The case asserts Trump committed no crime, a benchmark for impeachment that the Constitution’s authors avoided adopting in a well-documented debate.
Months after the 1787 Constitutional Convention in Philadelphia, Alexander Hamilton explained in the Federalist Papers that a commonly understood crime need not be the basis of impeachment. Offenses meriting that step “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 authors of the article make one of the most fundamental errors in asserting that because there was a debate on the issue during the framing of the Constitution, Trump need not have committed an actual crime to be impeached and removed. Anyone was entitled to vote for or against ratification based upon his or her sole interpretation of the wording and how that wording would possibly be later applied. None was held to the views of Alexander Hamilton or anyone else.
If the framers were to have meant black but used the word white and also said at the time they meant black, that would not negate that the document be held to mean what it expressly says: white. If the framers didn’t mean crimes and only crimes, then they should have had the brains to say right in the Constitution that we don’t mean to limit grounds to crimes but also include abuse of power as define by the Congress at the time of impeachment. They didn’t. What Hamilton said doesn’t matter a jot.
Alexander Hamilton is not and never has been the end all and be all concerning the meaning of the words that make up the US Constitution. The Federalist Papers are not the law of the land any more than is the Declaration of Independence. The Declaration of Independence is not used to interpret how the US Constitution should be applied. If the actual words of the Constitution and the Declaration don’t jibe, the Constitution holds sway. The same is the case concerning the Federalist Papers, which were partisan papers and never the consensus view.
In my last post, I explained why the Government Accountability Office was flat wrong. I won’t restate it here.
US War Crime:
“The perverse ‘work’ of these psychologists has dramatically set back the global fight against torture. The interrogation methods they championed have had a rippling effect around the world,” said Julia Hall, a human rights lawyer with Amnesty International who is attending the hearings.
The American Psychological Association has disowned Mitchell and Jessen for “violating the ethics of their profession and leaving a stain on the discipline of psychology”.
But both men have insisted they did nothing wrong, arguing they were asked to do things that were declared legal by the George W Bush administration ….
Douma false “chemical weapon” narrative: Ian Henderson speaks to UN about OPCW report.
Engineer & ballistics expert, Ian Henderson on the #OPCW #Douma corruption of engineering report he submitted questioning the official “chemical attack” narrrative that precipitated FUKUS unlawful aggression against #Syria.
Ian Henderson @ UN Security Council Arria-Formula Meeting – Implementation of UNSCR 2118: OPCW FFM Report on Douma
Transcript of part of Henderson’s statement:
“My concern which is shared by a number of other inspectors relates to the subsequent (OPCW) management lockdown and the practices in the later analysis and compilation of the final report.
There were two teams deployed, one team, which I joined shortly after the start of field deployments, was to Douma in Syria. The other team deployed to country X.
The main concern relates to the announcement, in July 2018, of a new concept, the so-called FFM core team which essentially resulted in the dismissal of all of the inspectors who had been on the team deployed to locations in Douma and had been following up with their findings and analysis.
The findings in the final FFM report were contradictory, were a complete turnaround with what the team had understood collectively during and after the Douma deployments and by the time of release of the interim report, in July 2018, our understanding was that we had serious misgivings that any chemical attack had occurred.
What the final FFM report does not make clear and thus does not reflect the views of the team members who deployed to Douma, in which case I can only really speak for myself at this stage.
The report did not make clear what new findings, facts, information, data or analysis in the fields of witness testimony , toxicology studies, chemical analysis and engineering and or ballistic studies, had resulted in a complete turnaround in the situation from what was understood by the majority of the team and the entire Douma team in July 2018.
In my case, I had followed up with a further six months of engineering and ballistics studies into the cylinders, the result of which had provided further support for the view there had not been a chemical attack.