Should Habitual Lying Be Grounds for Presidential Impeachment?

Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by Huntn, Jun 10, 2017.

?

Should Habitual Lying Be Grounds For Presidential Impeachment?

This poll will close on Dec 10, 2017 at 5:25 AM.
  1. Yes

    36 vote(s)
    56.3%
  2. No

    23 vote(s)
    35.9%
  3. Undecided

    5 vote(s)
    7.8%
  1. Huntn macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #1
    I've asked this question several times in the forums without a response. My argument is that as the leader of the United States, it should be expected that the head of the Executive Branch is basically honest and truthful. If someone in such a position is basically dishonest, not truthful, and can't be expected to tell the truth, this is no way to run the Executive Branch, harms the country to a great degree, and such a person should be removed from office.

    I'll also clarify that the standard is not to be caught in spin or a single lie, but a pattern of habitual lying. That said, the basic problem depending on your perspective and who it is applied to, is that impeachment is a political not a criminal action, which places the bar really high for success, because you basically have to alarm 2/3 of the Senate to such a degree that they want you removed, and the same as jury, they can vote whichever way they think is appropriate or politically advantageous, irregardless of what the President is accused of.

    I'm always interested in the reasoning behind votes, but for "no" I'd love to hear the reason. :)

    Background info from the Constitutional Rights Foundation:
    High Crimes and Misdemeanors

    Mason abandoned “maladministration” and proposed “high crimes and misdemeanors against the state.” The convention adopted Mason’s proposal, but dropped “against the state.” The final version, which appears in the Constitution, stated: “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.”

    The convention adopted “high crimes and misdemeanors” with little discussion. Most of the framers knew the phrase well. Since 1386, the English parliament had used “high crimes and misdemeanors” as one of the grounds to impeach officials of the crown. Officials accused of “high crimes and misdemeanors” were accused of offenses as varied as misappropriating government funds, appointing unfit subordinates, not prosecuting cases, not spending money allocated by Parliament, promoting themselves ahead of more deserving candidates, threatening a grand jury, disobeying an order from Parliament, arresting a man to keep him from running for Parliament, losing a ship by neglecting to moor it, helping “suppress petitions to the King to call a Parliament,” granting warrants without cause, and bribery. Some of these charges were crimes. Others were not. The one common denominator in all these accusations was that the official had somehow abused the power of his office and was unfit to serve.
     
  2. skunk macrumors G4

    skunk

    Joined:
    Jun 29, 2002
    Location:
    Republic of Ukistan
    #2
    Lying is not a crime, except under oath.
     
  3. Gutwrench macrumors 65816

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #3
    Perjury and fraud are crimes already. When a "lie" meets those standards then we will talk.

    Someone says they are wearing a white shirt.
    The next person says, no it's cream. You are a liar.

    You lost an election. It happens.
     
  4. Fancuku macrumors 6502a

    Fancuku

    Joined:
    Oct 8, 2015
    Location:
    PA, USA
    #4
    7 months later, still the same thing. Cry, cry, cry.
     
  5. Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #5
    Being a crime is not a requirement for impeachment, although that can be included. See post 1.
     
  6. statik13 macrumors regular

    Joined:
    Jun 6, 2008
    #6
    Absolutely "Yes".

    The western world elects officials to be accountable to the people. If any official is not living up to that expectations, or is purposely trying to subvert that relationship, then they have no place being in that role.
     
  7. Huntn, Jun 10, 2017
    Last edited: Jun 10, 2017

    Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #7
    This thread has zero to do with who lost the election, it has to do with habitual lieing as a standard that we accept in our leadership or not.
     
  8. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #8
    Politicians, no, people lie all the time. Honestly, if Trump were removed on medical grounds (see:sanity), I would not mind a Pence succession. The investigations will still go on. 25.4 of the US Constitution does give the VP and Congress the power to do so with solid reasoning and proof, however, it's never been done before. As it stands, it would pose a constitutional crisis. With each passing day, Trump is a growing threat to the current GOP and their reelection efforts.

    It's definitely a "what if" "this would backfire" situation. As it stands, the current betting on Trump's administration is for a few people to fall and the succession landing on Orrin Hatch. Who's rumored to not run again due to his age and health. Romney is eyeing his seat. Rather sensible person once you speak to him. That seat is crucial provided Trump lives the next four years with his dire health and somehow wins a 2nd term. Seeing as these investigations will take eons and more will happen as time goes by, knocking down Trump, Pence, Ryan for whatever will result in a Romney presidency. Of course, we could end up with something else.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 10, 2017 ---
    But Hillary deleted emails, man! She was not a rad person at all.
     
  9. Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #9
    Note I used the phrase habitual liar. Although this can be considered a high bar and based on subjective standards, if the head of the Execute Department is a habitual liar, this poses a serious threat to the country when our head executive does not conduct himself in an honest manner with everyone he deals with, our allies, and includes misleading the citizens of this country on virtually a daily basis.
     
  10. AlliFlowers Contributor

    AlliFlowers

    Joined:
    Jan 1, 2011
    Location:
    L.A. (Lower Alabama)
    #10
    Trump is a congenital liar. I don't believe he knows the difference between his lies and the truth at this point. I believe he should be removed from office before he can commit to a world-ending lie.
     
  11. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #11
    Habitual or not, all in DC lie on a near constant basis. There's a spotlight on the President. Habitually lying and not being mentally competent are mutually exclusive. Do I believe POTUS lies his ass off? Yes. Do I believe there is something wrong with his mental works? Yes.

    To be told something and then turn around and say the opposite on a near daily basis poses the question of mental acuity, and not a blatant disregard of the truth.
     
  12. BeeGood macrumors 65816

    BeeGood

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Location:
    Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
    #12
    I vote no based on what you just said. It's completely subjective and it can't be defined. The "opposing party" would be throwing articles of impeachment at whoever the president is all the time.

    Like someone else already said, we have laws against perjury. I think that's sufficient.
     
  13. Gutwrench macrumors 65816

    Gutwrench

    Joined:
    Jan 2, 2011
    #13
    I would suppose that would amount to maladministration which I suspect is already grounds.

    Look, the President is elected and does not serve at the simple pleasure of Congress.
     
  14. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #14
    I was going to correct you on something in regards to "opposing party" until I realized something. Under Bush and under Obama, despite all the major opposition rhetoric, we never had anything like this. Russia scandal aside, it isn't just one investigation but multiple rolled up into one. The GOP had numerous opportunistic times to investigate the Obama administration and claimed backdoor deals with other countries, in addition to impeach at will for whatever they felt was an impeachable offense. Yet nothing happened, or at least nothing I heard or read about. Compare that to today.
     
  15. Huntn, Jun 10, 2017
    Last edited by a moderator: Jun 10, 2017

    Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #15
    Sure it works for you against me, :p but the President produces a river of lies that have been refuted with facts. Of all the politicians I am aware of, Trump easily qualifies as a habitual liar.

    All of Donald Trump’s Four-Pinocchio ratings, in one place

    Here's A Running List Of President Trump's Lies And Other ********

    All False statements involving Donald Trump
    --- Post Merged, Jun 10, 2017 ---
    The world maladministration was dropped in favor of high crimes and misdeameanors, although I suspect it's still there as part of the definition. Impeachment can be a vague standard. My impression which many be incorrect that is that if the House passed an impeachment measure based on the President being wreckless, a danger, or even a nut job, and 2/3 of the Senate agreed, he would be removed from office, not that I am holding my breath for that to happen.
     
  16. BeeGood macrumors 65816

    BeeGood

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Location:
    Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
    #16
    I'm not talking about any particular president.

    What I'm saying is that if the standard for impeachment is "a pattern of habitual lying", all presidents would be under scrutiny constantly. All presidents tell untruths, so the opposing party would seize on every unfactual statement to try to boot him or her from office.
     
  17. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #17
    I'm not sure why you chose to quote and reiterate a reiteration of your own words when I was actually complementing your post, albeit with more information to show @Huntn that while Trump is doing something wrong in the eyes of moral values, actual action and results from his behavior are being seen. Not out of disgust of him, but the sheer incompetence our current President has.
     
  18. BeeGood macrumors 65816

    BeeGood

    Joined:
    Sep 15, 2013
    Location:
    Lot 23E. Somewhere in Georgia.
    #18
    I just re-read your post and realized I completely misunderstood it. My mistake.
     
  19. jpietrzak8 macrumors 65816

    jpietrzak8

    Joined:
    Feb 16, 2010
    Location:
    Dayton, Ohio
    #19
    I disagree. While being honest and truthful is, in my opinion, a worthy feature both of an ordinary citizen as well as someone holding high office, I do not believe it to be essential to adequately perform the duties of office. Indeed, in this age of classified information, the ability to avoid telling the truth can be essential; just consider how this country now treats "leakers", people who tell the truth despite the law actually demanding that they lie.

    And there is the famous quote by Churchill, "In wartime, truth is so precious that she should always be attended by a bodyguard of lies."

    This is not to say that I prefer our leaders to lie; I personally prefer people who take the risk to actually make the truth known publicly. (Which is one reason why I find James Comey to be so inspiring; he's gone out of his way to tell the truth, even when it makes politicians on both sides furious at him.) But many past leaders have led the US just fine while telling whoppers to the public. And in any case, impeachment is a political action, not a judicial one; and citizens seem to prefer men who tell pretty lies to those who are truth-tellers.
     
  20. Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #20
    You do realize how bad this sounds? There was a time in politics were integrity mattered. If it no longer matters, we have been corrupted and I predict we are on our way to being a third world corrupt banana republic. No wonder Trump admires Putin. :oops:

    I believe that if the Congress had the political will, or motivated by self survival, they could already act and impeach based on this standard: unfit for office. Yep, that's vague, but I believe that besides crimes (which may still be proven) for the impeachment standard, I believe Trump has already crossed this line, but being a cynic, and seeing the state of politics today in the US, I won't hold my breath for it to happen.
     
  21. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #21
    No problem. It's political hot potato from here on out. Appease the masses while saving your butt in the next election from core Trump supporters who wouldn't be swayed even if he spat in their faces. This kind of behavior isn't limited to just the US. Our ally across the pond have similar issues, albeit less deranged.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 10, 2017 ---
    You're confused. I'm not suggesting his habitual lying his alright or normal. I'm stating that given his lying in addition to the repetitive behavior ad nauseam, I'm inclined to say there's an issue with mental acuity. Hence my earlier posts on 25.4 and the crisis it would cause if invoked.
     
  22. Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #22
    Truth that can't be told may be withheld, via classification, especially during war. This is distinctly different than lieing to fool the enemy (which is ok), but to fool your own citizens in an effort to mislead them about the ramifications of the President's policies or self serving actions.
     
  23. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #23
    That's 25.4. It's never been done before to my knowledge, except in film. And it's incredibly downplayed in that. You think the Brexit ordeal was nuts, wait until that happens, if it happens.
    --- Post Merged, Jun 10, 2017 ---
    If I'm not mistaken, this is referencing the "keep quiet" goals the British imposed on the people so as not to aid enemy within their own ranks.
     
  24. Huntn thread starter macrumors G5

    Huntn

    Joined:
    May 5, 2008
    Location:
    The Misty Mountains
    #24
    How do you feel about it philosophically, a President who can be expected to lie for a variety of self serving purposes? A situation where we have to constantly guess what the truth of the matter is? The importance of integrity and honestly?

    This is completely beside the point that we collectively hoisted this kind of a person into our top leadership position. :(
     
  25. Zenithal macrumors 68040

    Joined:
    Sep 10, 2009
    #25
    At this point, it doesn't matter. Trump can keep doing Trump or go blow by blow through Nixon's playbook. It's his only two options. I think he'd be better off getting a real lawyer who knows what they're doing, and ensure work to be done by prepayment. He's a self-stated billionaire. He can afford a 1-10M legal bill. Especially if it saves him and his family or lessens the blow considerably.
     

Share This Page