Although it is highly contested, Trump should be impeached for withholding military aid to Ukraine in exchange for their inquiry into Joe Biden’s son. It is in direct violation of the American people’s rights for the president to secretly bring a foreign country into American politics.

America runs on the consent of the governed, but the American people never consented to the president’s actions. His plan never went through Congress nor any other type of public approval.

This so-called quid-pro-quo also violates the government’s system of checks and balances. The president alone should not have the power to bring foreign influences into our politics. If there is no check on the president’s power, what’s stopping him from bringing more foreign influences into American politics for personal gain? President Trump did not conduct this exchange to secure a foreign ally, protect the American people, nor better our country in any way. He did it for foreign support in condemning Joe Biden, his political opponent, and his family. This is an abuse of presidential power that the American people cannot ignore.

Although President Trump’s actions might not technically be illegal, they still are means for impeachment. The President of the United States should be held to a higher standard than what simply violates the law. He should be judged on what violates the oath he took when he went into office, and what violates the rights of the American people. President Trump ignored the American people, by-passed the government’s checks and balances, and abused his office as a means for his own political gain. This is clearly grounds for impeachment and the American people should not let President Trump get away with this.

Sincerely,

Naomi Jordan

Pinetop, AZ

(13) comments

Russ_in_WML

lol

fishinguy

OH Boy. I personally would prefer the USA stop giving away my tax dollars. I f we are to continue this gracious give away it should have strict stipulations attached to it. Lets give the aid here in Navajo County for starters.

2linden

[thumbup][thumbup][thumbup]

BIGFOOT

It's Very obvious, That Ms. Jordan has no clue about due process and the Constitution.

Very naïve people these socialist.

Showlowguy

Pull your head out

vampire954

I couldn't disagree more. Sorry.

tnchill

Naomi Jordan, you should be impeached! President Trump is the best president the U.S. has ever had, but you wouldn’t know it due to the lies & FAKE NEWS. The left said they wanted to impeach from day one, but us real Americans will not allow that. Naomi, just keep being uneducated & watching CNN...the sheep all flock to the same pen. Stupid is as stupid does.

johndoe

Naomi I can see you are very passionate about this but sadly you are misinformed of the facts. Aid was not withheld, and while it was delayed, it was due to assuring the monies were not going to be misused by a corrupt Ukraine government. His request was to have the Ukraine look into Hunter Biden acting as a board member of an energy company he had no qualifications to run and their involvement in the 2016 election meddling. The president doesn't need the "people's" permission to do every little thing. This sort of thing was done by Obama and no one screamed for impeachment. In fact most every president in all of history has used some form of a "quid-pro-quo" in foreign policy. But of course you must get your "information" from the left media who has been acting like they learned a new phrase and can't stop saying "quid-pro-quo" over and over. Most of them repeating it probably don't even know what it means. impeachment procedures are only meant for elected officials who have committed "high crimes and misdemeanors" and you yourself admitted President Trump did "Nothing illegal". This is simply the Democrat's panicked attempt to stop Trump since they know they can't do it in the next election. Besides, impeachment doesn't mean he will be removed from office, in fact it doesn't even mean he can't run for re-election! Just get over it, he won, and from the looks of the weak candidates the left is parading around so far, he will easily win again.

ArizAl

I agree with you 100% Naomi. Trump should be impeached for Bribery, Extortion, Obstruction of Justice, Obstruction of a Constitutional Congressional Inquiry, Lying under oath, and violations of the Presidential Oath of Office, Subversion of our nation's system of Checks and Balances and violations of the Emoluments Clause of Article 1, section 9. Bribery: "Any gift or emolument used corruptly to influence a person." Trump did that. Extortion: "To obtain a service from a person by threat, oppression, or abuse of authority" Trump did that. Quid pro quo: "something for something in return." Trump did that. Bibery and Extortion are both "illegal crimes" committed by Trump. However, just because of a flawed Justice Department "Policy," not a law or Supreme Court ruling, the sitting president cannot be indicted for a crime until he is out of office. Of course, when Trump used campaign funds (illegally) to bribe prostitutes for his adulterous affairs, that is an impeachable misdemeanors. No surprise there. Since he used the non-profit Trump Foundation donor's money for his own personal use. And he got caught and fined. IMPEACH THE CHEETO DEMOGOUGE!!

ArizAl

OOPs! trying again

I agree with you 100% Naomi. Trump should be impeached for Bribery, Extortion, Obstruction of Justice, Obstruction of a Constitutional Congressional Inquiry, Lying under oath, and violations of the Presidential Oath of Office, Subversion of our nation's system of Checks and Balances and violations of the Emoluments Clause of Article 1, section 9. Bribery: "Any gift or emolument used corruptly to influence a person." Trump did that. Extortion: "To obtain a service from a person by threat, oppression, or abuse of authority" Trump did that. Quid pro quo: "something for something in return." Trump did that. Bibery and Extortion are both "illegal crimes" committed by Trump. However, just because of a flawed Justice Department "Policy," not a law or Supreme Court ruling, the sitting president cannot be indicted for a crime until he is out of office. Of course, when Trump used campaign funds (illegally) to bribe prostitutes for his adulterous affairs, that is an impeachable misdemeanors. No surprise there. Since he used the non-profit Trump Foundation donor's money for his own personal use. And he got caught and fined.

ronzim

O.K. then, let’s have a look at the law. I researched just one possible charge—that of bribery. Per the text of § 201 and DOJ’s Criminal Resource Manual,§ 2041, Bribery of Public Officials, the federal offense of bribery contains five elements: (1) a public official (2) who demands, accepts, promises, etc. (3) “anything of value” (4) corruptly and with the intent to influence or be influenced in the performance of (5) an “official act.” Trump’s conduct clearly satisfies the first three of these elements. The remaining two elements—those relating to intent and “official act” depend on how one reads relatively recent court decisions.

As a unanimous Supreme Court determined in United States v. Sun-Diamond Growers of California, the difference is one of intent: “Bribery requires intent ‘to influence’ an official act or ‘to be influenced’ in an official act. In other words, for bribery there must be a quid pro quo—a specific intent to give or receive something of value in exchange for an official act.” “Corruptly” is described in the DOJ’s Criminal Resource Manual as simply meaning “willfully” entering the unlawful quid pro quo.

The key factual question then becomes whether Trump acted “corruptly,” that is, with an understanding that he was soliciting a bribe, a “thing of value” beyond the privileged sphere of political, or in the Ukraine case diplomatic, logrolling. International negotiations between heads of state are, after all, an archetypical setting for logrolling and horse-trading. Vice President Biden once boasted to the Council of Foreign Relations that he obtained the dismissal of Ukraine’s prosecutor general by threatening to withhold aid from the country—a perfectly legal act.

Quid pro quos are par for the course in diplomatic negotiations, and presidents are generally free to disagree with advisors and even urge investigation of activity of Americans abroad and rely on the advice and efforts of people outside the cabinet as an additional channel for diplomacy. In other words, the difference between Biden’s and Trump’s quid pro quos is not that one was “good” for the country and the other was “bad.” A politician acts “corruptly” under § 201 when exchanging an official act for private gain.

The peculiar circumstances of Trump’s actions may indicate a corrupt or willful motive, as efforts to conceal often are. Was Trump’s action just a part of permissible logrolling or was it a criminal act? The answer relies on whether an official act was involved. Section 201(a)(3) defines an “official act” as “any decision or action on any question, matter, cause, suit, proceeding or controversy, which may at any time be pending, or which may by law be brought before any public official, in such official’s official capacity, or in such official’s place of trust or profit.” A unanimous Supreme Court laid out the test for the “official act” requirement in McDonnell v. United States.

An official White House visit with Ukraine qualifies as an “official act” under McDonnell. Recall that the inquiry under the federal bribery statute is not whether Trump sought to influence Zelensky in an official act (i.e., that Trump sought to bribe Zelensky) but whether Trump can be said to have acted “corruptly,” by soliciting an act from Zelensky beyond the normal bounds of political-diplomatic logrolling. To the extent Trump solicited an announcement unrelated to any actual investigation, he was not soliciting an official act that may be described as part of “logrolling.” Trump thus went beyond the exchange of public acts that constitute political or diplomatic logrolling. His conduct would support a finding of an exchange of official acts (by Trump) for things of value (the public statement sought from Zelensky) and as no public justification for seeking the statement has been offered, the corrupt intent necessary to maintain a bribery charge is established.

Sources: Justicia; certain court records.

vampire954

Well, I'm gonna make this sweet and short Naomi. You're a blittering IDIOT. Facts6be damned, right? 👎

fishinguy

Well now it is gonna happen. Cannot wait til it gets to the Senate to show the Dems about how one sided a hearing can be.

The current president will be voted into office. Just remember Dems that lowering the impeachment standard will apply when you the Dems take office in 2028.

Welcome to the discussion.

Keep it Clean. Please avoid obscene, vulgar, lewd, racist or sexually-oriented language.
PLEASE TURN OFF YOUR CAPS LOCK.
Don't Threaten. Threats of harming another person will not be tolerated.
Be Truthful. Don't knowingly lie about anyone or anything.
Be Nice. No racism, sexism or any sort of -ism that is degrading to another person.
Be Proactive. Use the 'Report' link on each comment to let us know of abusive posts.
Share with Us. We'd love to hear eyewitness accounts, the history behind an article.