Quote:
Originally Posted by detbuch
If you're so "pretty sure" then point out in the Constitution how asking for assistance from a foreign power which has information that could clarify whether or not Americans had done something criminal or unconstitutional.
|
Start with the Constitution for Dummies version of Art. II Section 4
The President, the Vice President, and other officers of the United States, can be kicked out of office (impeached) if they are found guilty of double-crossing (betraying) the country, offering people money or getting money to do something dishonest, or other really big crimes.
But if your reading comprehension level is higher than that you could move on to this explanation of how Trump’s conduct vis-à-vis Ukraine does rise to the level of a high crime or misdemeanor under Art. II, § 4 of the Constitution written by Neal Katyal and George Conway and excerpted from WAPO
“The ... phrase ... ‘high Crimes and Misdemeanors’ ... was a historical term of art, derived from impeachments in the British Parliament. ... The framers ... knew what it meant. It meant, as Alexander Hamilton later phrased it, ‘the abuse or violation of some public trust.’”
“The framers viewed the president as a fiduciary, the government of the United States as a sacred trust and the people of the United States as the beneficiaries of that trust.”
”They believed that a president would break his oath if he engaged in self-dealing — if he used his powers to put his own interests above the nation’s. That would be the paradigmatic case for impeachment.”
“That’s exactly what appears to be at issue today. ... It appears that the president might have used his official powers ... to leverage a foreign government into helping him defeat a potential political opponent in the United States.”
“If Trump did that, it would be the ultimate impeachable act. Trump has already done more than enough to warrant impeachment ... with his relentless attempts ... to sabotage the Mueller investigation ....”
“The president’s efforts were impeachable because, in committing those obstructive acts, he put his personal interests above the nation’s: He tried to stop an investigation into whether a hostile foreign power, Russia, ....”
“... tried to interfere with our democracy — ... because he found it personally embarrassing. Trump breached his duties... not only because he likely broke the law but also because, through his disregard for the law, he put his self-interest first.”
“The current whistle=blowing allegations ... are even worse. Unlike the allegations of conspiracy with Russia in 2016 ..., these concern Trump’s actions as president ... and his exercise of presidential powers over foreign policy ....”
“It is high time for Congress to do its duty .... Given how Trump seems ... bent on putting himself above the law, something like what might have happened with Ukraine — abusing presidential authority for personal benefit — was almost inevitable.”
“Yet if that is what occurred, part of the responsibility lies with Congress, which has failed to act on the blatant obstruction ... detailed months ago.
“Congressional procrastination has probably emboldened Trump, ....”
“... and it risks emboldening future presidents who might turn out to be of his sorry ilk. To borrow John Dean’s ... metaphor once again, there is a cancer on the presidency, and cancers, if not removed, only grow.”
”Congress bears the duty to use the tools provided by the Constitution to remove that cancer now, before it’s too late.”
“As Elbridge Gerry put it at the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, ‘A good magistrate will not fear impeachments. A bad one ought to be kept in fear of them.’ By now, Congress should know which one Trump is.”
or this:
https://fedsoc.org/commentary/public...h-misdemeanors
or this:
https://t.co/jh8leocLkk?amp=1