That, or something like it, was considered, although they referred to it as "maladministration". That was rejected though, on the grounds that they weren't trying to make the US into a parliamentary system like that of Great Britain.sophie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:09 pmTaking the Blago and Trump impeachment cases together, it looks to me like the bar for impeachment is a lot lower than it is for a prosecution in a civil court. And come to think of it, Bill Clinton's little lie might not have resulted in a court case either, in the real world.
I don't think that was meant to happen though. Otherwise, the Constitution would describe impeachment for "high crimes and misdemeanors, or for being an a**hole".
The two situations aren't actually very comparable, for many reasons:sophie wrote: ↑Thu Dec 12, 2019 9:09 pmI also think that after the Bill Clinton debacle, the Republicans have lost their right to complain now that it's their guy (aka the a**hole) in the hot seat. Gotta remember that they started this, and now they have to live with the consequences: ANY government official facing a hostile legislative body can now be first extensively investigated to find the desired pretext, then impeached.
1. There is absolutely NO evidence that Trump committed ANY crime, much less a high crime. Perjury is a pretty serious crime in a law enforcement officer, don't you think?
2. The Republicans didn't use the FBI and other "intelligence" agencies to spy on Clinton. They investigated him publicly.
3. The Republicans didn't announce that they were going to impeach him before there was any evidence that he had done anything wrong. Nancy Pelosi said the other day that the impeachment had been going on for 2 1/2 years.
Now all of this doesn't mean that the Clinton impeachment was a good idea. I'm not sure of that. But I do know there is a world of difference between the two.