Reply to Sorry, but this bad behavior is not a High Crime

Forum Index » Political Discussion

Reply to "Sorry, but this bad behavior is not a High Crime"

Subject:

Emoticons





More smilies

Text Color: Font: Close Marks

[quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous][quote=Anonymous]Slander
Libel
Witness tampering
Bribery
Election tampering
Tax fraud 
Racketeering

Shall I go on?[/quote]

First two are unlikely, but they can sue him. Unpresidential but not a high crime.

Third, unmm no. That's not how that works. Again obviously unpresidential.

Fourth is a real stretch, but it's an interesting case. If not bribery, certainly is some version of abuse of power. Personally I don't find it enough to be impeached over.

Fifth is just dumb.

Sixth is likely given his business history. I'd think THAT is impeachable if recent and bad enough.

Seventh also dumb.[/quote]

My four year old at bath time: "No, that's dumb."
You at impeachment time: "No, that's dumb."[/quote]

Racketeering is dumb, come on. [b]"Bribery", in this context, is not dumb but not impeachable on these facts.[/b][/quote]

To the contrary, the thing Trump has been doing is EXACTLY what the framers had in mind when they added the impeachment process and bribery specifically to the impeachment process.

[b][i]“So they agreed that Congress should have the power to impeach a president—but on what grounds? The initial impeachment clause borrowed from established concepts in English law and state constitutions, allowing impeachment for “maladministration”—basically incompetence, akin to a vote of no confidence.

James Madison and others argued this was too vague a standard. They changed it to “treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.”

But what did this mean?

One of the biggest fears of the founding fathers was that the new nation might fall under the sway of foreign powers. That’s what had happened in Europe over the years, where one nation or another had fallen prey to bribes, treaties and ill-advised royal marriages from other nations.

So those who gathered in Philadelphia to write the Constitution included a number of provisions to guard against foreign intrusion in American democracy. One was the emoluments clause, barring international payments or gifts to a president or other federal elected official. The framers of the Constitution worried that without this provision, a president might be bribed by a foreign power to betray America.

The delegates to the Convention were also concerned that a foreign power might influence the outcome of an election.

They wanted to protect the new United States from what Alexander Hamilton called the “desire in foreign powers to gain an improper ascendant in our councils.“ Or as James Madison put it, protect the new country from a president who’d "betray his trust to foreign powers.” Gouverneur Morris of Pennsylvania, who initially had opposed including an impeachment clause, agreed to include it in order to avoid “the danger of seeing the first Magistrate in foreign pay.”[/b][/i]
https://prospect.org/impeachment/would-the-founding-fathers-impeach-trump/[/quote]

Original PP. ^^ +1[/quote]

I'd agree that a president getting paid by a foreign government would be bad.[/quote]

Options

	Disable HTML in this message
	Disable BB Code in this message
	Disable smilies in this message

Review message

Search Recent Topics Hottest Topics