Just as his critics warned, President Trump is turning out to be unfit for his job, perhaps dangerously so. That's a harsh judgment, but it's no longer coming from the president's opponents. It's coming from leading members of his own party. An apprenticeship is a system of training a new generation of practitioners based on objective measures and subjective opinions of the host who monitors the performance of tasks assigned and when results fall short of hosts false pride expectation(s) their services end with words "You're fired!"
So it's not surprising that speculation has been renewed that Congress may have to try to remove Trump from office before his term ends based on president purportedly asserted "What's that?" Trump has already provided more than enough issues that any opponent on either side of the floor could cast as a impeachable offense where Congress can define "high crimes and misdemeanors" any way it wants. A president's actions don't need to be felonies under the criminal code to be considered as grounds for impeachment. Trump has already provided all statesmen opponents under God with more than enough ample national issues combined with lists of scandals that could be cast as early as Monday as impeachable offenses: His failure to divest his family business, the profits his hotels have made from foreign governments, his apparent carelessness with classified information, his potential obstruction of justice by firing(s) plus arrays of much more too long to list in a single session. A president's actions don't need to be felonies under the criminal code to be considered as grounds for impeachment and where voters may compliment any case compassing winning a two-thirds majority in each house of Congress holds a simply English that at least one house must no longer be under the Republican majority.
Meanwhile, "We The People" are stuck with the practical ways for Trump's opponents in the meantime to either get him out of office or placed under restriction(s) the traditional ways: Wait and absorb all damages done through voting him out in 2020, in either the Republican primaries or the general election or start utilizing the midterm in meantime where Congress suddenly becomes unhappy through general voters persistence with the president's job performance convinced within ones career future that it did or still has many ways to restrain his agenda actions. It can overturn executive orders. It can impose spending limits. It can even legislate:etc., etc, &c., or &c, "and so forth".
Is he testing democracy’s singular weakness — its susceptibility to the demagogue — by blasting through the firewalls we once had in place to prevent such a person from seizing power? In the wakeof this Republican administration "We The People" must confront this dread and be clear about what this election has already revealed about the fragility of our way of life and the threat late-stage democracy is beginning to pose to itself. American democracy has been able to thrive with unprecedented stability over the last couple of centuries even as it has brought more and more people into its embrace. It remains a miracle of constitutional craftsmanship and cultural resilience, But, it is not immortal, nor should we assume it is immune to the forces that have endangered democracy so many times in human history. Part of American democracy’s stability is owed to the fact that the Founding Fathers had read their Plato. To guard our democracy from the tyranny of the majority and the passions of the mob, they constructed large, hefty barriers between the popular will and the exercise of power. The Trump, we now know assiduously took to reality television as a natural. Each week, for 14 seasons of The Apprentice, he would look someone in the eye and tell them, “You’re fired!” The conversation most humane bosses fear to have with an employee was something Trump clearly relished, and the cruelty became entertainment. In retrospect, it is clear he was training — both himself and his viewers. If you want to understand why a figure so widely disliked nonetheless powers toward his election as if he were approaching a reality-TV-show finale, look no further. His television tactics, as applied wiped out rivals used to a different game. And all our reality-TV training has conditioned us to hope he’ll win — or at least stay in the game till the final round. In such a shame-free media environment, the assholes often win. In the end, you support them because they’re assholes. Mass business party movements, are distinguished by a “facility for make-believe … credulity, a readiness to attempt the impossible. What could be more make-believe than a big, beautiful wall stretching across the entire Mexican border, paid for by the Mexican government? What could be more credulous than arguing that we could pay off our national debt through a global trade war? In a conventional political party, and in a rational political discourse, such ideas would be laughed out of contention, their self-evident impossibility disqualifying them from serious consideration. In the emotional fervor of a democratic mass movement, however, these impossibilities become icons of hope, symbols of a new way of conducting politics. Their very impossibility is their appeal. But the most powerful engine for such a movement — the thing that gets it off the ground, shapes and solidifies and entrenches it — is always the evocation of hatred and what makes Trump uniquely dangerous in the history of American politics — with far broader national appeal than, say, Huey Long or George Wallace — is his response to all enemies is the threat of blunt coercion and dominance. To call this fascism doesn’t do justice to fascism. Fascism had, in some measure, an ideology and occasional coherence that Trump utterly lacks. But his movement is clearly fascistic in its demonization of foreigners, its hyping of a threat by a domestic minority (Muslims and Mexicans are the new Jews), its focus on a single supreme leader of what can only be called a cult, and its deep belief in violence and coercion in a democracy that has heretofore relied on debate and persuasion. This is the Weimar aspect of our current moment. What’s is notable about a Trump supporter is precisely what one would expect from members of a mass movement: their intense loyalty. Trump is their man, however inarticulate they are when explaining why especially when attacked by all the people they have come to despise: liberal Democrats and traditional Republicans. At rallies, whenever a protester is hauled out, you can almost sense the rising rage of the collective identity venting itself against a lone dissenter and finding a catharsis of sorts in the brute force a mob can inflict on an individual. Trump tells the crowd he’d like to punch a protester in the face or have him carried out on a stretcher. No modern politician who has come this close to the presidency has championed violence in this way. It would be disqualifying if our hyperdemocracy hadn’t already abolished disqualifications. like all tyrants, he is utterly lacking in self-control. Sleeping a handful of hours a night, impulsively tweeting in the early hours, improvising madly on subjects he knows nothing about, Trump rants and raves as he surfs an entirely reactive media landscape. Once again, Plato had his temperament down: A tyrant is a man “not having control of himself [who] attempts to rule others”; a man flooded with fear and love and passion, while having little or no ability to restrain or moderate them; a “real slave to the greatest fawning,” a man who “throughout his entire life ... is full of fear, overflowing with convulsions and pains.” Sound familiar? Trump is as mercurial and as unpredictable and as emotional as the daily Twitter stream.
In his 1935 novel, It Can’t Happen Here, Sinclair Lewis wrote a counterfactual about what would happen if fascism as it was then spreading across Europe were to triumph in America. It’s not a good novel, but it remains a resonant one. The imagined American fascist leader — a senator called Buzz Windrip — is a “Professional Common Man … But he was the Common Man twenty-times-magnified by his oratory, so that while the other Commoners could understand his every purpose, which was exactly the same as their own, they saw him towering among them, and they raised hands to him in worship.” He was obsessed with the balance of trade and promises of instant economic success while elites who stood in his way Crippled by their own failures, demoralized by their crumbling stature, first mocked and then caved. 81 years later a "Pete R' Pete" did injustice to American as an elite who presided over massive and increasing public debt, failed to prevent 9/11, then chose a disastrous war in the Middle East, that allowed financial markets to nearly destroy the global economy, and why a so bitterly divided Congress effectively mooted constitutional democracy: “We Respectables” deserve a comeuppance. The vital and valid lesson of the Trump phenomenon appears to compass that if the elites cannot govern by compromise, someone outside will eventually try to govern by popular passion and brute force. More to the point, Patriotic Statesmen desperately trying to use the long-standing rules of their own nominating process to thwart this monster off deserve our passionate support, not our disdain. This is not the moment to remind politicians they partly brought this on themselves. This is a moment to remind that Civic Duty Pride offers Patriotic solidarity irregardless of party affiliation(s) especially where Americas stands at odds within what is being increasingly stacked against them and nation in little to no regard. The political Establishment may be battered and demoralized, deferential to the algorithms of the web and to the monosyllables of a gifted demagogue, but this is not the time to give up on America’s near-unique and stabilizing blend of democracy and elite responsibility. The country has endured far harsher times than the present without succumbing to rank demagoguery; it avoided the fascism that destroyed Europe; it has channeled extraordinary outpourings of democratic energy into constitutional order.
Pointing this out is not to claim "We The People" are particularly astute or prescient, but to say that it is not possible that amid such clear signs of impending trouble that those in charge of billion of dollars of other people’s money, supported by high-priced barristers, were caught off guard. Criminal dishonesty with derelict of First and fiduciary duties is difficult to deny. This systemic risk exposure is now building up to an unprecedented crisis in both complexity and scale.
Standards for Impeachment
"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. ARTICLE II, SECTION 4
Impeachment is the constitutionally specified means by which an official of the executive or judicial branch may be removed from office for misconduct.
There has been considerable controversy about what constitutes an impeachable offense.
At the Constitutional Convention, the delegates early on voted for "mal-practice and neglect of duty" as grounds for impeachment, but the Committee of Detail narrowed the basis to treason, bribery, and corruption, then deleting the last point. George Mason, who wanted the grounds much broader and similar to the earlier formulation, suggested "maladministration," but James Madison pointed out that this would destroy the President's independence and make him dependent on the Senate. Mason then suggested "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," which the Convention accepted.
Because "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" was a term of art used in English impeachments, a plausible reading supported by many scholars is that the grounds for impeachment can be not only the defined crimes of treason and bribery, but also other criminal or even noncriminal behavior amounting to a serious dereliction of duty. That interpretation is disputed, but it is agreed by virtually all that the impeachment remedy was to be used in only the most extreme situations, a position confirmed by the relatively few instances in which Congress has used the device.
The word "impeachment" is popularly used to indicate both the bringing of charges in the House and the Senate vote on removal from office. In the Constitution, however, the term refers only to the former. At the Convention, the delegates experimented with differing impeachment proceedings. As finally agreed, a majority vote of the House of Representatives is required to bring impeachment charges (Article I, Section 2, Clause 5), which are then tried before the Senate (Article I, Section 3, Clause 6). Two-thirds of the Senate must vote to convict before an official can be removed. The President may not pardon a person who has been impeached (Article II, Section 2, Clause 1). If an official is impeached by the House and convicted by the requisite vote in the Senate, then Article I, Section 3, Clause 7, provides that the person convicted is further barred from any "Office of honor, Trust or Profit under the United States." The convicted official also loses any possible federal pensions. With a few exceptions, those impeached and removed have generally faded into obscurity.
In The Federalist No. 64, John Jay argued that the threat of impeachment would encourage executive officers to perform their duties with honor, and, used as a last resort, impeachment itself would be effective to remove those who betray the interests of their country. Like the limitations on the offense of treason, the Framers placed particular grounds of impeachment in the Constitution because they wished to prevent impeachment from becoming a politicized offense, as it had been in England. Nonetheless, Alexander Hamilton, in The Federalist No. 65, also warned that during impeachment proceedings, it would be difficult for Congress to act solely in the interests of the nation and resist political pressure to remove a popular official. The Framers believed that the Senate, elected by the state legislatures, would have the requisite independence needed to try impeachments. The Framers also mandated a supermajority requirement to militate against impeachments brought by the House for purely political reasons.
There have been several impeachment proceedings initiated since the adoption of the Constitution, principally against judges in the lower federal courts. The most important impeachments were those brought against United States Associate Justice Samuel Chase in 1805, against President Andrew Johnson in 1867, and against President William Jefferson Clinton in 1999. None of these three resulted in removal from office, and all three stand for the principle that impeachment should not be perceived as a device simply to remove a political opponent. In that regard, the caution of the Framers has been fulfilled.
President George Washington appointed Samuel Chase to the Supreme Court in 1796. Washington had been warned of Chase's mercurial behavior, but Chase had written the President that, if he were appointed, he would do nothing to embarrass the administration. In his early years on the Court, Chase kept his pledge and did render some fine decisions clarifying the powers of the federal government. In the election of 1800, however, when Thomas Jefferson ran against Washington's Vice President and successor John Adams, Chase earned the ire of Jefferson's emerging Republican party. For one thing, Chase actively took to the hustings to campaign for Adams (a move rare for sitting judges even then). What finally brought President Jefferson to approve of efforts by his party's representatives in Congress to remove the judge was a grand-jury charge Chase made in Baltimore in 1803. There Chase lamented the Jeffersonian restructuring of the federal judiciary in order to abolish the Circuit Court judgeships that the Adams administration had created, and the Maryland Jeffersonians' abolishing a state court and establishing universal male suffrage in Maryland. Chase argued that all of this was plunging the country into "mobocracy." Chase voiced sentiments common to a wing of the party of Washington and Adams, but Jefferson and his men believed that to have a federal judge publicly articulating such views was harmful to the government, and they moved against Chase. In addition to citing his behavior in Baltimore, the impeachment charges included several counts based on Chase's conduct during controversial trials in 1800 against Jeffersonian writers who had been prosecuted under the Alien and Sedition Act of 1798 (a temporary measure that punished libels against the government).
The proceeding against Chase was part of a broader Jeffersonian assault on the judiciary, and it was widely believed, at least among Federalists, that if it were successful, Chief Justice John Marshall might be the next target. None of the specifications brought against Chase charged him with any criminal conduct, and their thrust seemed to be that his legal rulings were simply not in accordance with Jeffersonian theory on how trials ought to be conducted or how juries should function. There was substantial legal precedent behind each of Chase's rulings, however, and although he may have been guilty of having a hair-trigger temper, it was also clear that to permit his removal would seriously, perhaps permanently, compromise the independence of the judiciary. The requisite two-thirds majority of Senators could not be cobbled together to remove Chase, and, in fact, members of Jefferson's own party even voted for acquittal. From that time to this, the Chase acquittal has been understood to bar the removal of a Supreme Court Justice on the ground of his political preferences. Subsequently, there have been several attempts to begin impeachment proceedings against particular Justices, but none has ever prevailed in the House.
Andrew Johnson, who succeeded to the presidency following Abraham Lincoln's assassination in 1865, was impeached because of his failure to follow procedures specified in federal legislation (passed over his veto) that prohibited the firing of Cabinet officials without the permission of Congress. The legislation, known as the Tenure of Office Act, was arguably unconstitutional because it compromised the independence of the executive. Nevertheless, the radical Republicans, who then controlled Congress and who recoiled at President Johnson's active hostility to their plans to protect the newly freed slaves, sought to keep the sympathetic members of Abraham Lincoln's Cabinet in office. When Johnson fired Secretary of War Edwin Stanton, the gauntlet was thrown down, and impeachment was voted by the House. Though just as political as the Chase impeachment proceedings, there was some support for the Tenure of Office Act (Alexander Hamilton, writing in the The Federalist No. 77, had suggested that the consent of the Senate would be necessary "to displace as well as to appoint" officials). As it turned out, the conviction of Johnson failed in the Senate by only one vote.
The administration of President William Jefferson Clinton was beset by assorted scandals, many of which resulted in the appointment of special federal prosecutors, and several of which resulted in the convictions of lesser officials. One of the special prosecutors, Kenneth Starr, recommended to the Congress in 1998 that it consider evidence that the President had obstructed justice, tampered with witnesses, lied to a grand jury, and sought to conceal evidence in connection with a civil proceeding brought against him involving claims of sexual harassment. President Clinton denied the charges, but the Arkansas federal judge who presided in that civil proceeding eventually cited and fined Clinton for contempt based on his untruthful testimony.
A majority of the Republican-controlled House of Representatives voted in early 1999 to impeach the President based upon Judge Starr's referral. The House managers argued that what the President had done was inconsistent with his sworn duty to take care that the laws of the nation be faithfully executed. When the matter was tried in the Senate, in February 1999, however, the President's defenders prevailed, and no more than fifty Senators (all Republicans) could be found to vote for conviction on any of the charges.
The only other time a President came close to being impeached was the case of Richard M. Nixon. He resigned from office in 1974, after a House Committee had voted to put before the full House a number of impeachment charges, the most serious of which was that he had wrongly used the FBI and the CIA in order to conceal evidence that persons connected to the White House had participated in a burglary at the Democratic Party's offices at the Watergate apartment complex. Nixon avoided impeachment, though not disgrace.
There is no authoritative pronouncement, other than the text of the Constitution itself, regarding what constitutes an impeachable offense, and what meaning to accord to the phrase "other high Crimes and Misdemeanors." When he was a Congressman, Gerald R. Ford advocated the ultimately unsuccessful impeachment of a Supreme Court Justice by defining an impeachable offense as anything on which a majority of the House of Representatives can agree. As impeachment is understood to be a political question, Ford's statement correctly centers responsibility for the definition of "high Crimes and Misdemeanors" in the House. The federal courts have thus far treated appeals from impeachment convictions to be nonjusticiable. Nixon v. United States (1993). Even if the issue of impeachment is nonjusticiable, it does not mean that there are no appropriate standards that the House should observe.
Some scholarly commentary at the time of the Nixon impeachment proceedings argued that the actual commission of a crime was necessary to serve as a basis for an impeachment proceeding. However, the historical record of impeachments in England, which furnished the Constitution's Framers with the term "high Crimes and Misdemeanors," does not support such a limitation; at that time, the word "Misdemeanors" meant simply "misdeeds," rather than "petty crimes," as it now does. The issue was revisited at the time of the Clinton impeachment, when those who sought to remove the President from office, basing their arguments principally on the English experience and The Federalist No. 64, claimed that a President could be removed for any misconduct that indicated that he did not possess the requisite honor, integrity, and character to be trusted to carry out his functions in a manner free from corruption. As James Iredell (later Associate Justice of the Supreme Court) opined in the North Carolina ratifying convention, impeachment should be used to remedy harm "arising from acts of great injury to the community."
On the other hand, some have argued that a President should not be impeached unless he has actually engaged in a major abuse of power flowing from his office as President (although judges, who serve during "good behavior," have been impeached for conduct occurring outside of their official duties). In the end, because it is unlikely that a Court would ever exercise judicial review over impeachment and removal proceedings, the definitional responsibility to carry them out with fidelity to the Constitution's text remains that of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
In the end the definitional responsibility to carry out impeachment and removal proceedings with fidelity to the Constitution's text remains that of the House of Representatives and the Senate.
Lowering’s of qualifying bars can only accommodate objectives that worsen in paradox by having now raised more system devils than society will know what to do with. Although politics and sociology are of great relevance in consideration of crime and criminality: in the end at the heart of all crime is people.
Crimes against person are the stuff of fact and fiction that even the Bible tells of within opening chapters. Where criminal psychology runs fast it has also evolved into something far greater than what was otherwise ever known before.
These evolving forms are what give the whole exploration of crime and law exciting new dynamic qualities that explain why persons contemplate committing sociologic crimes and their manners of doing so. Therefore forensic applications not only aide community but in addition helps identify those unsound formations likely to become walking crime waives.
In other words at every point of the criminal law puzzle are psychological processes that need to be addressed in order to accurately present understandings of processes and their applications is the basis of criminal psychology and the more recognizable key pieces clinicians throw in the clearer images become and the more clearer those images become the easier it will become for society to apply those necessary integral ounces of prevention that realistically Proviso pounds of ethical cures.
Forensic psychology is the study of criminals - not the crime itself allowed to intertwine self into confusions that additionally mass overlapped points that lead to further injustice. The HCR-20 combines what may be regarded as “Static”, the relatively unchangeable factors plus additional dynamic factors that were open to change. Dynamic factors focus more directly on issues such as lack of insight, unfeasible plans for the future in ways that individuals dealt with forms of remedial intervention as well as stresses involved are all taken into account.
In conclusion within any topical discussion - clues will always be the strands of twine that when carefully followed eventually lead to all culprits. They leave footprints left at the initial scene of crime that can be backtracked and may reveal additional crimes through where still puzzled ponders why skilled watchdog did not bark nor deter was recognized in which such incident can now be potentially linked to many an unsolved case still pending?
What has caught public imagination is best known as ‘offender profiling’ in which the style behind offenses offer clues in identify of culprits and general character in perpetrators personality.
Greed Forensics indeed is truest deterrent in the New Millennium before our nation can no longer Integrally claim to be either under God or as Ethical leader of free worlds.
Within Reagan national bible many a repeated story is told about what eventually happens to all who refuse to heed Gods warnings for his people with historic reminders on what will come when recognition refuses to cut it's own mustard that lived up to the grade.
