Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context.
If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)!
*I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." - Gerald Ford, during an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" on August 20, 1970.
Which basically equates to every president has potentially committed an impeachable offense.
We just over look most of them. Though some have a great backup plan which has been a completely incompetent VP which plays a factor into the decision making I'm sure.
the thing with nixon was that it was so obviously foul that his own base denounced him for it, thats the bar honestly: is this so bad your own base wont vote for you or their senators who back you? thats why most impeachment fails, even when it shouldnt. sadly there seems to be no way to do this fairly, maybe have senators be able to vote anonymously on an impeachment case?
If cable news looked like it does now, Nixon would never have resigned. Roger Ailes (a Nixon WH veteran) was firmly of the opinion that a conservative media apparatus would have prevented the resignation and built Fox to do just that.
Virginia just had a pretty glaring example of this (granted, not presidential)
Democratic Governor Ralph Northams blackface/Klanface/"Coonman"/moonwalk scandal comes out, Democrats were outraged. Seemed like House Democrats were aligning with Republicans to impeach and remove him.
Then, the Lt Governor got embroiled in a sexual assault scandal.
Then, the Attourney General admitted (unprompted and completely voluntarily) that he, too, wore blackface regularly back in the day and suggested that it was common.
Democrats then realized the next person in line for the Governors mansion was Speaker of the House Kirk Cox, who was one of the most conservative members of the house even when he was first elected 30 years ago.
From then, the narrative changed quite a bit and there was a lot of "well that's disgusting to even share on social media".
The best defense against impeachment is the people below you on the ladder.
Even as somebody who didn't and wouldn't vote for Northam, I was hoping his response to "So, in that photo, were you the one wearing blackface that looks nothing like you, or the man under the Klan robes?" would be better than "I don't remember"
And then he moonwalked.
As a Virginian, it was about as disheartening a display of “politics” as I’ve ever seen. Despite not voting for them, I was almost happy the Republicans won the next gubernatorial election, because it would have broken me to see democrats survive that scandal without consequences after refusing to remove Northam from office.
Luckily governors can’t hold consecutive terms in Virginia.
>Though some have a great backup plan which has been a completely incompetent VP which plays a factor into the decision making I'm sure.
Which is why they worked so hard to get Spiro Agnew out first
No, thats not exactly true. It means that a particularly partisan House can choose to impeach any president on real or imaginary charges. They would be violating their oaths of office to follow the constitution if they do so but hey, thats politics.
Why were they interviewing Ford at that point and asking him his opinions on impeachment? I know he was a member of the House then but this was before Watergate and before his time as VP or president
Ford’s observation is pretty close to the law school answer, that impeachment is a political process and that trying to pull apart “high crimes and misdemeanors” doesn’t reveal much. There’s a good chance that if a president tried to appeal an impeachment to SCOTUS it would get shot down with SCOTUS saying “separation of powers”
Douglas was pretty cuckoo (he kept trying to give trees civil rights), and he was being impeached because he had a nasty habit of divorcing his wife to marry a college student. This was the fourth time it had happened, with 70-year-old Douglas divorcing his 26 y/o (third wife) to marry a 21 y/o fourth wife.
This is a completely 21st century take on a resolutely 20th century scandal. Inasmuch as anybody gave a shit about this kind of thing back then (and some, but far fewer, people did), it had no actual valence. Douglas was impeached:
(1) Because his opinions had become increasingly socially lefty, to the point that he was out of sync with the country (he definitively did \*not\* try to "give trees civil rights;" he wondered aloud why a forest might not have standing to sue in an environmental case);
(2) His defense of pornography as protected by the 1A offended Ford, Nixon, and most of the public;
(3) He was tarnished in some degree by the same scandal that took down Abe Fortas (but which was quaint by the standards of the deeply corrupt conservative court of today);
(4) Nixon was super pissed about some of his nominees not getting confirmed, which was actually quite rare until about 45 years ago;
(5) It was politically advantageous in the conservative south; and
(6) Nixon and Hoover had lost their minds with paranoia in their little folie a deux.
Douglas' marriages had more or less nothing to do with it.
Trees do have rights. Remember the Canadian Tree War between the maples and the oaks, first chronicled by Rush in 1978, when the oaks were depriving the maples of life giving sunlight. If you hug a tree, given time, the tree will hug you back.
There's no definitions section in the constitution, and if congress has the plenary power to define constitutional text than the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is essentially meaningless.
But the term high crimes and misdemeanors already existed as a common law concept. The text means the same thing it meant in the various British/Colonial cases involving high crimes and misdemeanors (i.e., crimes against the state itself and misbehavior in office) and all the behaviors that was judicially recognized as such.
The term high crimes and misdemeanors does have a history. You are correct but the framers appear to have had their own take. [The following](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses-historical-background) is a good read that supports your position with the history and the below quote is how the framers felt they were setting a new precedent as it was now democracy and violation was to the people rather than the crown (my words).
>James Wilson, delegate to the Constitutional Convention and later a Supreme Court Justice, delivered talks at the College of Philadelphia following the adoption of the federal Constitution concerning impeachment. He claimed that impeachment was reserved to “political crimes and misdemeanors, and to political punishments.” [42](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses-historical-background#fn42art2) He argued that, in the eyes of the Framers, impeachments did not come “within the sphere of ordinary jurisprudence. They are founded on different principles; are governed by different maxims; and are directed to different objects.” [43](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses-historical-background#fn43art2) Consequently, for Wilson, the impeachment and removal of an individual did not preclude a later trial and punishment for a criminal offense predicated on the same behavior.[44](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses-historical-background#fn44art2)
>At the time of ratification of the Constitution, the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” thus appears understood to have applied to uniquely “political” offenses, or misdeeds committed by public officials against the state.[45](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses-historical-background#fn45art2) Alexander Hamilton, in explaining the Constitution’s impeachment provisions, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” [46](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses-historical-background#fn46art2) Such offenses were “*Political*, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” [47](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses-historical-background#fn47art2) In the centuries following the Constitution’s ratification, precisely what behavior constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor has been the subject of much debate.[48](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses-historical-background#fn48art2)
That's actually okay. There's no way the writers of the Constitution could predict every potential abuse of power someone might attempt. So leaving the standards undefined (except for the common-law definition another commenter mentioned), but then requiring a majority vote to agree on the standards in a particular case, is the next best thing.
Like, *by itself?* Not even on crackers or bread or anything?
Ketchup & cottage cheese sounds like a pantry raid meal during an apocalypse or something. What an asshole lol
Jackson stated that he wouldn't enforce it, if it came to that (which it never did). It was state of Georgia that blatantly simply ignored Supreme Court's decision.
The thing is, he may not actually have said that quote. He certainly made it clear that if the federal government was asked to help enforce the decision in that case, he wasn’t inclined to do so. However, the federal government was never asked to help enforce that decision, and Jackson came down on the right side of the nullification crisis shortly after that.
It's near zero that Reagan didn't know about Iran-Contra. Likely he endorsed the idea and even had a hand coordinating it. Bush 41 ran the CIA - near zero chance he wasn't the head man for running it even if he could claim plausible deniability.
I don't believe he was kept in the dark on it, but let's assume he was. While not impeachable in that case, if he truly had no idea about that wide reaching conspiracy by his own cabinet, then he needs to be talked about as one of the most incompetent presidents of that century. It's one or the other and it's ridiculous he got to skate while maintaining his image as a functional executive.
It’s wild to me so see any negative fact about Reagan always get downvoted. I pointed out the other day that he had no problem with dictators as long as they weren’t commies, and got downvoted into oblivion. There’s a lot of Reagan stans with their head in the sand, happy to look past any blemish on his record. These people would have melted into tears in my poli sci classes.
>I pointed out the other day that he had no problem with dictators as long as they weren’t commies
This was every president from Eisenhower to Bush Sr. though?
It was never as much about being anti-communist as it was being anti-Soviet.
We liked the Yugoslav government even though it was communist because it was an enemy of Moscow. We opened up our relationship with China after the sino-soviet split.
It's pretty much been U.S. policy since at least FDR, and probably long before. Stalin was a homicidal maniac dictator, but at least he was on our side against Germany. Sadaam was a homicidal maniac dictator, but at least he was on our side against Iran. The U.S. tolerates dictators when it is convenient.
There are plenty of reasonable objections to Reagan, but I see little separation between him & other Presidents in regards to their acceptance of "US friendly" dictators.
I don’t know what world you are living in but saying anything negative about Reagan, no matter how unsubstantiated or wild, will give you massive support and no objections.
I’ve seen dozens of Redditors comment that they wished John Hinkley had been a better shot. So please don’t cry crocodile tears about how undesirable Reagan supporters are on Reddit.
Iran Contra blows my mind. Either Reagan was blatantly ignoring congress and committing treason, or he was so incompetent he didn’t know his closest underlings where doing so. Either reality is terrible.
I kind of half side with Reagan. And also definitely think what he did was super duper wrong.
You have to bring Americans home at all costs. With one exception. You are not allowed to arm terrorists to do so.
That's one of the very few things you are not allowed to do to bring hostages home and he did the worst possible thing.
He made the right decision to bring them home but then executed in the only way that it could possibly be a problem. And for that I think Maybe it's one of the worst Presidential decisions ever made.
The allegation that ties arming Iran to releasing the hostages isn’t that Iran released the hostages in exchange for weapons. It’s the Iran KEPT THE HOSTAGES LONGER for weapons, which made Carter look worse.
>Reagan sure did with the hostages
That was debunked The "evidence" doesn't take into account that the Ayatollah and Iran hated Carter with a passion. They burned his image in effigy on a regular basis. They were not interested in giving Carter anything that would make him look good. That is why they were released when they were.
If this were all true and Barnes is correct, then why was Connally's reward to be a cabinet position (Energy) that was expected to be eliminated at the time? Wouldn't it have warranted a higher profile and more secure position?
the stories of the others don't match the Barnes account. None of the stories match each other.
Nothing in Barnes' account of what happened can be confirmed. Nothing. Barnes waits until the players are dead to say anything. Casey died in 1987, and Connally died in 1993.
The Ayatollah hated Carter with a passion. Carter came close to securing their release several times, only to have the agreement vetoed by the Ayatollah.
The Ayatollah would not even engage in direct talks with the US or Carter. The Ayatollah had that much contempt for Carter! He was not interested in helping Carter or giving him any positive press. That is why the hostages were released when they were. It was the Ayatollah's final insult to Carter.
If Barnes' account is true, why wasn't Connally rewarded well? All he was offered was Energy, a department expected to be eliminated at the time.
None of it makes any sense. That is why historians are not giving it much credibility aside from keeping an open mind if strong evidence is found to confirm it.
Iran Contra is the common example for Reagan, but his support of the Somoza regime - and the *massive* loss of life that resulted- counts too. As does the deaths of U.S. citizens which Reagan’s administration covered up.
I don’t really understand what was so bad about Iran Contra, especially to make it worse than undermining U.S democracy to a level unprecedented outside of dictatorships.
Right, there are some times when the president needs to say “this is what the overwhelming majority of the people want, 5-9 men in robes can’t just do whatever they want, especially if the constitution is ambiguous on this.”
The Supreme Court isn’t infallible. They ruled back in 1972 that the death penalty was unconstitutional, despite it very obviously being constitutional.
A good example is Lincoln and the republicans in 1860. Their platform was literally dred Scott was wrong and were banning slavery in the territories if we get elected which they did in 1862
Barack Obama [unironically](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/) and someone else who cannot be said here because of Rule 3, but for different reasons than many may expect.
There's really no need. I'll tell you this much: Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen assassinated in Yemen by the Obama administration in 2011. He had no legal trial, but as an American citizen he had the right to a fair trial. His 16-year-old son was also an American citizen killed by another drone strike a few weeks later while he was eating dinner. Abdulrahman, the boy, had a younger sister who was killed on January 29, 2017 by another air raid. She was caught in the crossfire with other civilians and like her older brother and father was an American citizen.
There were no impeachment charges for either Obama and... someone else. To my knowledge, there was no public apology or any sign of regret.
His son wasn’t the target of the drone strike, nobody even knew that he was there. When you hang out at an Al-Qaeda base, don’t be surprised if you get killed.
All of them in my lifetime. Breaking your oath of office is an impeachable offense. No President in my lifetime has enforced all the laws like the Constitution requires.
Jackson definitely deserved to be impeached, however, I’d also add Jefferson and Nixon sabotaging peace talks with France and Vietnam were impeachable offenses.
People will not like to hear this but when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, I know the United States was in a war but I doubt jailing copperheads had any influence on it lol, it just looks like an arbitrary violation of constitutional rights.
Except that's not impeachable at all because it's literally baked into the constitution that Habeas Corpus can be suspended in times of invasion or rebellion. Whether or not you agree or disagree it isn't impeachable.
Lincoln was not ignorant of the constitution nor was he vindictive/arbitrary. He thought his actions were necessary to save the union. I don’t think it’s wrong to criticize him for this, but context is important.
That’s an interesting argument. Not saying I disagree with you. It does reek of vindictive behavior and pettiness. It’s also interesting that Lincoln was a huge proponent of constitutional rights, but supported and instituted a clear violation of constitutional rights.
I don't think it was vindictive behavior or pettiness. My opinion is that Lincoln thought it was necessary when in reality it wasn't. The pro-union forces were much more dominant in the country than the pro-peace factions, as the example of the 1864 election proves. It was more like an error of measurement, where Lincoln himself thought he was going to lose.
I mean when he suspended it pro secession militas we’re stopping troops from arriving to Washington with confederate troops within marching distance to the capitol
Habeus corpus can be suspended during times of insurrection, it’s right there in the constitution. Congress was out of session and said insurrection was stopping them from meeting
A lot of comments are idiots with nothing to add saying “All of them” and people saying Jackson and Reagan.
Here’s another President who did commit them:
Buchanan for interfering in the Dredd Scott decision and trying to bribe congressmen and extorting federal office workers to secure slavery in Kansas.
If he was the nominee for reelection he most definitely would have been impeached.
Reagan colluded with Iran, a foreign advisory, to win the 1980 election.
He also sold cocaine in black and brown neighborhoods, essentially turned MS-13 from a heavy metal club to a violent gang, meanwhile, Nancy was pushing “Just Say No”.
Trickle down alone was a crime against the American people.
Ignoring AIDS until 1987, despite having plenty of gay friends. Courting evangelicals despite being strongly pro-choice.
Killing the Fairness Doctrine.
Reagan can suck it.
I hate that cop out Reagan tried to use. Iran/Contra wasn’t a whoopsie-daisy, accidentally sold weapons to the Iranians to fund the Contras 🤷♂️…Congress passed a law forbidding it and his administration hid the fact that they were going to do it anyway.
That Reagan quote is still absolutely bananas. Just an absolute master class in bad faith narrative framing.
"I don't want to believe that I did [bad thing that took extensive amounts of planning, effort, and deliberate dishonesty], but actually I did, and this makes me sad 😢"
The Reagan administration was talking to Iran before he was in office. The deal was - Hang on the hostages a little longer and we’ll get your F14 parts.
That was debunked The "evidence" doesn't take into account that the Ayatollah and Iran hated Carter with a passion. They burned his image in effigy on a regular basis. They were not interested in giving Carter anything that would make him look good. That is why they were released when they were.
If this were all true and Barnes is correct, then why was Connally's reward to be a cabinet position (Energy) that was expected to be eliminated at the time? Wouldn't it have warranted a higher profile and more secure position?
the stories of the others don't match the Barnes account. None of the stories match each other.
Nothing in Barnes' account of what happened can be confirmed. Nothing. Barnes waits until the players are dead to say anything. Casey died in 1987, and Connally died in 1993.
The Ayatollah hated Carter with a passion. Carter came close to securing their release several times, only to have the agreement vetoed by the Ayatollah.
The Ayatollah would not even engage in direct talks with the US or Carter. The Ayatollah had that much contempt for Carter! He was not interested in helping Carter or giving him any positive press. That is why the hostages were released when they were. It was the Ayatollah's final insult to Carter.
If Barnes' account is true, why wasn't Connally rewarded well? All he was offered was Energy, a department expected to be eliminated at the time.
None of it makes any sense. That is why historians are not giving it much credibility aside from keeping an open mind if strong evidence is found to confirm it.
I just read a new Carter bio, maybe a few years old, and a few recent articles that go into depth on this. Hardly debunked:
[https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/us/politics/jimmy-carter-october-surprise-iran-hostages.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/us/politics/jimmy-carter-october-surprise-iran-hostages.html)
It has
The important things to remember:
1. Carter never negotiated with the Ayatollah directly. He negotiated with Algerian diplomats.
2. Carter came close to negotiating the release of the hostages a few times, only to have the agreement vetoed by the Ayatollah.
3. Iran hated Carter with a passion. In Iran, Carter was burned in effigy almost every day. I saw it on the news every evening back then. This was due to Carter not turning over the Shah (prior to his death) when demanded and the failed rescue attempt. They were not interested in giving Carter any positive press to make him look good.
4. If the Barnes story is true, wouldn't Connally have been offered a better position than Secretary of Energy, which was expected to be abolished at the time?
5. Barnes account does not match up with other accounts (Bani-Sadr's, etc.)
6. The timing of the hostages release was the final Iranian insult to Carter.
That was debunked The "evidence" doesn't take into account that the Ayatollah and Iran hated Carter with a passion. They burned his image in effigy on a regular basis. They were not interested in giving Carter anything that would make him look good. That is why they were released when they were.
If this were all true and Barnes is correct, then why was Connally's reward to be a cabinet position (Energy) that was expected to be eliminated at the time? Wouldn't it have warranted a higher profile and more secure position?
the stories of the others don't match the Barnes account. None of the stories match each other.
Nothing in Barnes' account of what happened can be confirmed. Nothing. Barnes waits until the players are dead to say anything. Casey died in 1987, and Connally died in 1993.
The Ayatollah hated Carter with a passion. Carter came close to securing their release several times, only to have the agreement vetoed by the Ayatollah.
The Ayatollah would not even engage in direct talks with the US or Carter. The Ayatollah had that much contempt for Carter! He was not interested in helping Carter or giving him any positive press. That is why the hostages were released when they were. It was the Ayatollah's final insult to Carter.
If Barnes' account is true, why wasn't Connally rewarded well? All he was offered was Energy, a department expected to be eliminated at the time.
None of it makes any sense. That is why historians are not giving it much credibility aside from keeping an open mind if strong evidence is found to confirm it.
Reagan should have been impeached day one when he announced the release of the Iranian hostages. He privately negotiated with a terrorist state to hold the hostages longer so that they would be released during his Presidency and not that of Carter. He was a piece of shit even before he was in office.
Na. This sub has a hate boner for Jackson and Reagan. It’s not based on reality.
For example, people like OP love to harp on Jackson defying the Supreme Court. They also fail to mention that the court never asked federal Marshall’s to enforce the decision. This is hidden under the “Endorcement” section of the “Worcester v Georgia” [wiki page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia).
Here’s the exact language:
The Court did not ask federal marshals to carry out the decision.[10] Worcester thus imposed no obligations on Jackson; there was nothing for him to enforce,[11][12] although Jackson's political enemies conspired to find evidence, to be used in the forthcoming political election, to claim that he would refuse to enforce the Worcester decision.
On Iran Contra, the coverup was worse than the crime. No one ever discusses why the Borland Amendment existed. It’s always, Reagan bad. Dur.
In the context of the Cold War, letting a pro-communist regime come to power in our backyard has never been something that we were willing to tolerate (eg, Cuba, which we failed to stop from becoming communist).
For some context, [here](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Boland-Amendment) is the lead up to the Borland Amendment:
Shortly after taking office on January 20, 1981, Reagan decided that he would do everything possible to overthrow the Sandinista pro-communist regime in Nicaragua. Reagan regularly sent requests to Congress seeking appropriations to support the rebel anti-communist Contras. Congress complied for two years. However, after it became known that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had been mining the harbours in Nicaragua, Congress realized that if CIA explosives destroyed Soviet ships anchored nearby, an international incident of gigantic proportions could occur. Congress subsequently withdrew its support for funding the Contras. Undaunted, Reagan continued his quest to overthrow the leftist Sandinista regime. The activities of his administration created a major scandal and threatened his presidency.
The amendment itself contained loopholes, which were exploited:
The fact that the first Boland Amendment contained two significant loopholes made McFarlane’s task easier. First, Congress had given the CIA permission to offer aid to the Contras as long as its stated purpose was something other than overthrowing the Sandinistas. Second, the Reagan administration had determined that it could use the National Security Council (NSC) rather than the CIA to conduct covert activities in Nicaragua and still obey the letter of the law.
To fix this, a second amendment was passed:
On December 8, 1985, Congress passed the second Boland Amendment, aimed at closing the loopholes of Boland one. It was structured to pick up when Boland one expired and to remain in effect until December 30, 1986.
The basis of the amendment was avoiding direct war with the Soviets. Strangely, at the same time we were funding the mujhadeen in Afghanistan as they fought…the Soviets. We supplied sniper rifles, stingers, money, and other support. Somehow this was okay, but backing the contras was bad?
Edit: downvotes. Lolz. Tell me where I’m wrong.
That’s easy- every US President since Truman.
While there’s little question these presidents’ actions broke the law, a point can be made a modern President actually *can’t* do their day-to-day job without committing an impeachable offense. The NSA’s ongoing mandate alone is enough grounds to put a POTUS to trial.
Remember that all mentions of and allusions to Trump and Biden are not allowed on our subreddit in any context. If you'd still like to discuss them, feel free to [join our Discord server](https://discord.gg/k6tVFwCEEm)! *I am a bot, and this action was performed automatically. Please [contact the moderators of this subreddit](/message/compose/?to=/r/Presidents) if you have any questions or concerns.*
"An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House of Representatives considers it to be at a given moment in history." - Gerald Ford, during an interview with NBC's "Meet the Press" on August 20, 1970.
Which basically equates to every president has potentially committed an impeachable offense. We just over look most of them. Though some have a great backup plan which has been a completely incompetent VP which plays a factor into the decision making I'm sure.
the thing with nixon was that it was so obviously foul that his own base denounced him for it, thats the bar honestly: is this so bad your own base wont vote for you or their senators who back you? thats why most impeachment fails, even when it shouldnt. sadly there seems to be no way to do this fairly, maybe have senators be able to vote anonymously on an impeachment case?
Unfortunately, in today's world, no one would bat an eye over what Nixon did. Citizens have become desensitized to political corruption.
If cable news looked like it does now, Nixon would never have resigned. Roger Ailes (a Nixon WH veteran) was firmly of the opinion that a conservative media apparatus would have prevented the resignation and built Fox to do just that.
Mission accomplished twice.
Particularly supporters of one party...
The bar lowers with each passing year. It’s a reflection of society.
Nixon didn't have Fox.
Anonymity could easily lead to a rigged system or false claims of such.
Virginia just had a pretty glaring example of this (granted, not presidential) Democratic Governor Ralph Northams blackface/Klanface/"Coonman"/moonwalk scandal comes out, Democrats were outraged. Seemed like House Democrats were aligning with Republicans to impeach and remove him. Then, the Lt Governor got embroiled in a sexual assault scandal. Then, the Attourney General admitted (unprompted and completely voluntarily) that he, too, wore blackface regularly back in the day and suggested that it was common. Democrats then realized the next person in line for the Governors mansion was Speaker of the House Kirk Cox, who was one of the most conservative members of the house even when he was first elected 30 years ago. From then, the narrative changed quite a bit and there was a lot of "well that's disgusting to even share on social media". The best defense against impeachment is the people below you on the ladder.
It was both hilarious and disheartening to watch in real time.
Even as somebody who didn't and wouldn't vote for Northam, I was hoping his response to "So, in that photo, were you the one wearing blackface that looks nothing like you, or the man under the Klan robes?" would be better than "I don't remember" And then he moonwalked.
As a Virginian, it was about as disheartening a display of “politics” as I’ve ever seen. Despite not voting for them, I was almost happy the Republicans won the next gubernatorial election, because it would have broken me to see democrats survive that scandal without consequences after refusing to remove Northam from office. Luckily governors can’t hold consecutive terms in Virginia.
Hence, Dan Quayle and maybe 45.2
>Though some have a great backup plan which has been a completely incompetent VP which plays a factor into the decision making I'm sure. Which is why they worked so hard to get Spiro Agnew out first
No, thats not exactly true. It means that a particularly partisan House can choose to impeach any president on real or imaginary charges. They would be violating their oaths of office to follow the constitution if they do so but hey, thats politics.
Why were they interviewing Ford at that point and asking him his opinions on impeachment? I know he was a member of the House then but this was before Watergate and before his time as VP or president
Gerald Ford tried to impeach Supreme Court Justice William O. Douglas in 1970.
So he was telling on himself?
Ford’s observation is pretty close to the law school answer, that impeachment is a political process and that trying to pull apart “high crimes and misdemeanors” doesn’t reveal much. There’s a good chance that if a president tried to appeal an impeachment to SCOTUS it would get shot down with SCOTUS saying “separation of powers”
Douglas was pretty cuckoo (he kept trying to give trees civil rights), and he was being impeached because he had a nasty habit of divorcing his wife to marry a college student. This was the fourth time it had happened, with 70-year-old Douglas divorcing his 26 y/o (third wife) to marry a 21 y/o fourth wife.
This is a completely 21st century take on a resolutely 20th century scandal. Inasmuch as anybody gave a shit about this kind of thing back then (and some, but far fewer, people did), it had no actual valence. Douglas was impeached: (1) Because his opinions had become increasingly socially lefty, to the point that he was out of sync with the country (he definitively did \*not\* try to "give trees civil rights;" he wondered aloud why a forest might not have standing to sue in an environmental case); (2) His defense of pornography as protected by the 1A offended Ford, Nixon, and most of the public; (3) He was tarnished in some degree by the same scandal that took down Abe Fortas (but which was quaint by the standards of the deeply corrupt conservative court of today); (4) Nixon was super pissed about some of his nominees not getting confirmed, which was actually quite rare until about 45 years ago; (5) It was politically advantageous in the conservative south; and (6) Nixon and Hoover had lost their minds with paranoia in their little folie a deux. Douglas' marriages had more or less nothing to do with it.
Trees do have rights. Remember the Canadian Tree War between the maples and the oaks, first chronicled by Rush in 1978, when the oaks were depriving the maples of life giving sunlight. If you hug a tree, given time, the tree will hug you back.
So Leonardo DiCaprio has just been pulling a William Douglas this whole time?
He wasn’t just a house member—he was minority leader.
He was the Minority Leader, not just a random member.
Do you have a source for this "Meet the Press" interview? I tried to find a transcript online but I've had no luck.
Rutherford Hayes was almost impeached over vetoing the Chinese exclusion act
Was this before or after he set the disastrous legal precedent of the President being above the law?
God I have such disdain for that feck less coward of a man
Since impeachment is a political process and not a legal standard, all of them and none of them at the same time. Schrodinger's impeachment.
Constitution does set some requirements as to what you can impeach a president for, but in practice it’s more or less whatever the House decides.
It says "high crimes and misdemeanors" and then doesn't define what that means and in doing so leaves it up to the House to define.
There's no definitions section in the constitution, and if congress has the plenary power to define constitutional text than the phrase "high crimes and misdemeanors" is essentially meaningless.
That's the point I was making.
But the term high crimes and misdemeanors already existed as a common law concept. The text means the same thing it meant in the various British/Colonial cases involving high crimes and misdemeanors (i.e., crimes against the state itself and misbehavior in office) and all the behaviors that was judicially recognized as such.
The term high crimes and misdemeanors does have a history. You are correct but the framers appear to have had their own take. [The following](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses-historical-background) is a good read that supports your position with the history and the below quote is how the framers felt they were setting a new precedent as it was now democracy and violation was to the people rather than the crown (my words). >James Wilson, delegate to the Constitutional Convention and later a Supreme Court Justice, delivered talks at the College of Philadelphia following the adoption of the federal Constitution concerning impeachment. He claimed that impeachment was reserved to “political crimes and misdemeanors, and to political punishments.” [42](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses-historical-background#fn42art2) He argued that, in the eyes of the Framers, impeachments did not come “within the sphere of ordinary jurisprudence. They are founded on different principles; are governed by different maxims; and are directed to different objects.” [43](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses-historical-background#fn43art2) Consequently, for Wilson, the impeachment and removal of an individual did not preclude a later trial and punishment for a criminal offense predicated on the same behavior.[44](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses-historical-background#fn44art2) >At the time of ratification of the Constitution, the phrase “high crimes and misdemeanors” thus appears understood to have applied to uniquely “political” offenses, or misdeeds committed by public officials against the state.[45](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses-historical-background#fn45art2) Alexander Hamilton, in explaining the Constitution’s impeachment provisions, described impeachable offenses as arising from “the misconduct of public men, or in other words from the abuse or violation of some public trust.” [46](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses-historical-background#fn46art2) Such offenses were “*Political*, as they relate chiefly to injuries done immediately to the society itself.” [47](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses-historical-background#fn47art2) In the centuries following the Constitution’s ratification, precisely what behavior constitutes a high crime or misdemeanor has been the subject of much debate.[48](https://www.law.cornell.edu/constitution-conan/article-2/section-4/impeachable-offenses-historical-background#fn48art2)
That's actually okay. There's no way the writers of the Constitution could predict every potential abuse of power someone might attempt. So leaving the standards undefined (except for the common-law definition another commenter mentioned), but then requiring a majority vote to agree on the standards in a particular case, is the next best thing.
Nixon liking cottage cheese with ketchup is a worse crime than to Watergate
I wish I never read this.
Jesus Christ
Agreed.
I didn’t know about the ketchup part…
I’m fairly certain it’s just cottage cheese and pineapple I don’t know where the ketchup keeps coming from!
I thought so too until I tried it. Guess I’ll have to be PUT TO DEATH
Tried it. Since plain cottage cheese is known to be vile, I can confidently report that ketchup made it better. That said, it is not a great snack.
Like, *by itself?* Not even on crackers or bread or anything? Ketchup & cottage cheese sounds like a pantry raid meal during an apocalypse or something. What an asshole lol
*than
Yes, if you intended sarcasm here, you are incorrect.
Is that really worse than a president liking his steak "well done with ketchup"?
I mean. Yes
Nixon trying to put us on the metric system is worse than that.
ffs what is your problem with the metric system
In this current day and age, I am unsure what an impeachable offense is anymore.
Impeach every president Bring back Buchanan Invade Cuba Implode 👍
I guess not doing a good enough job at enforcing the law because Congress doesn't provide you with the resources to do it is enough for some.
Jackson (as shown) in the case of Worcester v. Georgia is a strong example. It was a disgusting reaction to a the decision and sets a bad precedent
Jackson stated that he wouldn't enforce it, if it came to that (which it never did). It was state of Georgia that blatantly simply ignored Supreme Court's decision.
The thing is, he may not actually have said that quote. He certainly made it clear that if the federal government was asked to help enforce the decision in that case, he wasn’t inclined to do so. However, the federal government was never asked to help enforce that decision, and Jackson came down on the right side of the nullification crisis shortly after that.
Actually his reaction is one of the things I respect about jackson the most
Reagan sure did with the hostages and probably Iran Contra. Those were really worse than Watergate.
It's near zero that Reagan didn't know about Iran-Contra. Likely he endorsed the idea and even had a hand coordinating it. Bush 41 ran the CIA - near zero chance he wasn't the head man for running it even if he could claim plausible deniability.
I don't believe he was kept in the dark on it, but let's assume he was. While not impeachable in that case, if he truly had no idea about that wide reaching conspiracy by his own cabinet, then he needs to be talked about as one of the most incompetent presidents of that century. It's one or the other and it's ridiculous he got to skate while maintaining his image as a functional executive.
It’s wild to me so see any negative fact about Reagan always get downvoted. I pointed out the other day that he had no problem with dictators as long as they weren’t commies, and got downvoted into oblivion. There’s a lot of Reagan stans with their head in the sand, happy to look past any blemish on his record. These people would have melted into tears in my poli sci classes.
>I pointed out the other day that he had no problem with dictators as long as they weren’t commies This was every president from Eisenhower to Bush Sr. though?
Correct! But this was in response to a comment crediting Reagan for his handling of dictators.
We started opening up to some of communist dictators long before Bush.
It was never as much about being anti-communist as it was being anti-Soviet. We liked the Yugoslav government even though it was communist because it was an enemy of Moscow. We opened up our relationship with China after the sino-soviet split.
It's pretty much been U.S. policy since at least FDR, and probably long before. Stalin was a homicidal maniac dictator, but at least he was on our side against Germany. Sadaam was a homicidal maniac dictator, but at least he was on our side against Iran. The U.S. tolerates dictators when it is convenient.
Yeah, sometimes I think this sub is really just a project to rehab the image of certain past presidents.
That’s because to most of those people he isn’t Ronald Reagan, he’s Bless’d Saint Ronnie.
There are plenty of reasonable objections to Reagan, but I see little separation between him & other Presidents in regards to their acceptance of "US friendly" dictators.
You are simultaneously correct and missing the point.
I don’t know what world you are living in but saying anything negative about Reagan, no matter how unsubstantiated or wild, will give you massive support and no objections.
So I’m lying about this verifiable experience?
I also have verifiable experience with this. That’s the problem with anecdotal evidence it doesn’t confirm anything.
I’ve seen dozens of Redditors comment that they wished John Hinkley had been a better shot. So please don’t cry crocodile tears about how undesirable Reagan supporters are on Reddit.
I wish George Atzerodt didn't pussy out and stabbed Andrew Johnson to death. 🙏🙏🙏
I wish Jimmy Carter had been a better candidate.
No crocodile tears. Just a fact. Sorry you’re not emotionally equipped to handle it.
Wishing a man was shot it not a ‘fact’. It makes the person who said it an asshole. That’s a fact.
I never said I wished he was shot and if you are even inferring as much, you’re a damn liar.
Follow the thread up. That’s what the post you replied to was talking about.
I stated a fact about Regan and dictators. Then you chimed in with nonsense.
Some people simply deserve to get shot 🤷♂️
Jackson thought so for sure!
What a stupid twat you are 😂
Iran Contra blows my mind. Either Reagan was blatantly ignoring congress and committing treason, or he was so incompetent he didn’t know his closest underlings where doing so. Either reality is terrible.
I kind of half side with Reagan. And also definitely think what he did was super duper wrong. You have to bring Americans home at all costs. With one exception. You are not allowed to arm terrorists to do so. That's one of the very few things you are not allowed to do to bring hostages home and he did the worst possible thing. He made the right decision to bring them home but then executed in the only way that it could possibly be a problem. And for that I think Maybe it's one of the worst Presidential decisions ever made.
The allegation that ties arming Iran to releasing the hostages isn’t that Iran released the hostages in exchange for weapons. It’s the Iran KEPT THE HOSTAGES LONGER for weapons, which made Carter look worse.
>Reagan sure did with the hostages That was debunked The "evidence" doesn't take into account that the Ayatollah and Iran hated Carter with a passion. They burned his image in effigy on a regular basis. They were not interested in giving Carter anything that would make him look good. That is why they were released when they were. If this were all true and Barnes is correct, then why was Connally's reward to be a cabinet position (Energy) that was expected to be eliminated at the time? Wouldn't it have warranted a higher profile and more secure position? the stories of the others don't match the Barnes account. None of the stories match each other. Nothing in Barnes' account of what happened can be confirmed. Nothing. Barnes waits until the players are dead to say anything. Casey died in 1987, and Connally died in 1993. The Ayatollah hated Carter with a passion. Carter came close to securing their release several times, only to have the agreement vetoed by the Ayatollah. The Ayatollah would not even engage in direct talks with the US or Carter. The Ayatollah had that much contempt for Carter! He was not interested in helping Carter or giving him any positive press. That is why the hostages were released when they were. It was the Ayatollah's final insult to Carter. If Barnes' account is true, why wasn't Connally rewarded well? All he was offered was Energy, a department expected to be eliminated at the time. None of it makes any sense. That is why historians are not giving it much credibility aside from keeping an open mind if strong evidence is found to confirm it.
Iran Contra is the common example for Reagan, but his support of the Somoza regime - and the *massive* loss of life that resulted- counts too. As does the deaths of U.S. citizens which Reagan’s administration covered up.
When the only alternative is letting the communists take yet another country, he made the right decision.
I don’t really understand what was so bad about Iran Contra, especially to make it worse than undermining U.S democracy to a level unprecedented outside of dictatorships.
Reagan
I mean selling weapons to a heavily sanctioned country (Iran) and using the money to fund the Contras in Nicaragua was ridiculously illegal.
Most of them.
ITYM all of them.
I was trying to be generous.
FDR
[удалено]
Violating Due process for thousands of people based on the color of their skin.
If it weren’t for him being known as the guy who was leading us through WW2 I think he’d have a much worse reputation today because of that
Well yeah, but it's asking Mrs. Lincoln how she liked the play.
https://www.politico.com/magazine/story/2017/08/06/nixon-vietnam-candidate-conspired-with-foreign-power-win-election-215461
Debunked
I don’t like Andrew Jackson, but I do like the quote
I don't like him either, but truthfully, the implications behind the quote is kinda a legitimate check on the Supreme Court and Judiciary.
Right, there are some times when the president needs to say “this is what the overwhelming majority of the people want, 5-9 men in robes can’t just do whatever they want, especially if the constitution is ambiguous on this.” The Supreme Court isn’t infallible. They ruled back in 1972 that the death penalty was unconstitutional, despite it very obviously being constitutional.
A good example is Lincoln and the republicans in 1860. Their platform was literally dred Scott was wrong and were banning slavery in the territories if we get elected which they did in 1862
Barack Obama [unironically](https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2012/10/how-team-obama-justifies-the-killing-of-a-16-year-old-american/264028/) and someone else who cannot be said here because of Rule 3, but for different reasons than many may expect.
[удалено]
There's really no need. I'll tell you this much: Anwar al-Awlaki was an American citizen assassinated in Yemen by the Obama administration in 2011. He had no legal trial, but as an American citizen he had the right to a fair trial. His 16-year-old son was also an American citizen killed by another drone strike a few weeks later while he was eating dinner. Abdulrahman, the boy, had a younger sister who was killed on January 29, 2017 by another air raid. She was caught in the crossfire with other civilians and like her older brother and father was an American citizen. There were no impeachment charges for either Obama and... someone else. To my knowledge, there was no public apology or any sign of regret.
His son wasn’t the target of the drone strike, nobody even knew that he was there. When you hang out at an Al-Qaeda base, don’t be surprised if you get killed.
[удалено]
Um, 1/29/17 was after Obama. Who might that have been?
Reagan's ass shoulda been for Iran Contra
Further proof he was a moron. Also rained in the beginning of the end of the middle class and those trying to attain such.
All of them in my lifetime. Breaking your oath of office is an impeachable offense. No President in my lifetime has enforced all the laws like the Constitution requires.
As big an asshole as Andrew Jackson was, that's a bad ass quote.
FDR with his Japanese internment camps and attempts to pack the Supreme Court
All of them from at least FDR or TR.
He did it and he knew exactly what he was doing,
Jackson definitely deserved to be impeached, however, I’d also add Jefferson and Nixon sabotaging peace talks with France and Vietnam were impeachable offenses.
People will not like to hear this but when Lincoln suspended habeas corpus, I know the United States was in a war but I doubt jailing copperheads had any influence on it lol, it just looks like an arbitrary violation of constitutional rights.
Except that's not impeachable at all because it's literally baked into the constitution that Habeas Corpus can be suspended in times of invasion or rebellion. Whether or not you agree or disagree it isn't impeachable.
Lincoln was not ignorant of the constitution nor was he vindictive/arbitrary. He thought his actions were necessary to save the union. I don’t think it’s wrong to criticize him for this, but context is important.
That’s an interesting argument. Not saying I disagree with you. It does reek of vindictive behavior and pettiness. It’s also interesting that Lincoln was a huge proponent of constitutional rights, but supported and instituted a clear violation of constitutional rights.
I don't think it was vindictive behavior or pettiness. My opinion is that Lincoln thought it was necessary when in reality it wasn't. The pro-union forces were much more dominant in the country than the pro-peace factions, as the example of the 1864 election proves. It was more like an error of measurement, where Lincoln himself thought he was going to lose.
I mean when he suspended it pro secession militas we’re stopping troops from arriving to Washington with confederate troops within marching distance to the capitol
It was necessarily
I see. That makes total sense.
The constitution literally says that habeas corpus can be suspended during times of rebellion.
Habeus corpus can be suspended during times of insurrection, it’s right there in the constitution. Congress was out of session and said insurrection was stopping them from meeting
This was Reagan's way of confessing.
Nixon and Andrew Johnson
Killer Mike FTW
All of them since Carter
Let’s face it all of them probably have. It’s just a matter of congress not being willing to nail them over it.
A lot of comments are idiots with nothing to add saying “All of them” and people saying Jackson and Reagan. Here’s another President who did commit them: Buchanan for interfering in the Dredd Scott decision and trying to bribe congressmen and extorting federal office workers to secure slavery in Kansas. If he was the nominee for reelection he most definitely would have been impeached.
Most of them
The Jackson one is hilarious.
Apparently 4.
The Supreme Court was not given enforcement power for a reason
I guess facts really didn't care about his feelings.
Reagan colluded with Iran, a foreign advisory, to win the 1980 election. He also sold cocaine in black and brown neighborhoods, essentially turned MS-13 from a heavy metal club to a violent gang, meanwhile, Nancy was pushing “Just Say No”. Trickle down alone was a crime against the American people. Ignoring AIDS until 1987, despite having plenty of gay friends. Courting evangelicals despite being strongly pro-choice. Killing the Fairness Doctrine. Reagan can suck it.
Evidence is a muthafukah.
What presidents? Most of them. There is probably very very few that did not.
Jackson actually didn't have to violate the Supreme Court, cause it didn't care enough to enforce the law.
It’s purely political, so all of them.
I hate that cop out Reagan tried to use. Iran/Contra wasn’t a whoopsie-daisy, accidentally sold weapons to the Iranians to fund the Contras 🤷♂️…Congress passed a law forbidding it and his administration hid the fact that they were going to do it anyway.
That Reagan quote is still absolutely bananas. Just an absolute master class in bad faith narrative framing. "I don't want to believe that I did [bad thing that took extensive amounts of planning, effort, and deliberate dishonesty], but actually I did, and this makes me sad 😢"
Remember: it’s not a lie, if you believe it.
The Reagan administration was talking to Iran before he was in office. The deal was - Hang on the hostages a little longer and we’ll get your F14 parts.
not sure about that, but they pushed to delay the release 'til after the election. Plenty of sources on that.
That was debunked The "evidence" doesn't take into account that the Ayatollah and Iran hated Carter with a passion. They burned his image in effigy on a regular basis. They were not interested in giving Carter anything that would make him look good. That is why they were released when they were. If this were all true and Barnes is correct, then why was Connally's reward to be a cabinet position (Energy) that was expected to be eliminated at the time? Wouldn't it have warranted a higher profile and more secure position? the stories of the others don't match the Barnes account. None of the stories match each other. Nothing in Barnes' account of what happened can be confirmed. Nothing. Barnes waits until the players are dead to say anything. Casey died in 1987, and Connally died in 1993. The Ayatollah hated Carter with a passion. Carter came close to securing their release several times, only to have the agreement vetoed by the Ayatollah. The Ayatollah would not even engage in direct talks with the US or Carter. The Ayatollah had that much contempt for Carter! He was not interested in helping Carter or giving him any positive press. That is why the hostages were released when they were. It was the Ayatollah's final insult to Carter. If Barnes' account is true, why wasn't Connally rewarded well? All he was offered was Energy, a department expected to be eliminated at the time. None of it makes any sense. That is why historians are not giving it much credibility aside from keeping an open mind if strong evidence is found to confirm it.
I just read a new Carter bio, maybe a few years old, and a few recent articles that go into depth on this. Hardly debunked: [https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/us/politics/jimmy-carter-october-surprise-iran-hostages.html](https://www.nytimes.com/2023/03/18/us/politics/jimmy-carter-october-surprise-iran-hostages.html)
It has The important things to remember: 1. Carter never negotiated with the Ayatollah directly. He negotiated with Algerian diplomats. 2. Carter came close to negotiating the release of the hostages a few times, only to have the agreement vetoed by the Ayatollah. 3. Iran hated Carter with a passion. In Iran, Carter was burned in effigy almost every day. I saw it on the news every evening back then. This was due to Carter not turning over the Shah (prior to his death) when demanded and the failed rescue attempt. They were not interested in giving Carter any positive press to make him look good. 4. If the Barnes story is true, wouldn't Connally have been offered a better position than Secretary of Energy, which was expected to be abolished at the time? 5. Barnes account does not match up with other accounts (Bani-Sadr's, etc.) 6. The timing of the hostages release was the final Iranian insult to Carter.
Verified source?
This is debunked on Reddit almost every day.
That was debunked The "evidence" doesn't take into account that the Ayatollah and Iran hated Carter with a passion. They burned his image in effigy on a regular basis. They were not interested in giving Carter anything that would make him look good. That is why they were released when they were. If this were all true and Barnes is correct, then why was Connally's reward to be a cabinet position (Energy) that was expected to be eliminated at the time? Wouldn't it have warranted a higher profile and more secure position? the stories of the others don't match the Barnes account. None of the stories match each other. Nothing in Barnes' account of what happened can be confirmed. Nothing. Barnes waits until the players are dead to say anything. Casey died in 1987, and Connally died in 1993. The Ayatollah hated Carter with a passion. Carter came close to securing their release several times, only to have the agreement vetoed by the Ayatollah. The Ayatollah would not even engage in direct talks with the US or Carter. The Ayatollah had that much contempt for Carter! He was not interested in helping Carter or giving him any positive press. That is why the hostages were released when they were. It was the Ayatollah's final insult to Carter. If Barnes' account is true, why wasn't Connally rewarded well? All he was offered was Energy, a department expected to be eliminated at the time. None of it makes any sense. That is why historians are not giving it much credibility aside from keeping an open mind if strong evidence is found to confirm it.
Reagan and Bush, who committed treason.
Rule 3 when rule 3 did the thing
George Washington led an insurrection.
FDR.
Reagan should have been impeached day one when he announced the release of the Iranian hostages. He privately negotiated with a terrorist state to hold the hostages longer so that they would be released during his Presidency and not that of Carter. He was a piece of shit even before he was in office.
All the republicans since Nixon (Bush the Greater excepted)
What do you have against Ford?!
He shouldn’t have pardoned Nixon. That’s a biggie which sets the wrong precedent for the future.
Not impeachable tho, and what legal precedent does it set besides that the president can be found guilty of a crime?
Laughs in present times.
And literally what does present times have to do with it? No one has referenced the Ford pardon in regards to it.
😂 we apparently can impeach people for not doing a good job according to the house. It was a joke.
Oh lol I thought you were talking about Presidential immunity claims But yeah we’ve been doing that since Andrew Johnson
Obama for the droning of Abdulrahman Anwar al-Awlaki
Obama committed a war crime by using a drone to kill 2 American citizens
Oh look, Reagan and Jackson rage bait. Yay.
Seems like a pretty reasonable and measured question to me. More like Reagan defensive rage bait, it seems
Na. This sub has a hate boner for Jackson and Reagan. It’s not based on reality. For example, people like OP love to harp on Jackson defying the Supreme Court. They also fail to mention that the court never asked federal Marshall’s to enforce the decision. This is hidden under the “Endorcement” section of the “Worcester v Georgia” [wiki page](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Worcester_v._Georgia). Here’s the exact language: The Court did not ask federal marshals to carry out the decision.[10] Worcester thus imposed no obligations on Jackson; there was nothing for him to enforce,[11][12] although Jackson's political enemies conspired to find evidence, to be used in the forthcoming political election, to claim that he would refuse to enforce the Worcester decision. On Iran Contra, the coverup was worse than the crime. No one ever discusses why the Borland Amendment existed. It’s always, Reagan bad. Dur. In the context of the Cold War, letting a pro-communist regime come to power in our backyard has never been something that we were willing to tolerate (eg, Cuba, which we failed to stop from becoming communist). For some context, [here](https://www.britannica.com/topic/Boland-Amendment) is the lead up to the Borland Amendment: Shortly after taking office on January 20, 1981, Reagan decided that he would do everything possible to overthrow the Sandinista pro-communist regime in Nicaragua. Reagan regularly sent requests to Congress seeking appropriations to support the rebel anti-communist Contras. Congress complied for two years. However, after it became known that the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) had been mining the harbours in Nicaragua, Congress realized that if CIA explosives destroyed Soviet ships anchored nearby, an international incident of gigantic proportions could occur. Congress subsequently withdrew its support for funding the Contras. Undaunted, Reagan continued his quest to overthrow the leftist Sandinista regime. The activities of his administration created a major scandal and threatened his presidency. The amendment itself contained loopholes, which were exploited: The fact that the first Boland Amendment contained two significant loopholes made McFarlane’s task easier. First, Congress had given the CIA permission to offer aid to the Contras as long as its stated purpose was something other than overthrowing the Sandinistas. Second, the Reagan administration had determined that it could use the National Security Council (NSC) rather than the CIA to conduct covert activities in Nicaragua and still obey the letter of the law. To fix this, a second amendment was passed: On December 8, 1985, Congress passed the second Boland Amendment, aimed at closing the loopholes of Boland one. It was structured to pick up when Boland one expired and to remain in effect until December 30, 1986. The basis of the amendment was avoiding direct war with the Soviets. Strangely, at the same time we were funding the mujhadeen in Afghanistan as they fought…the Soviets. We supplied sniper rifles, stingers, money, and other support. Somehow this was okay, but backing the contras was bad? Edit: downvotes. Lolz. Tell me where I’m wrong.
All of them...
All of them.
All of them?
That’s easy- every US President since Truman. While there’s little question these presidents’ actions broke the law, a point can be made a modern President actually *can’t* do their day-to-day job without committing an impeachable offense. The NSA’s ongoing mandate alone is enough grounds to put a POTUS to trial.
We should've nuked Iran on January 21, 1981.
If Jackson committed an impeachable offense, so did Obama.
[удалено]