Quote:
Originally Posted by Pete F.
this should be: successfully
No, Zelensky didn't do what Trump was charged as demanding he must in order to get the money.
The legally required verification had been done and asserted to prior to the illegal hold being placed on the aid
A new President had been elected well after the bill was passed. Trump saw that some of the same corrupt actors from the previous administration were possibly influencing the new President and wanted assurances from him that corruption would be gotten rid of.
Misdemeanors was in no way a "weak, nebulous, throw-in to try to cover unknown, undefined, circumstance." It had a distinct meaning when the Constitution was written and unlike the current WH occupant the men who designed and wrote the constitution were very well read. Since some of Blackstone's language is directly reflected in the contemporaneous discussions that lead to the writing of the constitution, I assume they had read this book.
Being in Blackstone doesn't mean it is absolutely precise nor that it doesn't consist of some vagueness. And it does not make it's transition into the Constitution precise. Constitutional "Scholars" have argued the definitions for years and there is still a debate on the meaning.
Nor does everything in Blackstone apply to the Constitution. They wrote a new one, they didn't adopt all of English law. The Framers tried to find some way to concisely wrap up the requirements for impeachment without having to include all possibilities into precise categories such as their selected Treason or Bribery, but any of those possibilities had to live up to the same seriousness and damage to the Republic as treason or bribery.
It hard to believe that someone who claims to be an originalist (a textual originalist) would ignore the research and constitutional arguments about that. Though if you agree with Dershowitz's ever changing opinions, that might be the explanation. Here is one of them:
"Contemporary judicial nominees who glibly recite the expected formula of original intent or understanding should read [the Dred Scott opinion] and be asked whether they would have joined the majority decision in Dred Scott—and if not, why not? I have yet to hear a persuasive explanation of how honest ‘originalists’ could have wriggled their way out of the majority conclusion in Dred Scott or how they could have agreed with the Supreme Court’s unanimous decision [in Brown v. Board of Education]."
Should or did, is the question.
And the politicians will suffer the political consequences.
|
I didn't say that I agree with all of Dershowitz's opinions. I am sure there are many that I disagree with. You cite one, do you believe in it? If you do, does that mean you believe in all of his ever changing ones?
The articles of impeachment against Trump are either ridiculous, as is the obstruction of Congress, or very thinly based and faultily or unconvincingly construed as is the abuse of power.