7 members (Gary E. Andrews, Everett Adams, VNORTH2, couchgrouch, Fdemetrio, Perry Neal Crawford, Sunset Poet),
4,248
guests, and
261
robots. |
Key:
Admin,
Global Mod,
Mod
|
|
Welcome to the Just Plain Folks forums! You are currently viewing our forums as a Guest which gives you limited access to most of our discussions and to other features.
By joining our free community you will have access to post and respond to topics, communicate privately with our users (PM), respond to polls, upload content, and access many other features. Registration is fast, simple, and absolutely free; so please join our community today!
|
|
|
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 10,941 Likes: 3
Top 10 Poster
|
Top 10 Poster
Joined: Feb 2007
Posts: 10,941 Likes: 3 |
If a mayor or a governor withheld public funds (maybe a combination of local and federal funding) for a project until the firm doing the project did them a "favor" that personally benefitted their re-election campaign, that would be considered extortion or attempted bribery. If they took steps to hide or withhold information from law enforcement, that would be considered obstruction of justice. If there were multiple actors helping the mayor/governor withhold duly mandated public funds and hide/withhold information that would be considered conspiracy to defraud the government. Take your pick. Now conviction for an impeachment is a political endeavor -- not a legal/criminal one. If the senate votes that the actions of the president do not rise to the standard of "high crimes and misdomeaners", then the case is over. That's is our system. I have Alexander Hamilton's name thrown around a lot. Here is what he said: A well-constituted court for the trial of impeachments is an object not more to be desired than difficult to be obtained in a government wholly elective. The subjects of its jurisdiction are those offenses which proceed from the misconduct of public men, or, in other words, from the abuse or violation of some public trust. They are of a nature which may with peculiar propriety be denominated political, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself. The prosecution of them, for this reason, will seldom fail to agitate the passions of the whole community, and to divide it into parties more or less friendly or inimical to the accused. In many cases it will connect itself with the pre-existing factions, and will enlist all their animosities, partialities, influence, and interest on one side or on the other; and in such cases there will always be the greatest danger that the decision will be regulated more by the comparative strength of parties, than by the real demonstrations of innocence or guilt. The precautions for their responsibility are comprised in the article respecting impeachments. They are liable to be impeached for malconduct by the House of Representatives, and tried by the Senate; and, if convicted, may be dismissed from office, and disqualified for holding any other. This is the only provision on the point which is consistent with the necessary independence of the judicial character, and is the only one which we find in our own Constitution in respect to our own judges. … But in no sense was a criminal offense required. The phrase "high crimes and misdemeanor" is not derived from the criminal law. It is parliamentary in origin. Thus, Commons impeached government officials for procuring offices for persons unfit and unworthy for them, neglecting to safeguard the seas as a Great Admiral was required, putting a seal on an ignominious treaty, misleading the sovereign. … .
|
|
|
We would like to keep the membership in Just Plain Folks FREE! Your donation helps support the many programs we offer including Road Trips and the Music Awards.
|
|
Forums117
Topics125,718
Posts1,160,951
Members21,470
|
Most Online37,523 Jan 25th, 2020
|
|
"If one man can do it, any man can do it. It is true. But the real question is, if one man did it, are you willing to do what it takes to do it as well?" –Brian Austin Whitney
|
|
|
|