Since the Mueller Investigation conclusion that President Trump and no one in his campaign "colluded"-- or conspired--with Russia in ANY way during the 2016 cam, paign, it is clear the investigation was a politically inspired hoax managed by Obama direct reports and likely, Obama himself. -- the greatest political scandal in American history -- which is about to explode.
Mueller's attorneys involved in the Investigation were in fact all Hillary Clinton supporters (Trump-haters) and most all of them were donors to the Clinton campaign. At least one attendied the concession 'party' following the 2016 election. Since there was NO "Russian collusion;" that is, the supposed underlying "crime" did not exist, the claimed (by Democrats) obstruction based upon it cannot be relevant legally. And any President executing his duties under the Constitution--i.e., firing of someone under his executive command, especially when that firing was recommended by the Assistant Attorney General for well-defined causes. It could never be construed as "obstruction" in any manner. And someone claiming his innocence and wanting to shortcut to prove it such is not obstruction either.
Congressional Democrats are still trying to impeach the President? On what grounds? Totally preposterous and if they move foeard with it, they might as well not show up for the next election while they watch Roe v Wde overturned and two more conservative justices appointed to the Supreme Court.
Scholars claim that "high crimes and misdemeanors" has a well-defined Old English meaning -- it refers to a crime which is "against the state when it attacks the very core of the state’s apparatus" For instance, treason is a crime against the state, jaywalking is not. The records of the debates at the Constitutional Convention show that the Framers deliberately borrowed the concept of impeachment--and even the specific term "High Crimes and Misdemeanors"--from the English common law.
However, any 'impeachability' of the head of the executive department was a departure from English practice--the King’s ministers and judges were subject to impeachment, but never the King himself.
The Constitutional Convention considered a number of formulations for the impeachment standard itself, before finally returning to the familiar English-practice standard of "high crimes and misdemeanors." Early discussion centered largely on the idea of abuse or misuse of official government power. On June 13, the report of the "Committee of the Whole" included a resolution that the executive would be removable "on impeachment and conviction of malpractices or neglect of duty. In Federalist Paper No. 65, Alexander Hamilton argues that impeachable offenses "proceed from the misconduct of public men--from the abuse or violation of some public trust."
In other words, "high crimes and misdemeanors" means there needs to be a showing of "malpractices or neglect of duty" and/or "abuse or violation of some public trust" specifically in regards to use of executive state duties.
How could a President: that lowered taxes, eliminated needless bureaucratic rules and red tape, who is encouraging and empowering small business, and wanting ALL American citizens--not illegal immigrants--to be the first and primary benefactors of America's kind heart and success: a President that wants free and fair trade for all Americans, a President that has gotten America back to the best economy since the 1960s--especially for Blacks and Hispanics and all minorities--be considered for impeachment in a sane world?
"But," you say, ''Democrats aren't 'sane'' -- so let them go ahead, while we enjoy their consequences!
~ J......
NO COLLUSION
NO OBSTRUCTION
THE TRUTH "TRUMP"S.
Wait a minute!? The Constitution is cited in its plain wording here. Politicians only refer to it or to a "Constitutional crisis". Never do they cite it, especially to its precise wording. I think they fear the People may be prompted to read it for themselves and think that their public servants should adhere to its words according to their oath of office. --Ron W
ReplyDeletethey fear the People may be prompted to read it for themselves
DeleteI'll guess that only half of politicians have read it entirely.
I would say less than that, or if so, they disrespect the words read according to basic English grammar and dismiss it as a "living document" which can simply be subjectively interpreted for aribitrary rule. But Thomas Jefferson said re: such that it was "a dangerous delusion to trust men (or women) of our choice" ...."bind them down by the chains of the Constitution". That's the problem. There needs to be teeth for the People to impose a prompt remedy on their disobedient employees just as most all of us would be subject when refusing to abide our delegated powers and duties as employees. --Ron W
Delete"a dangerous delusion to trust men (or women) of our choice" ...."bind them down by the chains of the Constitution".
DeleteYes.
The 10 episodes of potential Trump obstruction listed in the Mueller report https://www.axios.com/mueller-report-trump-obstruction-of-justice-8280ecc0-6af6-4414-966b-1a3c5c0c38c8.html?utm_source=twitter&utm_medium=twsocialshare&utm_campaign=organic
ReplyDelete