Originally Posted by Pete F.
Start with the Constitution for Dummies version of Art. II Section 4
The President, the Vice President, and other officers of the United States, can be kicked out of office (impeached) if they are found guilty of double-crossing (betraying) the country, offering people money or getting money to do something dishonest, or other really big crimes.
Trump has not been found guilty of any of those things while being President. Nor does asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional fall under any of those crimes.
But if your reading comprehension level is higher than that you could move on to this explanation of how Trump’s conduct vis-à-vis Ukraine does rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor under Art. II, § 4 of the Constitution written by Neal Katyal and George Conway and excerpted from WAPO
Oh goodie . . . George Conway. His explanations are gold.
“The ... phrase ... ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ ... was a historical term of art, derived from impeachments in the British Parliament. ... The framers ... knew what it meant. It meant, as Alexander Hamilton later phrased it, ‘the abuse or violation of some public trust.’”
That doesn't explain how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional is a high crime and misdemeanor.
“The framers viewed the president as a fiduciary, the government of the United States as a sacred trust and the people of the United States as the beneficiaries of that trust.”
That doesn't explain how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional is a high crime or misdemeanor.
”They believed that a president would break his oath if he engaged in self-dealing — if he used his powers to put his own interests above the nation’s. That would be the paradigmatic case for impeachment.”
That doesn't explain how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional is a high crime and misdemeanor nor even how it puts his own interests above the nation's.
“That’s exactly what appears to be at issue today. ... It appears that the president might have used his official powers ... to leverage a foreign government into helping him defeat a potential political opponent in the United States.”
"exactly . . . appears"? Appears is conjecture. It can appear any way you want to frame it. But all that is "known" is that he asked for assistance from a foreign power which may have information that could clarify whether or not Americans (including the Bidens) had done something criminal or unconstitutional. Whether that could help him in the eyes of the electorate (which it should if the information so demonstrates) that is an unavoidable collateral result.
“If Trump did that, it would be the ultimate impeachable act. Trump has already done more than enough to warrant impeachment ... with his relentless attempts ... to sabotage the Mueller investigation ....”
"IF Trump did that"? That's supposed to explain how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional is a high crime or misdemeanor?
“The president’s efforts were impeachable because, in committing those obstructive acts, he put his personal interests above the nation’s: He tried to stop an investigation into whether a hostile foreign power, Russia, ....”
Wait, so now we're switching from "if" to "did"? And from the phone call to the Mueller stuff? The Mueller stuff is over and it was determined that he "didn't" in one case and not sufficient evidence that he did in the other. Which in a court of law dismisses both counts.
“... tried to interfere with our democracy — ... because he found it personally embarrassing. Trump breached his duties... not only because he likely broke the law but also because, through his disregard for the law, he put his self-interest first.”
Now this is pure, unsubstantiated conjecture. But you do resort to that a lot.
“The current whistle=blowing allegations ... are even worse. Unlike the allegations of conspiracy with Russia in 2016 ..., these concern Trump’s actions as president ... and his exercise of presidential powers over foreign policy ....”
Asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional is worse? I think his reasoning, or lack of it, is worse.
“It is high time for Congress to do its duty .... Given how Trump seems ... bent on putting himself above the law, something like what might have happened with Ukraine — abusing presidential authority for personal benefit — was almost inevitable.”
You just love this "might have happened" and "almost inevitable" kind of stuff. It's your kind of argumentation. Conjecture, innuendo, possibility, maybe, could be . . . But, problem is, it doesn't explain how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional is a high crime or misdemeanor.
“As Elbridge Gerry put it at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, ‘A good magistrate will not fear impeachments. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.’ By now, Congress should know which one Trump is.”
|