Mukasy V US Constitution
Former attorney general Michael Mukasy said
“”Whether you impeach somebody doesn’t depend on whether they violate the law,” Mukasey said. “”The president can stay within his lawful powers and still commit an impeachable offense. …”
He totally rejects opposes and declares his contempt for the US Constition which says “The President, Vice President and all civil Officers of the United States, shall be removed from Office on Impeachment for, and Conviction of, Treason, Bribery, or other high Crimes and Misdemeanors.”
I am not surprised that garden variety “constitiutional conservatives neither know nor care what is written in the actual document, but Mukasy was our Attorney General.
I humbly express no opinion on whether Mukasy or the Constitution are better guides on the subject. His judgment may be superior to that expressed in the Constitution he swore to uphold. But the fact that a former Attorney General proclaims such utter contempt for the US Constitution must be a cause of concern.
‘Other high crimes and misdemeanors’ are not defined in the Constitution, although there was at the time it was written a lively practical understanding of the terms.
Ultimately, defining them *is* in the hands of the political process.
Another Republican “tempest in a teapot.” As early as 2011, there were conversations with Congress as to the swapping of 5 GITMO prisoners for Bergdhal.
“The Nov. 30, 2011, briefing was held at the request of administration officials, who wanted to discuss ongoing military operations in Afghanistan, according to the aides. The meeting included Boehner, the Republican chairmen of the House Armed Services, Foreign Affairs and Intelligence committees and the late Rep. C.W. ‘Bill’ Young (R-Fla.), who chaired the House Appropriations subcommittee on defense, and the ranking Democrats on each panel. Administration officials at the meeting included then-Ambassador Marc Grossman, who was the special U.S. representative to Afghanistan and Pakistan; then-Deputy Defense Secretary Michelle Flournoy; then-Defense Department General Counsel Jeh C. Johnson; then-CIA Deputy Director Michael Morell; and Denis McDonough, who was then serving on the National Security Council, the aides said.
During the meeting, administration officials first raised the possibility of swapping five detainees in exchange for Bergdahl, which prompted significant concerns among the Republicans, who quickly began drafting follow-up letters with detailed questions, according to the aides.
The disclosure of when and how House Republican leaders first learned of the possibility of swapping terrorism detainees for Bergdhal’s freedom came during a briefing with reporters Tuesday. Aides allowed reporters to review a copy of the Dec. 12, 2011, letter sent to administration officials that was signed by Boehner and the GOP committee chairmen.” http://www.washingtonpost.com/blogs/post-politics/wp/2014/06/03/white-house-first-discussed-bergdahl-prisoner-exchange-with-house-gop-leaders-in-nov-2011/
There should be impeachments for impeaching presidents under false pretense.
Ditto to that….
This is a game of power, not principle. The Conservative Movement is not about the actual Constitution, but the “Constitution” that upholds their domination and hierarchy. I note that Mukasy is also a former Federal judge as well as Attorney General. But now he has a role to play in the Conservative Entertainment Complex (and Eric Cantor found out how powerful that complex is with the “BASE).” The next act that both that Complex and the BASE want to see after November’s elections is the impeachment of Barack Obama and the default of the U.S. Government through the “debt ceiling.” These soulless people will say anything for a buck or a chance at power.
DAvis X Machina
I am well aware of the fact that the US criminal code is a law which was once a bill on capital hill and then was signed by the President. So yes, crimes are defined by the political process (how else). But an act which is does not “violate the law” can’t be a crime (high or misdemenor) in a country which has the rule of law. Note the quotation marks are there because I am quoting Mukasy. You clearly didn’t read the quotation of Mukasy in the post.
The key point is that Congress can make an act a crime but high crimes and misdemenors can’t be redefined after the fact to make an action which was legal (“within lawfull powers” and which did not “violate the law”) illegal after the fact as in US Constitution Article 1 Section 9 paragraph 3 “3: No Bill of Attainder or ex post facto Law shall be passed.”
If it wasn’t forbidden by the law (the ordinary criminal code) when he did it, a President can’t be impeached for doing it no matter how crazy and damaging his legal action was.
In your comment, you chose to ignore the brief quotation of Mukasy and then provided an interpretation of the Constitution which is obviously inconsistent with the text.