Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
I want to share one strongly argued case for impeachment, from a leading constitutional scholar, that I stumbled across the other day.
"[The president’s] defenders describe the unthinkable disaster of impeachment. But it should not be unthinkable. The framers of the Constitution did not see impeachment as a doomsday scenario; they thought it necessary to remove bad men from the offices they were subverting."
“The president’s defenders, experts at changing the subject, prefer to debate whether [he] committed a felony …. [but] ‘high crimes and misdemeanors’ are not limited to actions that are crimes under federal law."
“It becomes clear that the White House has never before been occupied by such a reckless and narcissistic adventurer. Sociopath is not too strong a word."
“We are regularly lectured about a constitutional crisis if the House goes forward with hearings and ultimately votes a bill of impeachment for trial in the Senate. Consider the alternative. Perhaps American presidents, by and large, have not been a distinguished lot…"
“….But if we ratify [his] behavior in office, we may expect not just a lack of distinction in the future but aggressively dishonest, even criminal, conduct. The real calamity will not be that we removed a president from office but that we did not."
|
Another leading constitutional scholar, hard-core-liberal liberal Alan Dershowitz, thinks it's all a sham.
It's a matter of opinion.