dongreen76

Okay, evidently you are operating with a not so sophisticated device.I will instruct you as to how to get to the specified website article.
First click on the link I have provided>website is not available>click the three verticle dots at the extreme right from the webb address that will give you more options>click on new tab>this gives a little blue icon , that reads constitutional center>webb page opens

Radiance3

==========
It was not an assumption. Basic facts were displayed in you blog irrelevant and and unproven. Thus my decision was based on what you've presented.
I've rated it as due to your ignorance of the facts.

dongreen76

Did you change your mind,because you said "You had to assume".
It is...as far as I know (depending on your gender) their perogative to change their minds.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Thank you. This pretty much parallels what I stated in my replies to you, but your blog cited the wrong federalist document for Hamilton. So, the Hamilton papers (79 and 81) address specifically and narrowly Supreme Court judges; and he did indeed use the word mal-conduct. That is the ONLY time the word was employed. Regardless, Madison with his mal practice or neglect of duty recommendation were disregarded as too vague. Hamilton's document, Plan of Governance was mostly adopted. The only portion that speaks to "the Governor" (the POTUS) quality for reelection is good behaviour. No indication of his meaning and "good behaviour" is vague and subjective. He goes on, in Article VIII, "Governor Senators and all Officers of the United States to be liable to impeachment for corrupt conduct...." One can presume, based on his document as a whole, he included the Governor (POTUS). However, the draft of the Constitution contains "some crime or misdemeanor" as conditions of impeachment of the POTUS. Even more interesting is "Impeachments shall clearly specify the particular offence ….."

As you know, all these considerations culminated to a condensed "Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." But, the working papers do provide insight into the minds of the "framers." In conclusion, the requirement for impeachment is limited "crimes." That "crime(s)" need to be specific....***keep in mind, a misdemeanor is considered a crime of low seriousness....one step below a felony. Ergo, chiding NFL for being unpatriotic (Congressman green tried to push a tweet as a crime) and asking another nation to do our nation a favor is not a crime.

In conclusion... there are major issues associated with the articles of impeachment of President Trump. I can not see the defined crimes.

1. Who was the POTUS asking a favor for? Was it the USA as was transcribed? Or was it personal, as Democrats claim? If for the US, then the "law" was not even bent, not a scratch. If it was for himself, why would he include the distress or ordeal our nation has suffered? Thinking logically, if I want a favor done, I do not qualify my request... ordinary people simply say "do me a favor."

2. Intent. Recall that Killary dodged criminal charges because the FBI claimed they could not find evidence of intent. In the phone call, a request was made for investigation into corruption in Ukraine. That is a fact, no walking around it. As the POTUS, this was not a breach of law. The "permission" is the contract between the USA and Ukraine signed by B. Clinton. So, asking for the investigation was/is legal. So, it boils down to intent. Did the POTUS intend to use the information for personal use? If for personal use, then why ask the investigating entity to coordinate and provide the information to our Attorney General and not as a sealed dossier to himself? Recall the Steele Dossier was given directly to the DNC. The Steele dossier was to be used as ammunition in a smear campaign, dirt digging (common in campaigns, although questionable because a foreign entity was commissioned to get the dirt from another nation). Elias and his law firm, Perkins Coie, retained Fusion GPS to dig dirt on Trump in April 2016 on behalf of the Clinton campaign and the DNC who initially paid for the contract.

Radiance3

=============
Everything you've presented could not be proven. And by the way, please correct your spelling of perogative. The right spelling must be prerogative. Part of speech, noun, meaning a privilege or a right.
I'll grade you C-.

dongreen76

I should have known there is no point arguing with THEE master intellects,one can never be right or either "YOU PEOPLE"can never be wrong.Which is it,the first sentiment,or the latter?

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Go back through my posting, you will see that when I am wrong, I own my mistakes, apologize to anyone I may have offended or mislead. As for "master intellect", I do not view myself in a such lofty manner. But, having said that, I am well educated. My Poppa taught me that all material things can be stripped away at anytime and there are few things we can honestly claim as our own; memories and education. I have never had a memory problem, it is not exactly photogenic, but I remember everything I read...even those things I know are inaccurate. It is a curse! My formal education has not ended and will not until I either die or forget how to read and research.

I have presented accurate information in my writings to you. All of the information can and should be verified by you. As in all matters of life, you are blessed with the ability to sort through it, accept the portions that are proven and submit a rebuttal for where you disagree. A rebuttal should always be respectful, even when replying to someone you find arrogate, rude, and unreasonable. I try to keep in mind that no individual knows everything, we are not gods. This simply means that learning is part of living, even the dullest individual will know something that I do not...and the smartest person can have invalid or tainted assumptions.

So, to your point...I have been wrong and have no shame in being wrong..it is merely a condition of living. I am not of superior intellect for that connotes that I have studied and understand everything, making a drive to more fully understand the intricacies of life, people, environment, religion and a host of intellectual pursuits a mute point. That would render my life boring and frankly unnecessary.

dongreen76

You're no different than the rest of "YOU PEOPLE",passive aggressively omniscience,and that in it self is the ultimate of rudeness,You also deflect.The fact is; it is not me nor my people that have been stereotyped as being supremacist,it is not only a stereotypicalization by others,but you Identify yourselves as just that,this is the personifation of arrogate,it is also the epitome of arrogance.
Now to elaborate,on this allegment.
Common sense dictates the answer to the debate of whether or not the founders would provide for a means in which a president should be removed,and not solely on the merits of his having committed only a high crime.This is why they chose the word misdemeanor.To cover other misbehavioral abnominalties any man could suffer,
Our you familiar with how a jury is expected to judge and deliberate his peer.They are suppose to ascertain his guilt or innocence,so far as his defense in commiting ,(say the crime of murder) by putting themselves in his frame of mind,
and asking them self is his argument of self defense valid, and would any reasonable man have felt and reacted the same way.Now if you were the founders and you were deciding on whether or not there should be provisions, to remove a president would not you allow for a president to be removed for mal feasance,incompetence, stupidity,and there is a host of other reason ,a boss might be fired from a job.
There is a point in time when engaged in a debate,when the common sense as to the right and wrong of said debate is so overwhelming and one participant refuses to except said common sense arguments, then one came only assume the one whom will not except it(and factoring his psychological modus operandi) is the quintessential whiteman, Supremacist,one should cease to argue with arbitrariness.

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

I can see that you have no desire, or perhaps you do not know how, to be civil. Your mind is closed to discussion and you are a racist.

Before I go, I wish to thank you for your time. No need for a reply.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Psssst, Penn, please interpret what the blazes he said. 😐

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

No worries. He begins with a racial slur, moving quickly into what he believes are insults. Essentially a "yo momma" street talk.

His "case" for impeaching the President is hinged on his understanding of the word "malconduct" claiming that this was the intent of the Framers of the Constitution. He gives a blog as reference who gives their credit to Federalist Paper 65 where Alexander Hamilton uses the word one time in his elegant opinion on removal of a Supreme Court judge.

My contention is, the evidence of original meaning overwhelmingly supports the conclusion that, at the time of the framing of the U.S. Constitution, the composite term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was a well-established, familiar legal term of art that the framers consciously borrowed from longstanding English practice and usage dating back four centuries. The term “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” had a broad meaning in English practice and in the American understanding, confiding to the two houses of the national legislature a sweeping range of power to punish those political bodies determined to be guilty of misconduct or abuse of power. The meaning of “high Crimes and Misdemeanors” was, so to speak, its own distinct thing. It was not a combination of “crimes” and “misdemeanors” or even commonsense as understood in today’s criminal-law sense. It was instead a unique legal term with its own meaning.

My argument was the Framers borrowed the phrase from the English Parliament with less pedestrian intent. I proposed the meaning at the time of the Convention meant a range of crimes that are “political” offenses: offenses against the constitution, laws, system of government, prerogatives of other institutions, or the rights and liberties of the people – as well as common law offences that might be punishable by ordinary criminal law. I also argued that the charges for impeachment must be a crime, not merely a dislike for an individual.

My esteemed colleague could not understand this, so he went on the offence with personal attacks and introduced modern day understanding of the "average man" determination on moral values. He then, in a very unique manner, dismissed me and my opinions as those of an ignorant white man.

Yes, all that from his misused word finds in his Thesaurus in hopes of sounding educated.

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

Thank you. Mark Levine gave much the same overview on FOX within the last several weeks. 😇

Boo_Boo Loc: Jellystone

Really..... I have not watched the news in a long time, I cancelled my Direct TV account in July. But, I did watch the "hearing" on my PC....

dongreen76

Your capacity for monotonous passive aggressive projection and deflection is phenomenaly stupid

padremike Loc: Phenix City, Al

We're glad to be off Direct TV too. Far too expensive and it seemed like every time a cloud passed over we'd lose the signal.