trump impeachment watch thread

**boutons_deux** · 10-27-2019

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’

The cons utional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.

“High crimes and misdemeanors” is not, and has never been, limited to indictable criminality.

Nonetheless, despite centuries of learning on the point, there the phrase sits, begging to be taken at its delusory face value.

There are two strong arguments against the idea that the phrase requires criminal behavior:

a historical one and a practical one.

The history of the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” and of how it entered our Cons ution establishes beyond serious dispute that it extends far beyond mere criminal conduct.

The practical reasoning is in some ways more important:

A standard that permitted the removal of presidents only for indictable crimes would leave the nation defenseless against the most dangerous kinds of presidential behavior.

, the founders, both during the ratification period and afterward, identified multiple noncriminal acts they believed to be impeachable.

Madison even argued that presidents could be impeached for “wanton removal of meritorious officers.”

Alexander Hamilton made the larger point that impeachment is directed at “political” offenses that “proceed from … the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

impeachable conduct is often “purely political,” and that “no previous statute is necessary to authorize an impeachment for any official misconduct.”

“high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was not restricted to indictable crimes. Their understanding has been ratified by two centuries of American practice.

Multiple judges have been impeached, and some removed, for noncriminal abuses or dereliction of office.

the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon:

the first for obstruction of justice,

the second for abuse of power, and

the third for defying House subpoenas during its impeachment investigation.

the best argument against the claim that impeachment requires criminality is

not the overwhelming weight of contrary history and precedent,

but the sheer dangerous absurdity of the proposition.

Impeachment is not an antique legalism, but an essential tool for securing the safety of the American cons utional order against those who would corrupt or destroy it.

An Englishman once said,

“Impeachment ought to be, like Goliath’s sword, kept in the temple, and not used but on great occasions.”

This aphorism is often cited as a caution against the frivolous unsheathing of impeachment’s blade, but

it is also a reminder of the breadth and power of the weapon in times of need.

This is such a time.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...AIZtKsWbRWWNH8

**Spurs Homer** · 10-27-2019

Originally Posted by boutons_deux

The Common Misconception About ‘High Crimes and Misdemeanors’

The cons utional standard for impeachment is different from what’s at play in a regular criminal trial.

“High crimes and misdemeanors” is not, and has never been, limited to indictable criminality.

Nonetheless, despite centuries of learning on the point, there the phrase sits, begging to be taken at its delusory face value.

There are two strong arguments against the idea that the phrase requires criminal behavior:

a historical one and a practical one.

The history of the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” and of how it entered our Cons ution establishes beyond serious dispute that it extends far beyond mere criminal conduct.

The practical reasoning is in some ways more important:

A standard that permitted the removal of presidents only for indictable crimes would leave the nation defenseless against the most dangerous kinds of presidential behavior.

, the founders, both during the ratification period and afterward, identified multiple noncriminal acts they believed to be impeachable.

Madison even argued that presidents could be impeached for “wanton removal of meritorious officers.”

Alexander Hamilton made the larger point that impeachment is directed at “political” offenses that “proceed from … the abuse or violation of some public trust.”

impeachable conduct is often “purely political,” and that “no previous statute is necessary to authorize an impeachment for any official misconduct.”

“high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was not restricted to indictable crimes. Their understanding has been ratified by two centuries of American practice.

Multiple judges have been impeached, and some removed, for noncriminal abuses or dereliction of office.

the House Judiciary Committee approved three articles of impeachment against Richard Nixon:

the first for obstruction of justice,

the second for abuse of power, and

the third for defying House subpoenas during its impeachment investigation.

the best argument against the claim that impeachment requires criminality is not the overwhelming weight of contrary history and precedent, but the sheer dangerous absurdity of the proposition.

Impeachment is not an antique legalism, but an essential tool for securing the safety of the American cons utional order against those who would corrupt or destroy it.

An Englishman once said,

“Impeachment ought to be, like Goliath’s sword, kept in the temple, and not used but on great occasions.”

This aphorism is often cited as a caution against the frivolous unsheathing of impeachment’s blade, but

it is also a reminder of the breadth and power of the weapon in times of need. This is such a time.

https://www.theatlantic.com/ideas/ar...AIZtKsWbRWWNH8

If Mueller had balls we would not be in this predicament - with a lunatic criminal taking orders from russia to pull our troops out of syria and allowing Russia to assume control of that area.

Mueller pussied out instead of challenging that bogus OLC memo - and had he instead adhered to the Cons ution and showed some spine and compelled the traitors to ALL testify under oath -

at WORST- we would have had a number of trump team indicted for perjury -
at BEST -

we would have rid this cancer by showing ALL of the evidence and shown trump selling out the country to help Russia in their attack on the USA elections/democracy.

**boutons_deux** · 10-27-2019

Originally Posted by Spurs Homer

If Mueller had balls we would not be in this predicament

He delivered 9? instances of Trash obstruction, each of which is impeachable, and certainly the sum is.

Mulller played the Good Obedient Soldier role and obeyed the totally BULL rule about not indicting a President, which of course was written by the self-serving President's own bootlicking employees.