jc456
Diamond Member
- Dec 18, 2013
- 139,410
- 29,206
- 2,180
I read your first sentence and that invalidated any further readingTold ya they wouldn't read or grasp what the post meant.Well yeah you do! Hey, thanks for playingYou don't need a crime to impeach. Now this will take some thinking and reading on the part of Trumpers, so I don't have much hope they will read it much less grasp what it means:
’The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.“
https://www.crf-usa.org/impeachment/high-crimes-and-misdemeanors.htm
Thanks for proving my point.