Max_S
February 15, 2023, 1:27am
109
I was reading older discussions and happenned across this usage of “the constitution is not a suicide pact”, consistent with what I described in post #81 :
Consider this: a conviction for treason requires a very, very high bar. The framers could have written in an exception, to say that treason has a lower bar for impeachment. They didn’t do that. You need two witnesses to an overt act of treason, there can’t be any doubt as to the treasonous nature of the act. Something like assembling a force of men with the intention of overthrowing the government, or actually joining the ranks of an enemy on an actual battlefield, or knowingly providing material aid such as a car and travel documents to an known spy. If a President does all of that, but you don’t find two witnesses, you can’t impeach him for treason. If there is a credible accusation that the President literally joined the Nazis in the fields of Europe, but you don’t find two witnesses, you can’t impeach him for treason. Let that sink in. That’s the burden of proof.
That’s ridiculous. The Constitution isn’t a suicide pact. You need two witnesses to criminally convict someone of treason. The idea of keeping a threat to the nation and its people in office because of a technicality of only having one witness to the President’s misdeeds is literally insane. I mean this respectfully, but I think you’ve lost touch with the real world here.
~Max