Ricochet is the best place on the internet to discuss the issues of the day, either through commenting on posts or writing your own for our active and dynamic community in a fully moderated environment. In addition, the Ricochet Audio Network offers over 50 original podcasts with new episodes released every day.
Impeachment: Did I Miss Something?
In all of the recent unpleasantness surrounding President Trump’s impeachment and subsequent Senate trial, I have yet to hear or read the following theory regarding why the impeachment itself was inappropriate, and thus why acquittal is justified. Given that I am neither a legal scholar, nor particularly more intelligent than the average person, I suspect that other much better educated and/or smarter than I have already proposed this argument. I must have missed it. However, here goes…
The current articles of impeachment brought against the President do not specify any actual crime, only the improper exercise of executive power for political advantage (both individually, and as pertains to the President’s interactions with Congress). However, the last two presidential impeachments (Nixon and Clinton) established the precedent that a violation of Federal law was the requisite grounds for such action. In both cases, there was no question that the President had in fact broken the law. Allowing for the fact that Nixon was not in fact impeached, rather resigned before such action was taken, the 1998 Clinton impeachment was predicated on the unquestioned fact that the President had both committed Perjury, and Obstruction of Justice. However, the Senate did not remove Clinton from office, thus setting the “common law” precedent that these crimes were below the threshold for “High Crimes and Misdemeanors.” (I recall the justification at the time being that, “everyone lies about sex, and there was no harm done to any national interests, so it doesn’t really matter.”)
Okay. Remember, I’m not a lawyer of any kind. But I do understand (and deeply appreciate) the common legal heritage the US shares with ancient English Common Law traditions. Legal precedents set by earlier rulings or judgements are held to be binding unless later law explicitly addresses changing the common interpretation of the law, and justifies why the change is warranted by new conditions. Therefore: Based upon the precedent set in the most-recent previous case (Clinton, ’98) any presidential malfeasance short of the threshold of perjury or obstruction of justice simply does not meet the precedent set in the relative case law for the removal of the President from office.
It seems to me that the more common argument made these days on behalf of the President, that he “has broken no laws” is too shallow and lacks the necessary context. Even if President Trump has acted inappropriately, or even illegally under white-collar ethics law, the behaviors identified in the Articles of Impeachment come nowhere close to the level of perjury. In saving Clinton in ’98, the Democrats established a precedent that vacates their whole argument now.
Frankly, until the US Constitution is amended to specify the threshold of criminal actions covered by the phrase “High Crimes and Misdemeanors,” no action short of Perjury or Obstruction of Justice can qualify. The precedent has been set, and I see no reason to believe that the current Senate trial is going to reverse that precedent. (Thanks again, Bill Clinton … the wreckage of your administration continues to this day.)
(By the way, if this argument has been made by others elsewhere, especially using better prose or logic, I’d appreciate any links or citations. I certainly want to acknowledge those who said it first.)
Published in Domestic Policy
Just because she said she couldn’t follow his argument it doesn’t mean she couldn’t follow it.
You are right, of course, but I was assuming honesty on her part.
🤣🤣🤣
Because it is not a word that fits, no one would use that word.
Look, if Trump could have just said “I am sorry. I can see how that may have been misunderstood and I apologize for it” we might not be here.
And quite frankly, all of the nails for Trumps coffin have been handed to the dems by Trump himself.
Except Trump haters who are fixated on it. His word choices are awful! This time we’ll get him for sure!
Trump is very good at providing rational for Trump “haters”.
Hater is a very strong word. I do not hate anyone. Dislike, absolutely. Hate, no.
I have never described any action or task that I have done as “perfect”. No person does that. Others may, but not ones self. Nothing I have ever done is perfect. Good maybe, productive sometimes, but perfect? No.
Mr. Nelson, I’d like to introduce you to Donald J. Trump.
And quite frankly, Trump is not the only one I have known.
Really?!
Yes, this word usage will mean an end to his adminstration! You should be holding a celebration!
I’m sorry I called it “perfect,” when actually it was just “very very very very very very very excellent.”
Only a credulous Boomer rube could believe that the Dems would ever accept any apology or concession by Trump.
It has nothing to do with the democrats. It has to do with the American people. It says to us, the people of whom he is the leader (and all of the people), “I messed up, sorry, I will try to do better”. And then fewer people will support the congressional democrats, and these people can read polls.
And just maybe this blunts the “whistle blower”, blunts the House investigation.
This is incoherent.
Trump was impeached by the Democrats.
The entire body of evidence for his Impeachment is the transcript of a phone call that the Democrats leaked, a phone call that was made the day after the Democrats’ hopes were dashed by Robert Mueller’s senile testimony demonstrating how fictitious the Mueller investigation was.
The Articles of Impeachment, voted on by only Democrats, don’t even allege misconduct taking place in the phone call that you suggest Trump should apologize for.
It has nothing to do with the Democrats?
Even a credulous Boomer rube knows not to fall for that.
There’s no maybe about it. It’s just blood in the water for the sharks.