“Sir, there is no point in establishing a matter of precedency between a flea and a louse”.--Samuel Johnson (pun intended)
During the presidential debate Sunday, Hillary Clinton denied being Secretary of State when President Obama said in 2012 that Syria President Bashar Assad would “cross a red line” by using chemical weapons on civilians in the country’s years-long civil war. Most believe this statement and development of policy afterwards seriously weakened the presidency, the nation and the West. It was important.
Clinton's response? “I was gone,” Clinton said. “At some point, we need to do some fact-checking here.”
That is simply not true. But no journalist cares. Actually, no one cares. Hillary Clinton served as the 67th United States Secretary of State under President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2013. Obama made the infamous "red line" comment in 2012. She just looks at the American public and lies. Or, worse, she doesn't remember. But Trump was so incompetent, he did not know.
Unaware that Clinton was lying, Trump pressed on, suggesting instead that the Democratic presidential nominee remained in close conversation with the administration after leaving the department and in some vague, improvable way, influenced Obama's bad decisions.
“You were in total contact with the White House,” Trump said. “And perhaps, sadly, Obama probably still listened to you. I don't think he would be listening to you very much anymore.”
It does not matter to anyone what either of these two say. And the press will do anything to defeat Trump. We are stuck with one of them.
Why do we have to put up with this?
One of these terrible people will be elected President of the United States. The most important nation in free world. This insanity has been foisted on us by a perfect storm in the party system, on both sides.
Can't we do something?
There is no mechanism set forth in the U.S. Constitution that allows for the removal of a president save for impeachment, which is limited for instances of "high crimes and misdemeanors." So the results of an election can not simply be overturned by the whims of voters. Nor can we vote for "none of the above." The stability that imposes is probably a good thing.
There is evidence that the Founding Fathers were intentionally vague. Initially, the framers considered defining impeachable offenses as just "treason or bribery" but they added the additional phrase because George Mason worried that "treason or bribery" was insufficient for removing a president who began to become dictatorial. So the framers offered a soft definition in the faith that Congress would know an impeachable offense when it saw one. (It is also clear however that Madison, at least, was worried about making the definition too vague, because excessive vagueness means that the president serves "during the pleasure of the Senate.")
Some argue that "high crimes and misdemeanors" has a well-defined meaning--it refers to an old legal term, the so-called "political crimes." A crime is "political" when it involves the misuse of a politician's official powers. So the president accepting a bribe would be a political crime but assaulting his girlfriend would not. You can see how this might apply to modern cases. Would Bill Clinton's perjury conviction be impeachable? Probably not. His seduction of a subordinate intern? A bit....stickier... but probably not.
Along the same line of thinking is the belief that "high crimes and misdemeanors" refers to "crimes against the state." So Bill Clinton's offences, while outrageous and galling--especially to the average guy who could not in a million years have gotten away with them--would not qualify as crimes against the state's workings. (Interestingly, the word "high" does not mean "more serious;" in English law is generally understood to refer to crimes against the state--insulting the king is "high treason," insulting your brother is "petit treason.")
There is another translation: those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons. That translation would make Bill Clinton vulnerable and, in fact, English law occasionally acted on such a principle.
A Chief Justice William Scroggs was impeached in 1688 for, among other things, public drunkenness.
During the presidential debate Sunday, Hillary Clinton denied being Secretary of State when President Obama said in 2012 that Syria President Bashar Assad would “cross a red line” by using chemical weapons on civilians in the country’s years-long civil war. Most believe this statement and development of policy afterwards seriously weakened the presidency, the nation and the West. It was important.
Clinton's response? “I was gone,” Clinton said. “At some point, we need to do some fact-checking here.”
That is simply not true. But no journalist cares. Actually, no one cares. Hillary Clinton served as the 67th United States Secretary of State under President Barack Obama from 2009 to 2013. Obama made the infamous "red line" comment in 2012. She just looks at the American public and lies. Or, worse, she doesn't remember. But Trump was so incompetent, he did not know.
Unaware that Clinton was lying, Trump pressed on, suggesting instead that the Democratic presidential nominee remained in close conversation with the administration after leaving the department and in some vague, improvable way, influenced Obama's bad decisions.
“You were in total contact with the White House,” Trump said. “And perhaps, sadly, Obama probably still listened to you. I don't think he would be listening to you very much anymore.”
It does not matter to anyone what either of these two say. And the press will do anything to defeat Trump. We are stuck with one of them.
Why do we have to put up with this?
One of these terrible people will be elected President of the United States. The most important nation in free world. This insanity has been foisted on us by a perfect storm in the party system, on both sides.
Can't we do something?
There is no mechanism set forth in the U.S. Constitution that allows for the removal of a president save for impeachment, which is limited for instances of "high crimes and misdemeanors." So the results of an election can not simply be overturned by the whims of voters. Nor can we vote for "none of the above." The stability that imposes is probably a good thing.
The Constitution limits the impeachment of the President (through the process of bringing charges by the House and voting on those charges by the Senate) under the following conditions: the President "shall be removed from office on impeachment for and conviction of treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors."
There is evidence that the Founding Fathers were intentionally vague. Initially, the framers considered defining impeachable offenses as just "treason or bribery" but they added the additional phrase because George Mason worried that "treason or bribery" was insufficient for removing a president who began to become dictatorial. So the framers offered a soft definition in the faith that Congress would know an impeachable offense when it saw one. (It is also clear however that Madison, at least, was worried about making the definition too vague, because excessive vagueness means that the president serves "during the pleasure of the Senate.")
Some argue that "high crimes and misdemeanors" has a well-defined meaning--it refers to an old legal term, the so-called "political crimes." A crime is "political" when it involves the misuse of a politician's official powers. So the president accepting a bribe would be a political crime but assaulting his girlfriend would not. You can see how this might apply to modern cases. Would Bill Clinton's perjury conviction be impeachable? Probably not. His seduction of a subordinate intern? A bit....stickier... but probably not.
Along the same line of thinking is the belief that "high crimes and misdemeanors" refers to "crimes against the state." So Bill Clinton's offences, while outrageous and galling--especially to the average guy who could not in a million years have gotten away with them--would not qualify as crimes against the state's workings. (Interestingly, the word "high" does not mean "more serious;" in English law is generally understood to refer to crimes against the state--insulting the king is "high treason," insulting your brother is "petit treason.")
There is another translation: those punishable offenses that only apply to high persons, that is, to public officials, those who, because of their official status, are under special obligations that ordinary persons are not under, and which could not be meaningfully applied or justly punished if committed by ordinary persons. That translation would make Bill Clinton vulnerable and, in fact, English law occasionally acted on such a principle.
A Chief Justice William Scroggs was impeached in 1688 for, among other things, public drunkenness.
Our current dilemma is worse because neither of the two reprobates running for office have been elected yet. But both rely upon their shameless mendacity in their campaigns. It is their campaigns' defining quality. I think that, as a candidate for the most important elected office in the world, one has some obligation for basic truthfulness. More important, they should show some basic respect for the electorate. One may argue that this requirement has never been made before; I would argue that is the very reason we have this problem now.
It is time to care.
ImpeachThemNow.org!
It is time to care.
ImpeachThemNow.org!
No comments:
Post a Comment