Yes. Impeached for breaking a law.
You can’t point to an impeachment that doesn’t allege the breaking of a law.
Point being, there’s no “level of criminality” which the President has to attain before being impeached. You can be impeached for breaking bullshit laws or severe laws. It doesn’t matter the severity, the only matter is the political will. Once that will is achieved, they will select which law on which to impeach, and the Constitution gives them the ability to impeach on jaywalking, if they so desire.
Love and Happiness, indeed!
Out of a sample size of…?
He absolutely did want to win. Yu’re talking nonsense. The idea that Donald Trump wanted to be beaten by a woman in the most famous popularity contest in the world is absolutely, flatly crazy; it is about as true as saying that two plus two is seventeen. He also likes being President. I agree he doesn’t like the job, which is why, of course, he spends so much time not doing it, thereby keeping himself happy.
Again, if you are sure he’ll resign before July 1, let’s make a bet. What odds would you like?
Me: “What specifically would Trump have to do for you to get on board with impeaching him?”
You: “I’d need evidence rising to the level of probable cause that Trump had violated the criminal law of the United States.”
I did say “specifically” for a reason, so…
- Any criminal law of the U.S.?
- Can you think of a situation where Trump is doing enough harm to this country, but not breaking any specific federal laws, where you might support his impeachment?
Interesting Wiki on the history and definition of “High crimes and misdemeanors” as it pertains to the President of the United States.
Anything wrong with this article?
I dunno. I feel like this is shootin’ the wad a little bit early, excuse the phrase. I’d let Trump just keep diggin’, since he seems to be so good at it. Nothing is going to happen at this point in time.
It’s legally on the money. Precisely accurate.
(As an aside, I find it fascinating that your reverence for what dead white men thought is more fleeting than the most capricious zephyr.)
I argue that as a matter of political reality, no impeachment will happen without a grounding of violation of the criminal law.
This article states that the legal meaning of “high crimes and misdemeanors” is not coterminous with “criminal,” and I absolutely agree.
People have been saying this since he first began campaigning for President. Waiting for the right moment and/or waiting for Trump to implode and self-destruct has gotten us where we are today.
You did say specifically. So to be even more specific, I’d say that I’m picturing felonies and serious misdemeanors, misdemeanors in which there is a specific scienter element as opposed to strict liability misdemeanors.
A realistic one? No. Any situation at all? Yes.
I just don’t think it’s going to get anywhere right now–that’s the political reality. It’d just be a symbolic gesture. You really think anything would happen with impeachment proceedings at this moment?
I don’t know, honestly. It would depend on whether the Senate sees each new problem he poses as something to add to a pile that has become too damn big to ignore, or as something to take the public’s mind off the previous problem. It would also depend on whether Republicans are willing to take a chance that they may not have amount of power they now enjoy if Trump is impeached. If not, then you will be waiting for the “right” amount of evidence until our sun turns red-the longer you wait, the more time you give Trump and the Republicans to dig in their heals until, eventually, the response you get will be “We could go this route, but by the time we get done it’ll be time to prepare for the next election, so why bother.”
The practical side of it is to get as congressmen as possible on record. The purple district folks would be taking a huge chance saying they are with him now. And even the red district ones who commit to a side will likely face a primary challenge from someone on the other.
Bricker won’t answer your question or explain how the Emoluments Clause doesn’t apply. He either ignores or pooh-poohs and hand-waves away references to it, as if that is somehow invalidating. It isn’t.
I don’t think most who are presently calling for impeachment literally mean it should be called for at this moment. It’s simply a short-cut way of saying that facts should be forthrightly, impartially collected, examined and a conclusion reached as to whether or not based thereon, impeachment is warranted. Many of us feel that it will be based simply on what is already known.
As someone who endured the run-up to the Nixon impeachment, I can say it is a long, long, bitter, politically-fraught and exhausting process. This time it will be even worse. We didn’t have Fox “News” and other propaganda influences at work then.
You are missing the point. If you think the Emoluments Clause applies, you have to be the one to show how it does.
Regards,
Shodan
My specific hypothetical, to which aspenglow was responding was a smoking gun. In the case of Trump receiving a check directly from Putin, and putin specifically saying that the check was in exchange for favors trump granted with the powers of the president’s office.
I take it from your response, that even in this scenario, you would be scratching your head, and asking, “Emolument’s clause? How does that apply?”
I am not saying that this has happened, or that it would happen, I am just wondering when, if ever, the emolument’s clause actually kicks in.
What if he gave away our nuclear arsenal in exchange for money? Is there a line, and if so, where the hell is it?
Though to be fair, autocorrect completely wrecked my last post, “annulments” indeed.
I heard that he told the campaign early on that their job was to get him to finish second in the nomination. This was all a publicity stunt gone very bad. Once nominated, he couldn’t bear the thought of losing to a girl, so when the Russians came to offer their assistance, he put himself in their pocket.
I’d like 10,000,000 to one odds. I’ll put up a dime.
How about 5-to-1 at $10? If you’re reasonably confident he’s gone by July 1, that should not be a difficult bet for you to make.
It probably has already.
Imagine Russia decided to rent every room in Trump’s hotel in Washington D.C. and Trump National Golf Club Mar a Lago indefinitely.
Would that be a violation of the emoluments clause? Trump would certainly be profiting from that and it is impossible to see this as anything other than an attempt by Russia to curry favor with Trump.
If that is a violation than them renting one room is also a violation.
The fig leaf that the money is for services rendered is thin indeed. You could drive a train through that loophole.
We know foreign diplomats are indeed staying at Trump properties to curry favor:
Would the FFs be ok with that? I think not and they tried to stop it with the emoluments clause.