implicates the son of your political rival in a criminal offense isn't a high crime under the Constitution, there is literally nothing that is. This is exactly the reason that clause was put in the Constitution.  It was designed to address this kind of misconduct being committed by the President or Vice-President. 

Don't forget, the Republicans thought lying about consensual affair was a high crime.