Alan Dershowitz: Hamilton Wouldn't Impeach Trump

1,485 Views | 15 Replies | Last: 4 yr ago by Sam Lowry
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Assuming there was quid pro quo, it's still not impeachable.
Quote:

Hamilton Wouldn't Impeach Trump

By Alan M. Dershowitz
Oct. 9, 2019 6:47 pm ET

There is an inevitable political component to the decision to impeach and remove a president, but it should come into play only if the objective constitutional criteria are met. Even if a president did commit "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," the House could decide on political grounds not to move forward on impeachment. The constitutional criteria are necessary for impeachment, but they do not necessitate it.

The words "other high crimes and misdemeanors" does accord Congress some discretion, but not as much as the rejected term "maladministration" would have. The words would seem to require criminal-like acts of a serious nature, though precisely what would suffice is anything but clear. A sitting president would almost certainly be impeached if he committed murder, despite the historical precedent that Vice President Aaron Burr was not impeached for killing Hamilton in a duel. But if a president paid hush money out of personal funds to prevent his adultery from being disclosed - as Hamilton did when he was Treasury secretary - he wouldn't be impeached. Adultery was a felony in Hamilton's time, but nothing Hamilton did constituted a public crime. Perjury to cover up adultery - one of the offenses for which Mr. Clinton was impeached - is a closer call, although I believe it was not impeachable.

As for the allegations against President Trump, obstruction of justice is plainly a high crime, but a president cannot commit it by exercising his constitutional authority to fire or pardon, regardless of his motive. (It would have been an impeachable offense in Mr. Clinton's case, but the facts were disputed.) Neither is it a crime to conduct foreign policy for partisan or personal advantage - a common political sin with no limiting principle capable of being applied in a neutral manner.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hamilton-wouldnt-impeach-trump-11570661260
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
babushkas need love too!

- BUmma




Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Assuming there was quid pro quo, it's still not impeachable.
Quote:

Hamilton Wouldn't Impeach Trump

By Alan M. Dershowitz
Oct. 9, 2019 6:47 pm ET

There is an inevitable political component to the decision to impeach and remove a president, but it should come into play only if the objective constitutional criteria are met. Even if a president did commit "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," the House could decide on political grounds not to move forward on impeachment. The constitutional criteria are necessary for impeachment, but they do not necessitate it.

The words "other high crimes and misdemeanors" does accord Congress some discretion, but not as much as the rejected term "maladministration" would have. The words would seem to require criminal-like acts of a serious nature, though precisely what would suffice is anything but clear. A sitting president would almost certainly be impeached if he committed murder, despite the historical precedent that Vice President Aaron Burr was not impeached for killing Hamilton in a duel. But if a president paid hush money out of personal funds to prevent his adultery from being disclosed - as Hamilton did when he was Treasury secretary - he wouldn't be impeached. Adultery was a felony in Hamilton's time, but nothing Hamilton did constituted a public crime. Perjury to cover up adultery - one of the offenses for which Mr. Clinton was impeached - is a closer call, although I believe it was not impeachable.

As for the allegations against President Trump, obstruction of justice is plainly a high crime, but a president cannot commit it by exercising his constitutional authority to fire or pardon, regardless of his motive. (It would have been an impeachable offense in Mr. Clinton's case, but the facts were disputed.) Neither is it a crime to conduct foreign policy for partisan or personal advantage - a common political sin with no limiting principle capable of being applied in a neutral manner.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hamilton-wouldnt-impeach-trump-11570661260

I understand the argument that conducting foreign policy for partisan advantage is not a crime. How would anyone ever draw the lines?

But personal advantage? So if Donald Trump said to head of state-I'll make sure you get this foreign aid as long as the new Trump Towers gets a building permit, that would not be a crime? Really?
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assuming there was quid pro quo, it's still not impeachable.
Quote:

Hamilton Wouldn't Impeach Trump

By Alan M. Dershowitz
Oct. 9, 2019 6:47 pm ET

There is an inevitable political component to the decision to impeach and remove a president, but it should come into play only if the objective constitutional criteria are met. Even if a president did commit "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," the House could decide on political grounds not to move forward on impeachment. The constitutional criteria are necessary for impeachment, but they do not necessitate it.

The words "other high crimes and misdemeanors" does accord Congress some discretion, but not as much as the rejected term "maladministration" would have. The words would seem to require criminal-like acts of a serious nature, though precisely what would suffice is anything but clear. A sitting president would almost certainly be impeached if he committed murder, despite the historical precedent that Vice President Aaron Burr was not impeached for killing Hamilton in a duel. But if a president paid hush money out of personal funds to prevent his adultery from being disclosed - as Hamilton did when he was Treasury secretary - he wouldn't be impeached. Adultery was a felony in Hamilton's time, but nothing Hamilton did constituted a public crime. Perjury to cover up adultery - one of the offenses for which Mr. Clinton was impeached - is a closer call, although I believe it was not impeachable.

As for the allegations against President Trump, obstruction of justice is plainly a high crime, but a president cannot commit it by exercising his constitutional authority to fire or pardon, regardless of his motive. (It would have been an impeachable offense in Mr. Clinton's case, but the facts were disputed.) Neither is it a crime to conduct foreign policy for partisan or personal advantage - a common political sin with no limiting principle capable of being applied in a neutral manner.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hamilton-wouldnt-impeach-trump-11570661260

I understand the argument that conducting foreign policy for partisan advantage is not a crime. How would anyone ever draw the lines?

But personal advantage? So if Donald Trump said to head of state-I'll make sure you get this foreign aid as long as the new Trump Towers gets a building permit, that would not be a crime? Really?
I think he's referring to personally motivated actions that don't fall into the category of bribery, since that would be impeachable. In other words, personal advantage in itself doesn't establish a crime.
Booray
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assuming there was quid pro quo, it's still not impeachable.
Quote:

Hamilton Wouldn't Impeach Trump

By Alan M. Dershowitz
Oct. 9, 2019 6:47 pm ET

There is an inevitable political component to the decision to impeach and remove a president, but it should come into play only if the objective constitutional criteria are met. Even if a president did commit "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," the House could decide on political grounds not to move forward on impeachment. The constitutional criteria are necessary for impeachment, but they do not necessitate it.

The words "other high crimes and misdemeanors" does accord Congress some discretion, but not as much as the rejected term "maladministration" would have. The words would seem to require criminal-like acts of a serious nature, though precisely what would suffice is anything but clear. A sitting president would almost certainly be impeached if he committed murder, despite the historical precedent that Vice President Aaron Burr was not impeached for killing Hamilton in a duel. But if a president paid hush money out of personal funds to prevent his adultery from being disclosed - as Hamilton did when he was Treasury secretary - he wouldn't be impeached. Adultery was a felony in Hamilton's time, but nothing Hamilton did constituted a public crime. Perjury to cover up adultery - one of the offenses for which Mr. Clinton was impeached - is a closer call, although I believe it was not impeachable.

As for the allegations against President Trump, obstruction of justice is plainly a high crime, but a president cannot commit it by exercising his constitutional authority to fire or pardon, regardless of his motive. (It would have been an impeachable offense in Mr. Clinton's case, but the facts were disputed.) Neither is it a crime to conduct foreign policy for partisan or personal advantage - a common political sin with no limiting principle capable of being applied in a neutral manner.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hamilton-wouldnt-impeach-trump-11570661260

I understand the argument that conducting foreign policy for partisan advantage is not a crime. How would anyone ever draw the lines?

But personal advantage? So if Donald Trump said to head of state-I'll make sure you get this foreign aid as long as the new Trump Towers gets a building permit, that would not be a crime? Really?
I think he's referring to personally motivated actions that don't fall into the category of bribery, since that would be impeachable. In other words, personal advantage in itself doesn't establish a crime.
That is not what he said and he rarely misspeaks
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assuming there was quid pro quo, it's still not impeachable.
Quote:

Hamilton Wouldn't Impeach Trump

By Alan M. Dershowitz
Oct. 9, 2019 6:47 pm ET

There is an inevitable political component to the decision to impeach and remove a president, but it should come into play only if the objective constitutional criteria are met. Even if a president did commit "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," the House could decide on political grounds not to move forward on impeachment. The constitutional criteria are necessary for impeachment, but they do not necessitate it.

The words "other high crimes and misdemeanors" does accord Congress some discretion, but not as much as the rejected term "maladministration" would have. The words would seem to require criminal-like acts of a serious nature, though precisely what would suffice is anything but clear. A sitting president would almost certainly be impeached if he committed murder, despite the historical precedent that Vice President Aaron Burr was not impeached for killing Hamilton in a duel. But if a president paid hush money out of personal funds to prevent his adultery from being disclosed - as Hamilton did when he was Treasury secretary - he wouldn't be impeached. Adultery was a felony in Hamilton's time, but nothing Hamilton did constituted a public crime. Perjury to cover up adultery - one of the offenses for which Mr. Clinton was impeached - is a closer call, although I believe it was not impeachable.

As for the allegations against President Trump, obstruction of justice is plainly a high crime, but a president cannot commit it by exercising his constitutional authority to fire or pardon, regardless of his motive. (It would have been an impeachable offense in Mr. Clinton's case, but the facts were disputed.) Neither is it a crime to conduct foreign policy for partisan or personal advantage - a common political sin with no limiting principle capable of being applied in a neutral manner.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hamilton-wouldnt-impeach-trump-11570661260

I understand the argument that conducting foreign policy for partisan advantage is not a crime. How would anyone ever draw the lines?

But personal advantage? So if Donald Trump said to head of state-I'll make sure you get this foreign aid as long as the new Trump Towers gets a building permit, that would not be a crime? Really?
I think he's referring to personally motivated actions that don't fall into the category of bribery, since that would be impeachable. In other words, personal advantage in itself doesn't establish a crime.
That is not what he said and he rarely misspeaks

Well, if he's saying bribery isn't a crime then I'd have to disagree. In any case, what we're talking about with Trump is partisan advantage. Even a president with the purest of policy goals can't achieve those goals without playing the political game. So as you say, it's hard to draw a line.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assuming there was quid pro quo, it's still not impeachable.
Quote:

Hamilton Wouldn't Impeach Trump

By Alan M. Dershowitz
Oct. 9, 2019 6:47 pm ET

There is an inevitable political component to the decision to impeach and remove a president, but it should come into play only if the objective constitutional criteria are met. Even if a president did commit "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," the House could decide on political grounds not to move forward on impeachment. The constitutional criteria are necessary for impeachment, but they do not necessitate it.

The words "other high crimes and misdemeanors" does accord Congress some discretion, but not as much as the rejected term "maladministration" would have. The words would seem to require criminal-like acts of a serious nature, though precisely what would suffice is anything but clear. A sitting president would almost certainly be impeached if he committed murder, despite the historical precedent that Vice President Aaron Burr was not impeached for killing Hamilton in a duel. But if a president paid hush money out of personal funds to prevent his adultery from being disclosed - as Hamilton did when he was Treasury secretary - he wouldn't be impeached. Adultery was a felony in Hamilton's time, but nothing Hamilton did constituted a public crime. Perjury to cover up adultery - one of the offenses for which Mr. Clinton was impeached - is a closer call, although I believe it was not impeachable.

As for the allegations against President Trump, obstruction of justice is plainly a high crime, but a president cannot commit it by exercising his constitutional authority to fire or pardon, regardless of his motive. (It would have been an impeachable offense in Mr. Clinton's case, but the facts were disputed.) Neither is it a crime to conduct foreign policy for partisan or personal advantage - a common political sin with no limiting principle capable of being applied in a neutral manner.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hamilton-wouldnt-impeach-trump-11570661260

I understand the argument that conducting foreign policy for partisan advantage is not a crime. How would anyone ever draw the lines?

But personal advantage? So if Donald Trump said to head of state-I'll make sure you get this foreign aid as long as the new Trump Towers gets a building permit, that would not be a crime? Really?
I think he's referring to personally motivated actions that don't fall into the category of bribery, since that would be impeachable. In other words, personal advantage in itself doesn't establish a crime.
That is not what he said and he rarely misspeaks

Well, if he's saying bribery isn't a crime then I'd have to disagree. In any case, what we're talking about with Trump is partisan advantage. Even a president with the purest of policy goals can't achieve those goals without playing the political game. So as you say, it's hard to draw a line.


FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Richard Nixon , and Bill Clinton ......were certainly pure . They never crossed that line.

Ever.

Not once.

Heaven forbid !
Malbec
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assuming there was quid pro quo, it's still not impeachable.
Quote:

Hamilton Wouldn't Impeach Trump

By Alan M. Dershowitz
Oct. 9, 2019 6:47 pm ET

There is an inevitable political component to the decision to impeach and remove a president, but it should come into play only if the objective constitutional criteria are met. Even if a president did commit "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," the House could decide on political grounds not to move forward on impeachment. The constitutional criteria are necessary for impeachment, but they do not necessitate it.

The words "other high crimes and misdemeanors" does accord Congress some discretion, but not as much as the rejected term "maladministration" would have. The words would seem to require criminal-like acts of a serious nature, though precisely what would suffice is anything but clear. A sitting president would almost certainly be impeached if he committed murder, despite the historical precedent that Vice President Aaron Burr was not impeached for killing Hamilton in a duel. But if a president paid hush money out of personal funds to prevent his adultery from being disclosed - as Hamilton did when he was Treasury secretary - he wouldn't be impeached. Adultery was a felony in Hamilton's time, but nothing Hamilton did constituted a public crime. Perjury to cover up adultery - one of the offenses for which Mr. Clinton was impeached - is a closer call, although I believe it was not impeachable.

As for the allegations against President Trump, obstruction of justice is plainly a high crime, but a president cannot commit it by exercising his constitutional authority to fire or pardon, regardless of his motive. (It would have been an impeachable offense in Mr. Clinton's case, but the facts were disputed.) Neither is it a crime to conduct foreign policy for partisan or personal advantage - a common political sin with no limiting principle capable of being applied in a neutral manner.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hamilton-wouldnt-impeach-trump-11570661260

I understand the argument that conducting foreign policy for partisan advantage is not a crime. How would anyone ever draw the lines?

But personal advantage? So if Donald Trump said to head of state-I'll make sure you get this foreign aid as long as the new Trump Towers gets a building permit, that would not be a crime? Really?
I think he's referring to personally motivated actions that don't fall into the category of bribery, since that would be impeachable. In other words, personal advantage in itself doesn't establish a crime.
That is not what he said and he rarely misspeaks

Well, if he's saying bribery isn't a crime then I'd have to disagree. In any case, what we're talking about with Trump is partisan advantage. Even a president with the purest of policy goals can't achieve those goals without playing the political game. So as you say, it's hard to draw a line.


FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Richard Nixon , and Bill Clinton ......were certainly pure . They never crossed that line.

Ever.

Not once.

Heaven forbid !
Maybe. But that Gerald Ford was a sumbich.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Malbec said:

Canada2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assuming there was quid pro quo, it's still not impeachable.
Quote:

Hamilton Wouldn't Impeach Trump

By Alan M. Dershowitz
Oct. 9, 2019 6:47 pm ET

There is an inevitable political component to the decision to impeach and remove a president, but it should come into play only if the objective constitutional criteria are met. Even if a president did commit "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," the House could decide on political grounds not to move forward on impeachment. The constitutional criteria are necessary for impeachment, but they do not necessitate it.

The words "other high crimes and misdemeanors" does accord Congress some discretion, but not as much as the rejected term "maladministration" would have. The words would seem to require criminal-like acts of a serious nature, though precisely what would suffice is anything but clear. A sitting president would almost certainly be impeached if he committed murder, despite the historical precedent that Vice President Aaron Burr was not impeached for killing Hamilton in a duel. But if a president paid hush money out of personal funds to prevent his adultery from being disclosed - as Hamilton did when he was Treasury secretary - he wouldn't be impeached. Adultery was a felony in Hamilton's time, but nothing Hamilton did constituted a public crime. Perjury to cover up adultery - one of the offenses for which Mr. Clinton was impeached - is a closer call, although I believe it was not impeachable.

As for the allegations against President Trump, obstruction of justice is plainly a high crime, but a president cannot commit it by exercising his constitutional authority to fire or pardon, regardless of his motive. (It would have been an impeachable offense in Mr. Clinton's case, but the facts were disputed.) Neither is it a crime to conduct foreign policy for partisan or personal advantage - a common political sin with no limiting principle capable of being applied in a neutral manner.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hamilton-wouldnt-impeach-trump-11570661260

I understand the argument that conducting foreign policy for partisan advantage is not a crime. How would anyone ever draw the lines?

But personal advantage? So if Donald Trump said to head of state-I'll make sure you get this foreign aid as long as the new Trump Towers gets a building permit, that would not be a crime? Really?
I think he's referring to personally motivated actions that don't fall into the category of bribery, since that would be impeachable. In other words, personal advantage in itself doesn't establish a crime.
That is not what he said and he rarely misspeaks

Well, if he's saying bribery isn't a crime then I'd have to disagree. In any case, what we're talking about with Trump is partisan advantage. Even a president with the purest of policy goals can't achieve those goals without playing the political game. So as you say, it's hard to draw a line.


FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Richard Nixon , and Bill Clinton ......were certainly pure . They never crossed that line.

Ever.

Not once.

Heaven forbid !
Maybe. But that Gerald Ford was a sumbich.


Yep.

One badly uncoordinated sumbich.
D. C. Bear
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Malbec said:

Canada2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assuming there was quid pro quo, it's still not impeachable.
Quote:

Hamilton Wouldn't Impeach Trump

By Alan M. Dershowitz
Oct. 9, 2019 6:47 pm ET

There is an inevitable political component to the decision to impeach and remove a president, but it should come into play only if the objective constitutional criteria are met. Even if a president did commit "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," the House could decide on political grounds not to move forward on impeachment. The constitutional criteria are necessary for impeachment, but they do not necessitate it.

The words "other high crimes and misdemeanors" does accord Congress some discretion, but not as much as the rejected term "maladministration" would have. The words would seem to require criminal-like acts of a serious nature, though precisely what would suffice is anything but clear. A sitting president would almost certainly be impeached if he committed murder, despite the historical precedent that Vice President Aaron Burr was not impeached for killing Hamilton in a duel. But if a president paid hush money out of personal funds to prevent his adultery from being disclosed - as Hamilton did when he was Treasury secretary - he wouldn't be impeached. Adultery was a felony in Hamilton's time, but nothing Hamilton did constituted a public crime. Perjury to cover up adultery - one of the offenses for which Mr. Clinton was impeached - is a closer call, although I believe it was not impeachable.

As for the allegations against President Trump, obstruction of justice is plainly a high crime, but a president cannot commit it by exercising his constitutional authority to fire or pardon, regardless of his motive. (It would have been an impeachable offense in Mr. Clinton's case, but the facts were disputed.) Neither is it a crime to conduct foreign policy for partisan or personal advantage - a common political sin with no limiting principle capable of being applied in a neutral manner.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hamilton-wouldnt-impeach-trump-11570661260

I understand the argument that conducting foreign policy for partisan advantage is not a crime. How would anyone ever draw the lines?

But personal advantage? So if Donald Trump said to head of state-I'll make sure you get this foreign aid as long as the new Trump Towers gets a building permit, that would not be a crime? Really?
I think he's referring to personally motivated actions that don't fall into the category of bribery, since that would be impeachable. In other words, personal advantage in itself doesn't establish a crime.
That is not what he said and he rarely misspeaks

Well, if he's saying bribery isn't a crime then I'd have to disagree. In any case, what we're talking about with Trump is partisan advantage. Even a president with the purest of policy goals can't achieve those goals without playing the political game. So as you say, it's hard to draw a line.


FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Richard Nixon , and Bill Clinton ......were certainly pure . They never crossed that line.

Ever.

Not once.

Heaven forbid !
Maybe. But that Gerald Ford was a sumbich.


Yep.

One badly uncoordinated sumbich.


Ford was probably the most athletically talented president in history.
Canada2017
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Canada2017 said:

Malbec said:

Canada2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assuming there was quid pro quo, it's still not impeachable.
Quote:

Hamilton Wouldn't Impeach Trump

By Alan M. Dershowitz
Oct. 9, 2019 6:47 pm ET

There is an inevitable political component to the decision to impeach and remove a president, but it should come into play only if the objective constitutional criteria are met. Even if a president did commit "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," the House could decide on political grounds not to move forward on impeachment. The constitutional criteria are necessary for impeachment, but they do not necessitate it.

The words "other high crimes and misdemeanors" does accord Congress some discretion, but not as much as the rejected term "maladministration" would have. The words would seem to require criminal-like acts of a serious nature, though precisely what would suffice is anything but clear. A sitting president would almost certainly be impeached if he committed murder, despite the historical precedent that Vice President Aaron Burr was not impeached for killing Hamilton in a duel. But if a president paid hush money out of personal funds to prevent his adultery from being disclosed - as Hamilton did when he was Treasury secretary - he wouldn't be impeached. Adultery was a felony in Hamilton's time, but nothing Hamilton did constituted a public crime. Perjury to cover up adultery - one of the offenses for which Mr. Clinton was impeached - is a closer call, although I believe it was not impeachable.

As for the allegations against President Trump, obstruction of justice is plainly a high crime, but a president cannot commit it by exercising his constitutional authority to fire or pardon, regardless of his motive. (It would have been an impeachable offense in Mr. Clinton's case, but the facts were disputed.) Neither is it a crime to conduct foreign policy for partisan or personal advantage - a common political sin with no limiting principle capable of being applied in a neutral manner.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hamilton-wouldnt-impeach-trump-11570661260

I understand the argument that conducting foreign policy for partisan advantage is not a crime. How would anyone ever draw the lines?

But personal advantage? So if Donald Trump said to head of state-I'll make sure you get this foreign aid as long as the new Trump Towers gets a building permit, that would not be a crime? Really?
I think he's referring to personally motivated actions that don't fall into the category of bribery, since that would be impeachable. In other words, personal advantage in itself doesn't establish a crime.
That is not what he said and he rarely misspeaks

Well, if he's saying bribery isn't a crime then I'd have to disagree. In any case, what we're talking about with Trump is partisan advantage. Even a president with the purest of policy goals can't achieve those goals without playing the political game. So as you say, it's hard to draw a line.


FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Richard Nixon , and Bill Clinton ......were certainly pure . They never crossed that line.

Ever.

Not once.

Heaven forbid !
Maybe. But that Gerald Ford was a sumbich.


Yep.

One badly uncoordinated sumbich.


Ford was probably the most athletically talented president in history.


Who knows ?

But he was always stumbling/ falling / tripping.

His antics were a source of good natured fun......at a time when such light hearted ribbing was allowed .
quash
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

D. C. Bear said:

Canada2017 said:

Malbec said:

Canada2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assuming there was quid pro quo, it's still not impeachable.
Quote:

Hamilton Wouldn't Impeach Trump

By Alan M. Dershowitz
Oct. 9, 2019 6:47 pm ET

There is an inevitable political component to the decision to impeach and remove a president, but it should come into play only if the objective constitutional criteria are met. Even if a president did commit "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," the House could decide on political grounds not to move forward on impeachment. The constitutional criteria are necessary for impeachment, but they do not necessitate it.

The words "other high crimes and misdemeanors" does accord Congress some discretion, but not as much as the rejected term "maladministration" would have. The words would seem to require criminal-like acts of a serious nature, though precisely what would suffice is anything but clear. A sitting president would almost certainly be impeached if he committed murder, despite the historical precedent that Vice President Aaron Burr was not impeached for killing Hamilton in a duel. But if a president paid hush money out of personal funds to prevent his adultery from being disclosed - as Hamilton did when he was Treasury secretary - he wouldn't be impeached. Adultery was a felony in Hamilton's time, but nothing Hamilton did constituted a public crime. Perjury to cover up adultery - one of the offenses for which Mr. Clinton was impeached - is a closer call, although I believe it was not impeachable.

As for the allegations against President Trump, obstruction of justice is plainly a high crime, but a president cannot commit it by exercising his constitutional authority to fire or pardon, regardless of his motive. (It would have been an impeachable offense in Mr. Clinton's case, but the facts were disputed.) Neither is it a crime to conduct foreign policy for partisan or personal advantage - a common political sin with no limiting principle capable of being applied in a neutral manner.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hamilton-wouldnt-impeach-trump-11570661260

I understand the argument that conducting foreign policy for partisan advantage is not a crime. How would anyone ever draw the lines?

But personal advantage? So if Donald Trump said to head of state-I'll make sure you get this foreign aid as long as the new Trump Towers gets a building permit, that would not be a crime? Really?
I think he's referring to personally motivated actions that don't fall into the category of bribery, since that would be impeachable. In other words, personal advantage in itself doesn't establish a crime.
That is not what he said and he rarely misspeaks

Well, if he's saying bribery isn't a crime then I'd have to disagree. In any case, what we're talking about with Trump is partisan advantage. Even a president with the purest of policy goals can't achieve those goals without playing the political game. So as you say, it's hard to draw a line.


FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Richard Nixon , and Bill Clinton ......were certainly pure . They never crossed that line.

Ever.

Not once.

Heaven forbid !
Maybe. But that Gerald Ford was a sumbich.


Yep.

One badly uncoordinated sumbich.


Ford was probably the most athletically talented president in history.


Who knows ?

But he was always stumbling/ falling / tripping.

His antics were a source of good natured fun......at a time when such light hearted ribbing was allowed .

Seems like he was always falling on Saturdays. In New York. On live TV.
“Life, liberty, and property do not exist because men have made laws. On the contrary, it was the fact that life, liberty, and property existed beforehand that caused men to make laws in the first place.” (The Law, p.6) Frederic Bastiat
BaylorTaxman
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assuming there was quid pro quo, it's still not impeachable.
Quote:

Hamilton Wouldn't Impeach Trump

By Alan M. Dershowitz
Oct. 9, 2019 6:47 pm ET

There is an inevitable political component to the decision to impeach and remove a president, but it should come into play only if the objective constitutional criteria are met. Even if a president did commit "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," the House could decide on political grounds not to move forward on impeachment. The constitutional criteria are necessary for impeachment, but they do not necessitate it.

The words "other high crimes and misdemeanors" does accord Congress some discretion, but not as much as the rejected term "maladministration" would have. The words would seem to require criminal-like acts of a serious nature, though precisely what would suffice is anything but clear. A sitting president would almost certainly be impeached if he committed murder, despite the historical precedent that Vice President Aaron Burr was not impeached for killing Hamilton in a duel. But if a president paid hush money out of personal funds to prevent his adultery from being disclosed - as Hamilton did when he was Treasury secretary - he wouldn't be impeached. Adultery was a felony in Hamilton's time, but nothing Hamilton did constituted a public crime. Perjury to cover up adultery - one of the offenses for which Mr. Clinton was impeached - is a closer call, although I believe it was not impeachable.

As for the allegations against President Trump, obstruction of justice is plainly a high crime, but a president cannot commit it by exercising his constitutional authority to fire or pardon, regardless of his motive. (It would have been an impeachable offense in Mr. Clinton's case, but the facts were disputed.) Neither is it a crime to conduct foreign policy for partisan or personal advantage - a common political sin with no limiting principle capable of being applied in a neutral manner.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hamilton-wouldnt-impeach-trump-11570661260

I understand the argument that conducting foreign policy for partisan advantage is not a crime. How would anyone ever draw the lines?

But personal advantage? So if Donald Trump said to head of state-I'll make sure you get this foreign aid as long as the new Trump Towers gets a building permit, that would not be a crime? Really?
I think he's referring to personally motivated actions that don't fall into the category of bribery, since that would be impeachable. In other words, personal advantage in itself doesn't establish a crime.
That is not what he said and he rarely misspeaks

Well, if he's saying bribery isn't a crime then I'd have to disagree. In any case, what we're talking about with Trump is partisan advantage. Even a president with the purest of policy goals can't achieve those goals without playing the political game. So as you say, it's hard to draw a line.


FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Richard Nixon , and Bill Clinton ......were certainly pure . They never crossed that line.

Ever.

Not once.

Heaven forbid !


LOL sure...they are comparable to Trump.
RD2WINAGNBEAR86
How long do you want to ignore this user?
Canada2017 said:

D. C. Bear said:

Canada2017 said:

Malbec said:

Canada2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assuming there was quid pro quo, it's still not impeachable.
Quote:

Hamilton Wouldn't Impeach Trump

By Alan M. Dershowitz
Oct. 9, 2019 6:47 pm ET

There is an inevitable political component to the decision to impeach and remove a president, but it should come into play only if the objective constitutional criteria are met. Even if a president did commit "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," the House could decide on political grounds not to move forward on impeachment. The constitutional criteria are necessary for impeachment, but they do not necessitate it.

The words "other high crimes and misdemeanors" does accord Congress some discretion, but not as much as the rejected term "maladministration" would have. The words would seem to require criminal-like acts of a serious nature, though precisely what would suffice is anything but clear. A sitting president would almost certainly be impeached if he committed murder, despite the historical precedent that Vice President Aaron Burr was not impeached for killing Hamilton in a duel. But if a president paid hush money out of personal funds to prevent his adultery from being disclosed - as Hamilton did when he was Treasury secretary - he wouldn't be impeached. Adultery was a felony in Hamilton's time, but nothing Hamilton did constituted a public crime. Perjury to cover up adultery - one of the offenses for which Mr. Clinton was impeached - is a closer call, although I believe it was not impeachable.

As for the allegations against President Trump, obstruction of justice is plainly a high crime, but a president cannot commit it by exercising his constitutional authority to fire or pardon, regardless of his motive. (It would have been an impeachable offense in Mr. Clinton's case, but the facts were disputed.) Neither is it a crime to conduct foreign policy for partisan or personal advantage - a common political sin with no limiting principle capable of being applied in a neutral manner.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hamilton-wouldnt-impeach-trump-11570661260

I understand the argument that conducting foreign policy for partisan advantage is not a crime. How would anyone ever draw the lines?

But personal advantage? So if Donald Trump said to head of state-I'll make sure you get this foreign aid as long as the new Trump Towers gets a building permit, that would not be a crime? Really?
I think he's referring to personally motivated actions that don't fall into the category of bribery, since that would be impeachable. In other words, personal advantage in itself doesn't establish a crime.
That is not what he said and he rarely misspeaks

Well, if he's saying bribery isn't a crime then I'd have to disagree. In any case, what we're talking about with Trump is partisan advantage. Even a president with the purest of policy goals can't achieve those goals without playing the political game. So as you say, it's hard to draw a line.


FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Richard Nixon , and Bill Clinton ......were certainly pure . They never crossed that line.

Ever.

Not once.

Heaven forbid !
Maybe. But that Gerald Ford was a sumbich.


Yep.

One badly uncoordinated sumbich.


Ford was probably the most athletically talented president in history.


Who knows ?

But he was always stumbling/ falling / tripping.

His antics were a source of good natured fun......at a time when such light hearted ribbing was allowed .
I remember the first time Gerald Ford came to San Antonio. He was at a dinner featuring Mexican food. He started eating tamales and someone had to tell him to take the shuck off. It was a funny moment. If Trump did that, the Dems would put together another investigative committee and Tamalegate would be born.
"Never underestimate Joe's ability to **** things up!"

-- Barack Obama
william
How long do you want to ignore this user?
si senor... de veras.....

RIP GRF RIP Lila Cockrell....

>>
U.S.
A Briefing on the Eating of Tamales

The ancient husked culinary delight has entranced and befuddled Americans for over a century.

Adam Chandler Feb 5, 2015


In April 1976, just seven months before he would be defeated by Jimmy Carter, President Gerald Ford made a trip down to San Antonio, Texas. Like any visitor to old San Antone, Ford took in the defiant glory of The Alamo and was later fted by the Daughters of the Republic of Texas.

At the DRT reception, in a gaffe that would later be known as "The Great Tamales Incident," Ford infamously picked up "a plate of tamales, took one and began to eat it, shuck and all" to the horror of his hosts.

"I think he just picked up the plate because if someone had given him the plate, the tamales would not have had the shucks," said Lila Cockrell, San Antonio's mayor at the time. "The president didn't know any better. It was obvious he didn't get a briefing on the eating of tamales."

The incident made national news and contributed to the image of Ford as a chronic bumbler, an image made legend by Chevy Chase on Saturday Night Live just days later. "The Great Tamales Incident" has since been dispatched by the political obsessives as cautionary tales against everything from ignoring Latino voters to trying too hard to seem like an everyman. Former Texas Governor Rick Perry, following his "Oops" gaffe in 2012 in the Republican presidential debate, deployed the tamale story to remind fundraisers of the fallibility of politicians.
<<



Dale?
Forest Bueller
How long do you want to ignore this user?
D. C. Bear said:

Canada2017 said:

Malbec said:

Canada2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assuming there was quid pro quo, it's still not impeachable.
Quote:

Hamilton Wouldn't Impeach Trump

By Alan M. Dershowitz
Oct. 9, 2019 6:47 pm ET

There is an inevitable political component to the decision to impeach and remove a president, but it should come into play only if the objective constitutional criteria are met. Even if a president did commit "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," the House could decide on political grounds not to move forward on impeachment. The constitutional criteria are necessary for impeachment, but they do not necessitate it.

The words "other high crimes and misdemeanors" does accord Congress some discretion, but not as much as the rejected term "maladministration" would have. The words would seem to require criminal-like acts of a serious nature, though precisely what would suffice is anything but clear. A sitting president would almost certainly be impeached if he committed murder, despite the historical precedent that Vice President Aaron Burr was not impeached for killing Hamilton in a duel. But if a president paid hush money out of personal funds to prevent his adultery from being disclosed - as Hamilton did when he was Treasury secretary - he wouldn't be impeached. Adultery was a felony in Hamilton's time, but nothing Hamilton did constituted a public crime. Perjury to cover up adultery - one of the offenses for which Mr. Clinton was impeached - is a closer call, although I believe it was not impeachable.

As for the allegations against President Trump, obstruction of justice is plainly a high crime, but a president cannot commit it by exercising his constitutional authority to fire or pardon, regardless of his motive. (It would have been an impeachable offense in Mr. Clinton's case, but the facts were disputed.) Neither is it a crime to conduct foreign policy for partisan or personal advantage - a common political sin with no limiting principle capable of being applied in a neutral manner.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hamilton-wouldnt-impeach-trump-11570661260

I understand the argument that conducting foreign policy for partisan advantage is not a crime. How would anyone ever draw the lines?

But personal advantage? So if Donald Trump said to head of state-I'll make sure you get this foreign aid as long as the new Trump Towers gets a building permit, that would not be a crime? Really?
I think he's referring to personally motivated actions that don't fall into the category of bribery, since that would be impeachable. In other words, personal advantage in itself doesn't establish a crime.
That is not what he said and he rarely misspeaks

Well, if he's saying bribery isn't a crime then I'd have to disagree. In any case, what we're talking about with Trump is partisan advantage. Even a president with the purest of policy goals can't achieve those goals without playing the political game. So as you say, it's hard to draw a line.


FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Richard Nixon , and Bill Clinton ......were certainly pure . They never crossed that line.

Ever.

Not once.

Heaven forbid !
Maybe. But that Gerald Ford was a sumbich.


Yep.

One badly uncoordinated sumbich.


Ford was probably the most athletically talented president in history.
Him or Washington.
Sam Lowry
How long do you want to ignore this user?
BaylorTaxman said:

Canada2017 said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Booray said:

Sam Lowry said:

Assuming there was quid pro quo, it's still not impeachable.
Quote:

Hamilton Wouldn't Impeach Trump

By Alan M. Dershowitz
Oct. 9, 2019 6:47 pm ET

There is an inevitable political component to the decision to impeach and remove a president, but it should come into play only if the objective constitutional criteria are met. Even if a president did commit "treason, bribery or other high crimes and misdemeanors," the House could decide on political grounds not to move forward on impeachment. The constitutional criteria are necessary for impeachment, but they do not necessitate it.

The words "other high crimes and misdemeanors" does accord Congress some discretion, but not as much as the rejected term "maladministration" would have. The words would seem to require criminal-like acts of a serious nature, though precisely what would suffice is anything but clear. A sitting president would almost certainly be impeached if he committed murder, despite the historical precedent that Vice President Aaron Burr was not impeached for killing Hamilton in a duel. But if a president paid hush money out of personal funds to prevent his adultery from being disclosed - as Hamilton did when he was Treasury secretary - he wouldn't be impeached. Adultery was a felony in Hamilton's time, but nothing Hamilton did constituted a public crime. Perjury to cover up adultery - one of the offenses for which Mr. Clinton was impeached - is a closer call, although I believe it was not impeachable.

As for the allegations against President Trump, obstruction of justice is plainly a high crime, but a president cannot commit it by exercising his constitutional authority to fire or pardon, regardless of his motive. (It would have been an impeachable offense in Mr. Clinton's case, but the facts were disputed.) Neither is it a crime to conduct foreign policy for partisan or personal advantage - a common political sin with no limiting principle capable of being applied in a neutral manner.

https://www.wsj.com/articles/hamilton-wouldnt-impeach-trump-11570661260

I understand the argument that conducting foreign policy for partisan advantage is not a crime. How would anyone ever draw the lines?

But personal advantage? So if Donald Trump said to head of state-I'll make sure you get this foreign aid as long as the new Trump Towers gets a building permit, that would not be a crime? Really?
I think he's referring to personally motivated actions that don't fall into the category of bribery, since that would be impeachable. In other words, personal advantage in itself doesn't establish a crime.
That is not what he said and he rarely misspeaks

Well, if he's saying bribery isn't a crime then I'd have to disagree. In any case, what we're talking about with Trump is partisan advantage. Even a president with the purest of policy goals can't achieve those goals without playing the political game. So as you say, it's hard to draw a line.


FDR, Truman, Eisenhower, Kennedy, LBJ, Richard Nixon , and Bill Clinton ......were certainly pure . They never crossed that line.

Ever.

Not once.

Heaven forbid !


LOL sure...they are comparable to Trump.
Yeah, comparing Trump to Clinton in terms of criminality is a stretch.
Refresh
Page 1 of 1
 
×
subscribe Verify your student status
See Subscription Benefits
Trial only available to users who have never subscribed or participated in a previous trial.