OK so he broke that rule. What does the constitution say is the punishment? That’s the problem: it doesn’t. It just says things that are “illegal” and it’s up to human beings to decide what to do after that. Congress never passed a law saying what would happen if that clause was broken. They can’t enforce laws anyway, that’s up to the executive. So if all the humans don’t come up with some plan, it doesn’t matter what the paper says. I’d say you could wipe your ass with it but you’re better off with a bidet
That’s not specifically for taking bribes, though. That could be for literally anything including things that aren’t crimes or aren’t forbidden in the constitution. It’s a political action, not a legal one.
Something more concrete would be if, during the Biden presidency, Congress passed a law saying that any foreign gift to a federal official including the president goes into a trust or is forcibly confiscated by the federal government and/or sold off to pay the country’s debt or something like that. They did basically nothing instead, even knowing that they’d never get that much of a majority in the Senate to actually remove a president for violating the constitution or that hypothetical new law. So there’s effectively no actual rule against emoluments despite what that piece of paper says.
As we saw with his first two impeachments, impeachment is not removal. So long as the cult of personality continues to support him, so too will the Republican Party.
I can tell you are not a serious person, as you pretend impeachment means anything.
I don’t understand how the emoluments clause is not an open and shut impeachment case.
Because the imoluments clause can’t jump off the page and enforce itself
But we agree if it were enforced then there would be no defence?
Acceptance of gold bar for reduced tariffs is sufficient emolument evidence?
OK so he broke that rule. What does the constitution say is the punishment? That’s the problem: it doesn’t. It just says things that are “illegal” and it’s up to human beings to decide what to do after that. Congress never passed a law saying what would happen if that clause was broken. They can’t enforce laws anyway, that’s up to the executive. So if all the humans don’t come up with some plan, it doesn’t matter what the paper says. I’d say you could wipe your ass with it but you’re better off with a bidet
“A two-thirds majority vote in the Senate is required to convict and remove the official.”
I see the problem. 20 republican senators are not switching sides.
That’s not specifically for taking bribes, though. That could be for literally anything including things that aren’t crimes or aren’t forbidden in the constitution. It’s a political action, not a legal one.
Something more concrete would be if, during the Biden presidency, Congress passed a law saying that any foreign gift to a federal official including the president goes into a trust or is forcibly confiscated by the federal government and/or sold off to pay the country’s debt or something like that. They did basically nothing instead, even knowing that they’d never get that much of a majority in the Senate to actually remove a president for violating the constitution or that hypothetical new law. So there’s effectively no actual rule against emoluments despite what that piece of paper says.
As we saw with his first two impeachments, impeachment is not removal. So long as the cult of personality continues to support him, so too will the Republican Party.