Trump's Russian Collusion

[a fan]

As always you're right a fan! Good for you...

Oh, please. I admit when I'm wrong or mistaken all the time here. With no hesitation.

But I'm not going to budge on easy, lay up ethical judgement calls on whether or not someone would know something was wrong.

What's next from you? Hillary set up that email server "out of ignorance"?

"Whoops, I broke about a bajillion laws surrounding classified communication". Aww. Poor Hillary. How could a 60 year old woman with multiple degrees that is Sec of State possibly know that setting up that server was a bad idea, right?

I mean, if you don't give her the benefit of the doubt, well.....you're just insane, right?

[youthathletics]

It’s settled if he keeps talking, he’s going to dig himself deeper and give the dems even more ammo, but maybe he wants that?

https://twitter.com/realdonaldtrump/sta ... 07681?s=21

You can’t Impeach someone who hasn’t done anything wrong!

[Peter Brown]

impeachment is a dead end street for Democrats.

[seacoaster]

impeachment is a dead end street for Democrats.

This is just trolling. Wake up and post a content free statement. Do better please.

[old salt]

Two, CBS News reported last night that the NSC's Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison was on the Trump-Zelensky call and told the investigating committees, "I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed." That seems relevant, no?

When the transcripts start coming out (which could begin next week), I'm going straight to the questioning of Morrison on this point. Put aside that he's a fact witness not a judge/jury, and also that impeachment does not require a crime. I really want to hear his back up for this. Because the rest of his testimony is pretty much the exact opposite of this.

He goes straight to the lawyers. With the lawyers, they discuss using the super secret server to store the transcript. Perhaps he's involved in scrubbing the transcript. He recites multiple concerns to back up the need to bury the transcript. Among them, he thinks the transcript would undermine bi-partisan support for Ukraine. In admitting that the Dems would cry foul on using Ukraine to target Biden, he confirms the partisan hit job attempt.

Put it all together, I think Morrison's lawyer made him say that to keep himself from being accused of a cover-up/conspiracy crime. Given his exposure, I think his lawyer pushed him to testify voluntarily (when he clearly could have demurred). He testified to get his alibi/defense out once it became clear that the facts (Taylor's testimony in particular) were closing in around him.

His statement is pretty weak legal analysis, but perhaps plausible enough to negate mens rea.

Why does Morrison need to back up his opinion ? It's just his opinion.
Where's the legal liability for him in the hours of testimony you haven't read ?

There's nothing illegal about classifying the call summary as it was, storing it on the NICE server, or limiting distribution, as had been done on previous calls that were vulnerable to leaking & would be harmful to national security if divulged.
Is the Barr DoJ going to go after him on this ?

[seacoaster]

“Is the Barr DoJ going to go after him on this ?”

Randy with the comic interlude. Funny guy.

[wahoomurf]

The current USHOS has at long last tweeted a sentence that is 100% TRUE and is something I agree with,100%.To wit,"You can't impeach someone who hasn't done anything wrong".

[MDlaxfan76]

Two, CBS News reported last night that the NSC's Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison was on the Trump-Zelensky call and told the investigating committees, "I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed." That seems relevant, no?

When the transcripts start coming out (which could begin next week), I'm going straight to the questioning of Morrison on this point. Put aside that he's a fact witness not a judge/jury, and also that impeachment does not require a crime. I really want to hear his back up for this. Because the rest of his testimony is pretty much the exact opposite of this.

He goes straight to the lawyers. With the lawyers, they discuss using the super secret server to store the transcript. Perhaps he's involved in scrubbing the transcript. He recites multiple concerns to back up the need to bury the transcript. Among them, he thinks the transcript would undermine bi-partisan support for Ukraine. In admitting that the Dems would cry foul on using Ukraine to target Biden, he confirms the partisan hit job attempt.

Put it all together, I think Morrison's lawyer made him say that to keep himself from being accused of a cover-up/conspiracy crime. Given his exposure, I think his lawyer pushed him to testify voluntarily (when he clearly could have demurred). He testified to get his alibi/defense out once it became clear that the facts (Taylor's testimony in particular) were closing in around him.

His statement is pretty weak legal analysis, but perhaps plausible enough to negate mens rea.

Why does Morrison need to back up his opinion ? It's just his opinion.
Where's the legal liability for him in the hours of testimony you haven't read ?

There's nothing illegal about classifying the call summary as it was, storing it on the NICE server, or limiting distribution, as had been done on previous calls that were vulnerable to leaking & would be harmful to national security if divulged.
Is the Barr DoJ going to go after him on this ?

Salty, you clearly aren't a lawyer. ggait is...

Which is fine, but you are way off the mark if you think Morrison doesn't have potential legal liability, diminished by a position that he was never thinking what he was doing was 'illegal'...intent is a big factor in whether Morrison was involved in a cover-up versus some sort of benign series of choices that just happened to prevent knowledge of an either politically embarrassing set of events including the call, or an actual crime. Covering up a crime is serious.

Now, anyone with some legal background, who doesn't actually know that the alleged acts, if true, would be illegal...well, I just don't believe they're being truly honest. In Morrison's situation, the best he might be able to plausibly say (which it at least sounds like was his position) was that he just wasn't thinking about this in legal terms at the time...hard to prove otherwise.

[CU77]

We do not know yet, for certain, in detail, what the Deep State apparatchiks did to sabotage the Trump Presidency before & after the election.

Completely irrelevant. Trump attempted to force (through withholding of Congress-mandated military aid) the Ukrainian president to denounce Biden as corrupt. THIS IS MORALLY WRONG AND PATENTLY ILLEGAL. It fully deserves impeachment and removal, NO MATTER WHAT ANY "DEEP STATE" ACTORS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DONE BEFOREHAND.

[tech37]

We do not know yet, for certain, in detail, what the Deep State apparatchiks did to sabotage the Trump Presidency before & after the election.

Completely irrelevant. Trump attempted to force (through withholding of Congress-mandated military aid) the Ukrainian president to denounce Biden as corrupt. THIS IS MORALLY WRONG AND PATENTLY ILLEGAL. It fully deserves impeachment and removal, NO MATTER WHAT ANY "DEEP STATE" ACTORS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DONE BEFOREHAND.

holy smoke!

[old salt]

Two, CBS News reported last night that the NSC's Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison was on the Trump-Zelensky call and told the investigating committees, "I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed." That seems relevant, no?

When the transcripts start coming out (which could begin next week), I'm going straight to the questioning of Morrison on this point. Put aside that he's a fact witness not a judge/jury, and also that impeachment does not require a crime. I really want to hear his back up for this. Because the rest of his testimony is pretty much the exact opposite of this.

He goes straight to the lawyers. With the lawyers, they discuss using the super secret server to store the transcript. Perhaps he's involved in scrubbing the transcript. He recites multiple concerns to back up the need to bury the transcript. Among them, he thinks the transcript would undermine bi-partisan support for Ukraine. In admitting that the Dems would cry foul on using Ukraine to target Biden, he confirms the partisan hit job attempt.

Put it all together, I think Morrison's lawyer made him say that to keep himself from being accused of a cover-up/conspiracy crime. Given his exposure, I think his lawyer pushed him to testify voluntarily (when he clearly could have demurred). He testified to get his alibi/defense out once it became clear that the facts (Taylor's testimony in particular) were closing in around him.

His statement is pretty weak legal analysis, but perhaps plausible enough to negate mens rea.

Why does Morrison need to back up his opinion ? It's just his opinion.
Where's the legal liability for him in the hours of testimony you haven't read ?

There's nothing illegal about classifying the call summary as it was, storing it on the NICE server, or limiting distribution, as had been done on previous calls that were vulnerable to leaking & would be harmful to national security if divulged.
Is the Barr DoJ going to go after him on this ?

Salty, you clearly aren't a lawyer. ggait is...

Which is fine, but you are way off the mark if you think Morrison doesn't have potential legal liability, diminished by a position that he was never thinking what he was doing was 'illegal'...intent is a big factor in whether Morrison was involved in a cover-up versus some sort of benign series of choices that just happened to prevent knowledge of an either politically embarrassing set of events including the call, or an actual crime. Covering up a crime is serious.

Now, anyone with some legal background, who doesn't actually know that the alleged acts, if true, would be illegal...well, I just don't believe they're being truly honest. In Morrison's situation, the best he might be able to plausibly say (which it at least sounds like was his position) was that he just wasn't thinking about this in legal terms at the time...hard to prove otherwise.

Before he testified, what were Morrison's potential crimes ?

Conspiracy to do what ? Cover up what, from whom ?

to prevent knowledge of an either politically embarrassing set of events including the call, or an actual crime

Prevent whose knowledge ? Leakers ? What crime ?
In this upside down world, it's a now a crime to classify material to keep it inaccessible to leakers ?
The criminalization of everything.
Plz share your transcript of Morrison's testimony.

[MDlaxfan76]

Two, CBS News reported last night that the NSC's Senior Director for European Affairs Tim Morrison was on the Trump-Zelensky call and told the investigating committees, "I want to be clear, I was not concerned that anything illegal was discussed." That seems relevant, no?

When the transcripts start coming out (which could begin next week), I'm going straight to the questioning of Morrison on this point. Put aside that he's a fact witness not a judge/jury, and also that impeachment does not require a crime. I really want to hear his back up for this. Because the rest of his testimony is pretty much the exact opposite of this.

He goes straight to the lawyers. With the lawyers, they discuss using the super secret server to store the transcript. Perhaps he's involved in scrubbing the transcript. He recites multiple concerns to back up the need to bury the transcript. Among them, he thinks the transcript would undermine bi-partisan support for Ukraine. In admitting that the Dems would cry foul on using Ukraine to target Biden, he confirms the partisan hit job attempt.

Put it all together, I think Morrison's lawyer made him say that to keep himself from being accused of a cover-up/conspiracy crime. Given his exposure, I think his lawyer pushed him to testify voluntarily (when he clearly could have demurred). He testified to get his alibi/defense out once it became clear that the facts (Taylor's testimony in particular) were closing in around him.

His statement is pretty weak legal analysis, but perhaps plausible enough to negate mens rea.

Why does Morrison need to back up his opinion ? It's just his opinion.
Where's the legal liability for him in the hours of testimony you haven't read ?

There's nothing illegal about classifying the call summary as it was, storing it on the NICE server, or limiting distribution, as had been done on previous calls that were vulnerable to leaking & would be harmful to national security if divulged.
Is the Barr DoJ going to go after him on this ?

Salty, you clearly aren't a lawyer. ggait is...

Which is fine, but you are way off the mark if you think Morrison doesn't have potential legal liability, diminished by a position that he was never thinking what he was doing was 'illegal'...intent is a big factor in whether Morrison was involved in a cover-up versus some sort of benign series of choices that just happened to prevent knowledge of an either politically embarrassing set of events including the call, or an actual crime. Covering up a crime is serious.

Now, anyone with some legal background, who doesn't actually know that the alleged acts, if true, would be illegal...well, I just don't believe they're being truly honest. In Morrison's situation, the best he might be able to plausibly say (which it at least sounds like was his position) was that he just wasn't thinking about this in legal terms at the time...hard to prove otherwise.

Before he testified, what were Morrison's potential crimes ?

Conspiracy to do what ? Cover up what, from whom ?

to prevent knowledge of an either politically embarrassing set of events including the call, or an actual crime

Prevent whose knowledge ? Leakers ? What crime ?
In this upside down world, it's a now a crime to classify material to keep it inaccessible to leakers ?
The criminalization of everything.
Plz share your transcript of Morrison's testimony.

Salty,
At this point we are speculating, not convicting Morrison of a darn thing.

Yes, the intent behind a set of actions is the difference between a criminal cover-up, obstruction of justice, and not.
Really not that difficult to understand.

To answer one of your questions, though, I'm pretty sure it's illegal (certainly improper) to classify something because of fear of disclosure of illegal or politically embarrassing acts. Classification is for national security not prevention of personal embarrassment or legal liability.

The question as to Morrison's motives in the answers in his deposition (only insofar as we understand from public reporting so far, which may or may not be accurate or complete at this point) was raised because there appears to be a conflict on its face between an admission of the quid pro quo nature of the pressure placed on Ukraine and not recognizing such as potentially illegal. Only the most partisan advocate can argue that there's nothing potentially illegal about such an act, as well as the base act of requesting an investigation by a foreign power specifically into one's political opponent. It's all obviously potentially illegal.

So, ggait speculated that Morrison's lawyer may have guided him as to how a further admission of recognizing the illegality at the time would incriminate Morrison personally in a conspiracy to cover-up, obstruct justice.

Maybe that will prove to not be accurate, but it clearly is quite plausible based on what we understand so far.

[MDlaxfan76]

We do not know yet, for certain, in detail, what the Deep State apparatchiks did to sabotage the Trump Presidency before & after the election.

Completely irrelevant. Trump attempted to force (through withholding of Congress-mandated military aid) the Ukrainian president to denounce Biden as corrupt. THIS IS MORALLY WRONG AND PATENTLY ILLEGAL. It fully deserves impeachment and removal, NO MATTER WHAT ANY "DEEP STATE" ACTORS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DONE BEFOREHAND.

holy smoke!

He's simply and accurately saying that these are unrelated, potential illegal acts.

If someone or group of someones did something illegal a couple of years ago, nail them.
I don't think there were any actual illegal acts, but hey, bring 'em forward.
You guys used to say 'wait for the IG report', but that came up empty so now it's wait for Barr and Rudy...flying around the world asking other governments to give them something they can use...

If Trump and crew committed illegal acts, impeach him and prosecute any criminal acts. Period.

And, yeah, it's quite clear now that Trump did illegal acts with Ukraine and caused others to do so on his behalf.
He's admitted to the acts, and called for more. Publicly.
And we now know that a whole lot of people were raising red flags as he did so.
Right now the question is whether R's in the Senate will allow him to be held to account through impeachment or not.
I think they won't.

[tech37]

We do not know yet, for certain, in detail, what the Deep State apparatchiks did to sabotage the Trump Presidency before & after the election.

Completely irrelevant. Trump attempted to force (through withholding of Congress-mandated military aid) the Ukrainian president to denounce Biden as corrupt. THIS IS MORALLY WRONG AND PATENTLY ILLEGAL. It fully deserves impeachment and removal, NO MATTER WHAT ANY "DEEP STATE" ACTORS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DONE BEFOREHAND.

holy smoke!

He's simply and accurately saying that these are unrelated, potential illegal acts.

If someone or group of someones did something illegal a couple of years ago, nail them.
I don't think there were any actual illegal acts, but hey, bring 'em forward.
You guys used to say 'wait for the IG report', but that came up empty You said Mueller's report would be a slam dunk. so now it's So now it's the Ukraine impeachment nonsense for you? wait for Barr and Rudy...flying around the world asking other governments to give them something they can use...What are you talking about? The IG report related to FISA abuses has not been released.

If Trump and crew committed illegal acts, impeach him and prosecute any criminal acts. Period.

And, yeah, it's quite clear now that Trump did illegal acts with Ukraine and caused others to do so on his behalf.
He's admitted to the acts, and called for more. Publicly.
And we now know that a whole lot of people were raising red flags as he did so.
Right now the question is whether R's in the Senate will allow him to be held to account through impeachment or not.
I think they won't.

[MDlaxfan76]

We do not know yet, for certain, in detail, what the Deep State apparatchiks did to sabotage the Trump Presidency before & after the election.

Completely irrelevant. Trump attempted to force (through withholding of Congress-mandated military aid) the Ukrainian president to denounce Biden as corrupt. THIS IS MORALLY WRONG AND PATENTLY ILLEGAL. It fully deserves impeachment and removal, NO MATTER WHAT ANY "DEEP STATE" ACTORS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DONE BEFOREHAND.

holy smoke!

He's simply and accurately saying that these are unrelated, potential illegal acts.

If someone or group of someones did something illegal a couple of years ago, nail them.
I don't think there were any actual illegal acts, but hey, bring 'em forward.
You guys used to say 'wait for the IG report', but that came up empty You said Mueller's report would be a slam dunk. so now it's So now it's the Ukraine nonsense for you? wait for Barr and Rudy...flying around the world asking other governments to give them something they can use...What are you talking about? The IG report related to FISA abuses has not been released.

If Trump and crew committed illegal acts, impeach him and prosecute any criminal acts. Period.

And, yeah, it's quite clear now that Trump did illegal acts with Ukraine and caused others to do so on his behalf.
He's admitted to the acts, and called for more. Publicly.
And we now know that a whole lot of people were raising red flags as he did so.
Right now the question is whether R's in the Senate will allow him to be held to account through impeachment or not.
I think they won't.

No, I never said the Mueller Report would be a "slam dunk".
I DID say that if you actually read the Mueller Report, you see a ton of unethical acts, some of which are definitely criminal.
To me, and apparently Justin Amash, the Mueller Report was more than sufficient.

The IG has previously reported. You are now referring to another 'look' at a particular set of questions about FISA. For some reason, that report hasn't been released, 3 years later. Maybe because it's not helpful to Trump??? Who knows?

What we actually KNOW about the FISA process is that a raft of GOP appointed judges, multiple times approved the extension of the surveillance, not simply based on the original application, but also because the surveillance was considered productive. Including well into the Trump presidency and DOJ. Now, if that had been a bunch of Dem judges, I'd be more suspicious of the review having been somehow partisan...but...

But, hey, maybe someone actually presented known to be false information in the warrant applications...maybe...indeed that would be illegal and if they did so, indict and prosecute the case, please. But count me highly skeptical at this point.

"Ukraine nonsense"???
Nope; criminal, unethical.
Abuse of power. Conspiracy. Cover-up.
And stupid.

[tech37]

We do not know yet, for certain, in detail, what the Deep State apparatchiks did to sabotage the Trump Presidency before & after the election.

Completely irrelevant. Trump attempted to force (through withholding of Congress-mandated military aid) the Ukrainian president to denounce Biden as corrupt. THIS IS MORALLY WRONG AND PATENTLY ILLEGAL. It fully deserves impeachment and removal, NO MATTER WHAT ANY "DEEP STATE" ACTORS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DONE BEFOREHAND.

holy smoke!

He's simply and accurately saying that these are unrelated, potential illegal acts.

If someone or group of someones did something illegal a couple of years ago, nail them.
I don't think there were any actual illegal acts, but hey, bring 'em forward.
You guys used to say 'wait for the IG report', but that came up empty You said Mueller's report would be a slam dunk. so now it's So now it's the Ukraine nonsense for you? wait for Barr and Rudy...flying around the world asking other governments to give them something they can use...What are you talking about? The IG report related to FISA abuses has not been released.

If Trump and crew committed illegal acts, impeach him and prosecute any criminal acts. Period.

And, yeah, it's quite clear now that Trump did illegal acts with Ukraine and caused others to do so on his behalf.
He's admitted to the acts, and called for more. Publicly.
And we now know that a whole lot of people were raising red flags as he did so.
Right now the question is whether R's in the Senate will allow him to be held to account through impeachment or not.
I think they won't.

No, I never said the Mueller Report would be a "slam dunk".
I DID say that if you actually read the Mueller Report, you see a ton of unethical acts, some of which are definitely criminal.
To me, and apparently Justin Amash, the Mueller Report was more than sufficient.

The IG has previously reported. You are now referring to another 'look' at a particular set of questions about FISA. For some reason, that report hasn't been released, 3 years later. Maybe because it's not helpful to Trump??? Oh, of course! Who knows? OS explained this...read his post.

What we actually KNOW about the FISA process is that a raft of GOP appointed judges, multiple times approved the extension of the surveillance, not simply based on the original application, but also because the surveillance was considered productive. Including well into the Trump presidency and DOJ. Now, if that had been a bunch of Dem judges, I'd be more suspicious of the review having been somehow partisan...but...

But, hey, maybe someone actually presented known to be false information in the warrant applications...maybe...indeed that would be illegal and if they did so, indict and prosecute the case, please. But count me highly skeptical at this point.

[seacoaster]

"Ukraine nonsense."

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

Assume, for example, that your local government has authorized the purchase of ten new police cars. Is it OK for the mayor to call up the local Ford dealership and say, I've got the money, but I need a promise that you'll always put a 'Reelect Tech37 -- Mayor of Bumf*ck'" on your property, since it has such great visibility and frontage? Or that "I need a favor though; my wife's car could you a thorough tune up and detailing every, say, month or so, OK?"

This is OK? Or not?

That guy gets to keep acting as the Mayor? Alderman? City Councilor? President?

Let me know if we live in Bolivia in the 1960s or not.

[MDlaxfan76]

We do not know yet, for certain, in detail, what the Deep State apparatchiks did to sabotage the Trump Presidency before & after the election.

Completely irrelevant. Trump attempted to force (through withholding of Congress-mandated military aid) the Ukrainian president to denounce Biden as corrupt. THIS IS MORALLY WRONG AND PATENTLY ILLEGAL. It fully deserves impeachment and removal, NO MATTER WHAT ANY "DEEP STATE" ACTORS MAY OR MAY NOT HAVE DONE BEFOREHAND.

holy smoke!

He's simply and accurately saying that these are unrelated, potential illegal acts.

If someone or group of someones did something illegal a couple of years ago, nail them.
I don't think there were any actual illegal acts, but hey, bring 'em forward.
You guys used to say 'wait for the IG report', but that came up empty You said Mueller's report would be a slam dunk. so now it's So now it's the Ukraine nonsense for you? wait for Barr and Rudy...flying around the world asking other governments to give them something they can use...What are you talking about? The IG report related to FISA abuses has not been released.

If Trump and crew committed illegal acts, impeach him and prosecute any criminal acts. Period.

And, yeah, it's quite clear now that Trump did illegal acts with Ukraine and caused others to do so on his behalf.
He's admitted to the acts, and called for more. Publicly.
And we now know that a whole lot of people were raising red flags as he did so.
Right now the question is whether R's in the Senate will allow him to be held to account through impeachment or not.
I think they won't.

No, I never said the Mueller Report would be a "slam dunk".
I DID say that if you actually read the Mueller Report, you see a ton of unethical acts, some of which are definitely criminal.
To me, and apparently Justin Amash, the Mueller Report was more than sufficient.

The IG has previously reported. You are now referring to another 'look' at a particular set of questions about FISA. For some reason, that report hasn't been released, 3 years later. Maybe because it's not helpful to Trump??? Oh, of course! Who knows? OS explained this...read his post.

What we actually KNOW about the FISA process is that a raft of GOP appointed judges, multiple times approved the extension of the surveillance, not simply based on the original application, but also because the surveillance was considered productive. Including well into the Trump presidency and DOJ. Now, if that had been a bunch of Dem judges, I'd be more suspicious of the review having been somehow partisan...but...

But, hey, maybe someone actually presented known to be false information in the warrant applications...maybe...indeed that would be illegal and if they did so, indict and prosecute the case, please. But count me highly skeptical at this point.

You're gonna need to either point me to the relevant Salty post or explain it yourself, tech.

I have zero idea what the FISA "investigation" will actually reveal, just as you and Salty don't know either.
We have some opinions...my skepticism being based on what we actually do KNOW about the process, who the judges were, etc.
And my skepticism that the Trump-Barr DOJ wouldn't reveal something helpful to Trump if they had it, indict if they could.

But, hey, if they find something actually illegal, please do indict.

But it has absolutely nothing to do with the criminal acts re Ukraine.

[tech37]

"Ukraine nonsense."

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

Assume, for example, that your local government has authorized the purchase of ten new police cars. Is it OK for the mayor to call up the local Ford dealership and say, I've got the money, but I need a promise that you'll always put a 'Reelect Tech37 -- Mayor of Bumf*ck'" on your property, since it has such great visibility and frontage? Or that "I need a favor though; my wife's car could you a thorough tune up and detailing every, say, month or so, OK?"

This is OK? Or not?

That guy gets to keep acting as the Mayor? Alderman? City Councilor? President?

Let me know if we live in Bolivia in the 1960s or not.

Blah, blah, blah... "impeachment" sport...

[MDlaxfan76]

"Ukraine nonsense."

Is it OK for an elected official to use taxpayer funded dollars, appropriated and earmarked by another agency of government with that responsibility, to coerce personal political favors out of another person? Yes or no?

Assume, for example, that your local government has authorized the purchase of ten new police cars. Is it OK for the mayor to call up the local Ford dealership and say, I've got the money, but I need a promise that you'll always put a 'Reelect Tech37 -- Mayor of Bumf*ck'" on your property, since it has such great visibility and frontage? Or that "I need a favor though; my wife's car could you a thorough tune up and detailing every, say, month or so, OK?"

This is OK? Or not?

That guy gets to keep acting as the Mayor? Alderman? City Councilor? President?

Let me know if we live in Bolivia in the 1960s or not.

Blah, blah, blah... "impeachment" sport...

Not one of your more compelling posts, tech.

Is it ok or not?
Yes or no?