How bout a son in-law and daughter working in Whitehouse, with absolutely no experience in what they doing? Or his lawyers son working in some frivolous liaison position?
2 Likes
Founders would have never allowed an idiot like Trump* near the White House
2 Likes
Exactly. If there is one thing the founders would agree upon- it would be the necessity of impeaching a president who was soliciting foreign governments to go after political opponents to win domestic elections. They were pretty terrified of English meddling at the time and abhorred the idea of any foreign influence on domestic elections.
If anything was impeachable…this is it.
1 Like
Choosing to look into it is a political decision regardless of the reasons.
They lay out their case for impeachment in the Federalist Papers and abuse of office is like the first thing on the lost of impeachable offenses.
1 Like
Completely agree with you.
Silwy wabbit…that’s different.
I suspect that they would have had trouble reconciling the action of asking an alleged corrupt country to look into their own corruption rather than asking the USA’s own agencies to investigate.
1 Like
This!! The problem was never the “looking into corruption” the problem was the president using outside channels and using his position inside our government for personal gain.
The Sondland testimony was: he didn’t so much want the investigation as much as the announcement of the investigation. That to me is abuse of power.
1 Like
to say nothing of being brought by a female speaker of the house
I’ve always liked The Onion’s take on how our Founding Fathers would feel about what’s happening in America today.
Potential election fallout never rises about documented COI by a VP.
Time to hammer this point home for good.
Actually my intent was to have a non-partisan discussion on the notion of “high crimes and misdemeanors” with a theorizing of the founders views regarding the aspects of this current situation. Which is why I used the example of Obama and Jeb Bush’s son in my OP. Clearly it didn’t work out how I intended.
Well, that’s the thing.
The Founders were very concerned about future Presidents abusing their authority - particularly using their power for corrupt personal gain from other countries.
They were not, on the other hand, particularly worried about children of former Vice Presidents getting jobs that they may not be qualified for.
Makes me wonder if the Federalist Papers are like The Art of War and The Prince, basically everyone claims to have read them and basically everyone is lying.
7 Likes
I see why you would reach that conclusion… the Federalist Papers truly are a slog. But The Art of War is different. I have read three translations over the years and each one seemed to the be the translation of an entirely different text. Sadly, I have no ability to read the original, but my sense is The Prince and the Federalist Papers at least have agree upon texts.
Sun Tzu does spend a lot of time on fascinating topics like whether you want the Sun to be on your right or your left… a matter that somehow eluded Machiavelli.
The Federalists were very concerned with maintaining power in the hands of the 18th Century elite… large landholders. They would have assumed that male children of the elite would benefit from their fathers’ positions. I cannot imagine the federalists caring a whit about whether Hunter Biden was qualified for a position… the fact of who he was would have been sufficient qualification.
What’s really sad here is that when Trump and team assess Joe Biden – forty years in government – this is all they have to go after him for! Trump and his team (studies in nepotism) and they go after Joe B. for nepotism? Look at the broader context and Joe Biden emerges as an ethically sterling politician.
1 Like
Former now…Current during COI.
Just for clarity.
Whether the method Trump used to look into this was the most appropriate is a legitimate policy discussion and a reasonable matter for debate in the upcoming election. These are the sort of differences that politics are meant to resolve.
Impeachable? No.
If there were evidence that Trump was threatening Ukraine to come up with fake evidence to frame Biden for political purposes, then go ahead an impeach.
Nothing that has been brought up even comes close to high crimes and misdemeanors.
1 Like
Trump was in the wrong, and a censure vote would have been appropriate.
By impeaching him for Ukraine, Pelosi et al are foregoing the opportunity for impeaching him for much worse crimes - the betrayal of our allies, the incompetence of his foreign policy, lying to the press about the justification for killing Solemainie (sp). etc.
Nepotism, in politics, sports, etc. is a curse. In politics, it should be illegal.
