• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Trump pardons fraudster Conrad Black after glowing biography

apdst said:
No, it can't. Groundless impeachments are dangerous to our republic because it would allow Congress to exert absolute power. It would be detrimental to our systen to allow Congress to arbitrarily impeach any president for any reason.
Click to expand...

"High crimes and misdemeanors" is sufficiently broad that finding a reason to impeach will never be as challenging as getting the required votes.

These are largely untested waters, and my read is that anything Congress deems impeachment worthy is.

If those empowered are sufficiently upset with the president that 2/3rds vote him out of office, the reason why they are outraged is rather less important.

Rest assured it will all be quite clearly documented, and be delivered on nice stationary, and everyone will get their chance to shriek "Hell in a handbasket!" on camera.

Or more likely, it won't happen at all, not because there's no reason, but because of the votes.
 
apdst said:
Why should it be impechable? The Constitution clearly states that the president has the power to pardon.

There's no standard listed for excercising that pardon power. The only way to punish a president for excercising his constitutional authority is through the ballot box.
Click to expand...

I wish I knew why the conservative movement is so invested in such a wrongheaded notion. There's simply no basis for that opinion, which is why none of you guys has cited...anything in support of it.
 
apdst said:
No, it can't. Groundless impeachments are dangerous to our republic because it would allow Congress to exert absolute power. It would be detrimental to our systen to allow Congress to arbitrarily impeach any president for any reason.
Click to expand...

No one is arguing for groundless or 'arbitrary' impeachments. The 2/3 requirement in the Senate is the guarantee that no impeachment will be arbitrary or groundless, as the action would require (in this case) about 20 GOP votes, all of them answerable to their voters, and the rest by Democrats who if they acted arbitrarily or without sufficient cause would also answer to voters.
 
JasperL said:
No one is arguing for groundless or 'arbitrary' impeachments. The 2/3 requirement in the Senate is the guarantee that no impeachment will be arbitrary or groundless, as the action would require (in this case) about 20 GOP votes, all of them answerable to their voters, and the rest by Democrats who if they acted arbitrarily or without sufficient cause would also answer to voters.
Click to expand...

Willypete is...

WillyPete said:
I don't disagree with the above.

My point is that a reason to impeach can be just as arbitrary as a reason to pardon. We have slightly more constraints, with the "high crimes and misdemeanors" but that's seems like a pretty broad term.

My point is it's political. If the votes were present, the reason for the vote would be almost irrelevant.

Or the reverse. If the votes to impeach aren't present, it doesn't matter what crime he commits.
Click to expand...
 
JasperL said:
I wish I knew why the conservative movement is so invested in such a wrongheaded notion. There's simply no basis for that opinion, which is why none of you guys has cited...anything in support of it.
Click to expand...

So, you think the Legislative Branch has the authority to punish a president for excercising constitutional authority? I would love to see you support that. Can't wait.
 
gdgyva said:
can you prove said financial gain?

or is this more speculation?

and i mean proof capable of holding up to the standards of our courts of law
Click to expand...
Yes proof beyond doubt
 
uptower said:
He can abuse that power and is doing so. He is not the only one granted, but many of his pardons are blatantly political. He is not acting in good faith. add it to the list of offences.

The only thing protecting this crook is a spineless Senate.
Click to expand...

And a spineless house ran by people who dont understand power.
 
ocean515 said:
LOL

Awesome post Tres. So well informed given the caustic nature of your comments.

It wasn't EX President Obama I was referring to. It was EX President Bill Clinton, you know the vanquished Queens husband.

At little background to help, while your dealing with your epic failure.


Bill Clinton’s pardon of fugitive Marc Rich continues to pay big


Marc Rich was wanted for a list of charges going back decades. He had traded illegally with America’s enemies including Ayatollah Khomeini’s Iran, where he bought about $200 million worth of oil while revolutionaries allied with Khomeini held 53 American hostages in 1979.

Rich made a large part of his wealth, approximately $2 billion between 1979 and 1994, selling oil to the apartheid regime in South Africa when it faced a UN embargo. He did deals with Khadafy’s Libya, Milosevic’s Yugoslavia, Kim Il Sung’s North Korea, Communist dictatorships in Cuba and the Soviet Union itself. Little surprise that he was on the FBI’s Ten Most Wanted List.

What bothered so many was that Clinton’s clemency to Rich reeked of payoff. In the run-up to the presidential pardon, the financier’s ex-wife Denise had donated $450,000 to the fledgling Clinton Library and “over $1 million to Democratic campaigns in the Clinton era.”
​
Click to expand...

So you posted about someone who was pardoned by Clinton, and who never wrote a glowing book about Clinton at the time of the pardon.

So your reference to Rich had nothing to do with what is being discussed in this thread.

Or are you criticizing Trump for pardon for pay?
 
Last edited:
apdst said:
So, you think the Legislative Branch has the authority to punish a president for excercising constitutional authority? I would love to see you support that. Can't wait.
Click to expand...

That's easy. From our Constitution, Article II, Sec. IV.

The President, Vice President and all civil officers of the United States, shall be removed from office on impeachment for, and conviction of, treason, bribery, or other high crimes and misdemeanors.
Click to expand...

High crimes and misdemeanors includes or can include lawful acts. See this analysis, for example.

Impeachment: The Constitution’s Fiduciary Meaning of “High . . . Misdemeanors” | The Federalist Society

III. Conclusion
We best capture the meaning of the phrase “high . . . Misdemeanors” when we think of it as referring to breaches of fiduciary duty. High misdemeanors are not limited to commission of crimes, but they do not include mere political differences. While violations of the criminal law provide grounds for impeachment, high misdemeanors encompass breaches of the duties of loyalty, good faith, and care, and of the obligations to account and to follow instructions (including the law and Constitution) when administering one’s office.
Click to expand...
 
Saladin4 said:
The whole Presidential "pardon" power has become a joke...That needs to be removed
Click to expand...

I think the majority of it has been a joke for the longest time.
 
danarhea said:
Actually, when our forefathers wrote the Constitution, political parties did not exist.
Click to expand...

Federalists vs anti-federalists. They each wrote some pretty important papers.
 
apdst said:
Willypete is...
Click to expand...

If I've overstated the case, let's see where that's documented in the law or precedent.

My position is that a successful impeachment vote justifies whatever reasons led to the vote. By dint of convincing 2/3rds of Congress that the president should be gone, he should be gone.

Also that a Congress that won't vote to impeach under any circumstances is enabling a lawless president.
 
apdst said:
So, you think the Legislative Branch has the authority to punish a president for excercising constitutional authority? I would love to see you support that. Can't wait.
Click to expand...

If they have enough votes they can remove a president for wearing ugly pants.
 
tres borrachos said:
So you posted about someone who was pardoned by Clinton, and who never wrote a glowing book about Clinton at the time of the pardon.

So your reference to Rich had nothing to do with what is being discussed in this thread.

Or are you criticizing Trump for pardon for pay?
Click to expand...

LOL

Actually, I'm now more interested is seeing how you really messed up and now you're you appear to be a bit desperate in your attempt to save face.

It didn't work.

The reason I brought up the pardon of despicable Marc Rich by EX President Clinton, was to bring attention to the silence that met that pardon by the Clinton love crew, versus the heads exploding by them over the pardon of the comparatively angelic Conrad Black by President Trump.

Beyond that I'm not too interested in your thoughts on the matter, since you don't seem to be very informed on the overall issue.
 
Mason66 said:
Addicts are always addicts, or did you not know that?

One day at a time.
Click to expand...

So that’s a no on your part as usual. You’re Wrong again as usual and we are left with another of your idiot comments when your master trump is attacked. :lamo
 
gdgyva said:
ok

and of course it is in the hands of a DA or court officer so charges should be hitting any day now right?
Click to expand...

No, I should have been clear
Not directed at Trump

Presidential pardon powers many see as absolute
If a president pardoned for personal profit and realized this, would the pardon be valid?

Guide to the Constitution
 
ocean515 said:
LOL

Actually, I'm now more interested is seeing how you really messed up and now you're you appear to be a bit desperate in your attempt to save face.

It didn't work.

The reason I brought up the pardon of despicable Marc Rich by EX President Clinton, was to bring attention to the silence that met that pardon by the Clinton love crew, versus the heads exploding by them over the pardon of the comparatively angelic Conrad Black by President Trump.
Click to expand...

Who is a member of the "Clinton love crew" and can you quote their reaction to something that happened 18 years ago? Thanks!
 
WillyPete said:
If I've overstated the case, let's see where that's documented in the law or precedent.

My position is that a successful impeachment vote justifies whatever reasons led to the vote. By dint of convincing 2/3rds of Congress that the president should be gone, he should be gone.

Also that a Congress that won't vote to impeach under any circumstances is enabling a lawless president.
Click to expand...

Where's it stated?

"Article 2, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
 
apdst said:
Where's it stated?

"Article 2, Section 4

The President, Vice President and all Civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors."
Click to expand...

I've referenced that passage a couple times already, as have others. Now we're digging into what "high crimes and misdeanors" actually means.

JasperL in post #185 presented the most promising citation I've seen so far. I'd be curious what you made of it.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom