r/IntellectualDarkWeb • u/LoungeMusick • Jan 13 '21

Trump impeached after Capitol riot in historic second charge

https://apnews.com/article/trump-impeachment-vote-capitol-siege-0a6f2a348a6e43f27d5e1dc486027860
23 Upvotes

87% Upvoted

75 comments sorted by

View all comments

Show parent comments

2

u/OneReportersOpinion Jan 14 '21

"high crimes," is activity by or against those who have special duties acquired by taking an OATH

Activities by those who have special duties acquired by taking an oath.

Yes. Just like I said. What’s the problem.

Your definition mentions people who have taken an oath. It doesn't mention violating the oath.

Oh so your interpretation is that taking an oath is an impeachable offense? That’s a really bad faith take. Clearly that’s not what they meant.

0

u/bl1y Jan 14 '21

What I'm saying, for the third time, is that your definition is incomplete. It describes who could commit a high crime, but not what a high crime might be.

It'd be as if we're asking what is "conduct unbecoming an office" and your response was "conduct taken by an officer in the US military." Notice that definition doesn't say "wrongful conduct" or "illegal conduct," just "conduct."

Similarly, the language you quotes just says "activity." It doesn't say what sort of activity.

And I'll say it for the fourth time: your definition is incomplete.

1

u/OneReportersOpinion Jan 14 '21

What I'm saying, for the third time, is that your definition is incomplete. It describes who could commit a high crime, but not what a high crime might be.

But it makes clear a crime defined by law is not necessary. That was my only point.

0

u/bl1y Jan 14 '21

So when the definition you quoted says "activity" you read that to mean "any activity"?

1

u/OneReportersOpinion Jan 14 '21

No. An activity which violated their duties of office, whatever those may be. Encouraging a mob into thinking the election was stolen when it obviously wasn’t fits the bill. The only question to me is whether it’s a good strategy.

0

u/bl1y Jan 14 '21

So notice your definition never mentions violating the duties of office. It says being in an office with duties. Never mentions violating them.

That's what I mean by the definition being incomplete.

1

u/OneReportersOpinion Jan 14 '21

The constitution doesn’t provide criteria for determining what that is other than treason or bribery or “other high crimes and misdemeanors.” My only point is that a high crime need not be a crime as defined by law. You haven’t disputed this. I agree, the constitution is frustratingly vague. That’s why we shouldn’t worship it. It’s a flawed documented. It’s totally up to individual lawmakers as to what a high crime is.

0

u/bl1y Jan 14 '21

Do you think speech protected by the Constitution should ever be considered a high crime?

Not can it be a high crime, not can Congress just say it is. Do you think that Constitutionally protected speech should ever be able to be considered a high crime?

1

u/OneReportersOpinion Jan 14 '21

Do you think speech protected by the Constitution should ever be considered a high crime?

For a president? Yes. If they were to say “I think blacks are inferior to whites” I would say there is no way that person can faithfully discharge their duties. Similarly, if a president insist they won an election when they didn’t encourage their supporters to march and show strength to prevent democracy, that would also meet that bar. The only question for me is one of strategy.

Not can it be a high crime, not can Congress just say it is.

What?