Impeaching Trump: The Process Begins Now

[toomuchtime_]

Donald Trump is wildly unfit to be president, and he will demonstrate that in ways that break the law and violate the Constitution. Since the election, there have been three wishful efforts to keep Trump from the presidency: a recount doomed by a lack of evidence; a futile campaign to flip Trump electors; and an even more improbable drive to get the Supreme Court to annul the 2016 election.

These moves, indicative of magical thinking, make Trump’s opposition look a lot weaker than it is―at a time when the stakes for the Republic could not be higher. There will also be marches and demonstrations, but they will also look weak unless they have a strategic focus.

There is only one constitutional way to remove a president, and that is via impeachment.

What’s needed is a citizens’ impeachment inquiry, to begin on Trump’s first day in office.

The inquiry should keep a running dossier, and forward updates at least weekly to the House Judiciary Committee. There will be no lack of evidence.

The materials should be made public via a website. The inquiry should be conducted by a distinguished panel whose high-mindedness and credentials are, well, unimpeachable.

There needs to be a parallel public campaign, pressing for an official investigation. For those appalled by Trump, who wonder where to focus their efforts, here is something concrete―and more realistic than it may seem.

Trump has already committed grave misdeeds of the kind that the Constitutional founders described as high crimes and misdemeanors. With his commingling of his official duties and his personal enrichment, Trump will be in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which unambiguously prohibits any person holding public office from profiting from gifts or financial benefits from “any king, prince or Foreign state.”

Trump, who has entangled his business interests with his political connections at home and abroad, has already declared his contempt for these Constitutional protections. He declared, “The law is totally on my side, meaning the president can’t have a conflict of interest.” Oh, yes he can, and this president will.

In his dalliance with Vladimir Putin, Trump’s actions are skirting treason. John Shattuck, former Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and former Washington legal director of the ACLU has pointed to the constitutional definition of treason: a crime committed by a person “owing allegiance to the United States who... adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.” By undermining further investigation or sanctions against the Russian manipulation of the 2016 election, Trump as president would be giving aid and comfort to Russian interference with American democracy.

There will be a lot more once Trump takes office. Trump will make grievous mistakes. If we are lucky, they will be political and policy mistakes, not the sort of nuclear miscalculation that leaves the planet a cinder. If the blunders and assaults against the Constitution are serious enough, even Republicans in the House, which needs to originate an impeachment inquiry, will begin having second thoughts.

For instance, Trump will very likely use agencies of government to punish political enemies. The Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon explicitly cited Nixon’s political misuse of the CIA, the FBI and the IRS.

It’s worth recalling the Nixon chronology. In two years, the idea of impeaching Nixon went from loony-left fantasy, to mainstream, to inevitable.

More: Impeaching Trump | The Huffington Post

Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country.

I don't know about any of that, except I am getting worried at how far he has taken his stance against believing the FBI, CIA, et al that Russia hacked the DNC. A President publicly refuting all of this country's intelligence agencies cannot be a good thing. At some point, this will cause problems.

The problem is Obama has so grossly distorted and gravely misused the intel for political purposes that Trump would be remiss in his duties if he did not call all of this into question.

No, Obama hasn't. Trump can quietly look into whatever he questions, but this....this is not going to be helpful to anyone.

Obama has been lying his ass off about what the evidence is. So far there is no evidence any of the Wikileaks emails came from Russian hacks and the only evidence that Russians may have hacked the DNC is that some lines of code used in the recent hack were also used in the past by Russians. If you take a minute to ask why the Russians would have given Wikileaks emails that did nothing to influence the election, you will realize they would have had no reason to. The only person who was hurt by these leaks was Debbi Wasserman-Schulz and the only people who wanted to hurt her were Sanders supporters.

Obama's claims that the Russians tried to influence our election is bizarre since none of the leaks could have conceivably influenced the election, and that means his sanctions and expulsions of Russians is without any basis in fact or logic and is clearly motivated by politics and not by policy considerations.

 

[Dot Com]

and the Snowflake melt down continues

 

[EvilCat Breath]

I love all the thoughtful and reasonable liberal projections that will certainly get Trump out of office. Remember the days when liberals were convinced that the RNC was going to remove Trump and appoint Kasich as the nominee? Democrats spent days patiently explaining just how this was going to be done. That was fun.

Democrats are so good at what they do that they convinced themselves that the election was really over in June. Hillary had already won. They need something to explain. A new pacifier. Jeff Sessions and Rex Tillerson should provide something for them to do.

 

[OldLady]

Donald Trump is wildly unfit to be president, and he will demonstrate that in ways that break the law and violate the Constitution. Since the election, there have been three wishful efforts to keep Trump from the presidency: a recount doomed by a lack of evidence; a futile campaign to flip Trump electors; and an even more improbable drive to get the Supreme Court to annul the 2016 election.

These moves, indicative of magical thinking, make Trump’s opposition look a lot weaker than it is―at a time when the stakes for the Republic could not be higher. There will also be marches and demonstrations, but they will also look weak unless they have a strategic focus.

There is only one constitutional way to remove a president, and that is via impeachment.

What’s needed is a citizens’ impeachment inquiry, to begin on Trump’s first day in office.

The inquiry should keep a running dossier, and forward updates at least weekly to the House Judiciary Committee. There will be no lack of evidence.

The materials should be made public via a website. The inquiry should be conducted by a distinguished panel whose high-mindedness and credentials are, well, unimpeachable.

There needs to be a parallel public campaign, pressing for an official investigation. For those appalled by Trump, who wonder where to focus their efforts, here is something concrete―and more realistic than it may seem.

Trump has already committed grave misdeeds of the kind that the Constitutional founders described as high crimes and misdemeanors. With his commingling of his official duties and his personal enrichment, Trump will be in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which unambiguously prohibits any person holding public office from profiting from gifts or financial benefits from “any king, prince or Foreign state.”

Trump, who has entangled his business interests with his political connections at home and abroad, has already declared his contempt for these Constitutional protections. He declared, “The law is totally on my side, meaning the president can’t have a conflict of interest.” Oh, yes he can, and this president will.

In his dalliance with Vladimir Putin, Trump’s actions are skirting treason. John Shattuck, former Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and former Washington legal director of the ACLU has pointed to the constitutional definition of treason: a crime committed by a person “owing allegiance to the United States who... adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.” By undermining further investigation or sanctions against the Russian manipulation of the 2016 election, Trump as president would be giving aid and comfort to Russian interference with American democracy.

There will be a lot more once Trump takes office. Trump will make grievous mistakes. If we are lucky, they will be political and policy mistakes, not the sort of nuclear miscalculation that leaves the planet a cinder. If the blunders and assaults against the Constitution are serious enough, even Republicans in the House, which needs to originate an impeachment inquiry, will begin having second thoughts.

For instance, Trump will very likely use agencies of government to punish political enemies. The Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon explicitly cited Nixon’s political misuse of the CIA, the FBI and the IRS.

It’s worth recalling the Nixon chronology. In two years, the idea of impeaching Nixon went from loony-left fantasy, to mainstream, to inevitable.

More: Impeaching Trump | The Huffington Post

Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country.

I don't know about any of that, except I am getting worried at how far he has taken his stance against believing the FBI, CIA, et al that Russia hacked the DNC. A President publicly refuting all of this country's intelligence agencies cannot be a good thing. At some point, this will cause problems.

The problem is Obama has so grossly distorted and gravely misused the intel for political purposes that Trump would be remiss in his duties if he did not call all of this into question.

No, Obama hasn't. Trump can quietly look into whatever he questions, but this....this is not going to be helpful to anyone.

Obama has been lying his ass off about what the evidence is. So far there is no evidence any of the Wikileaks emails came from Russian hacks and the only evidence that Russians may have hacked the DNC is that some lines of code used in the recent hack were also used in the past by Russians. If you take a minute to ask why the Russians would have given Wikileaks emails that did nothing to influence the election, you will realize they would have had no reason to. The only person who was hurt by these leaks was Debbi Wasserman-Schulz and the only people who wanted to hurt her were Sanders supporters.

Obama's claims that the Russians tried to influence our election is bizarre since none of the leaks could have conceivably influenced the election, and that means his sanctions and expulsions of Russians is without any basis in fact or logic and is clearly motivated by politics and not by policy considerations.

That is your opinion, based on no facts whatever. If there weren't evidence of some kind, they wouldn't have said there was. You talk as if you know the inside details of this investigation, which I highly doubt. You are taking a dangerous partisan position, apparently to support Trump's big mistake and make it sound sensible. I have no reason to blame Russia above any other hostile, but like I said, I do have reservations about flipping the table over on our intelligence agencies.

 

[Dot Com]

More Snowflake melt down threads. MOAR!!!

 

[miketx]

 

[miketx]

Actually, it would probably be easier to remove Trump using the mechanisms of the 25th Amendment.

Delete your account.

 

[toomuchtime_]

Donald Trump is wildly unfit to be president, and he will demonstrate that in ways that break the law and violate the Constitution. Since the election, there have been three wishful efforts to keep Trump from the presidency: a recount doomed by a lack of evidence; a futile campaign to flip Trump electors; and an even more improbable drive to get the Supreme Court to annul the 2016 election.

These moves, indicative of magical thinking, make Trump’s opposition look a lot weaker than it is―at a time when the stakes for the Republic could not be higher. There will also be marches and demonstrations, but they will also look weak unless they have a strategic focus.

There is only one constitutional way to remove a president, and that is via impeachment.

What’s needed is a citizens’ impeachment inquiry, to begin on Trump’s first day in office.

The inquiry should keep a running dossier, and forward updates at least weekly to the House Judiciary Committee. There will be no lack of evidence.

The materials should be made public via a website. The inquiry should be conducted by a distinguished panel whose high-mindedness and credentials are, well, unimpeachable.

There needs to be a parallel public campaign, pressing for an official investigation. For those appalled by Trump, who wonder where to focus their efforts, here is something concrete―and more realistic than it may seem.

Trump has already committed grave misdeeds of the kind that the Constitutional founders described as high crimes and misdemeanors. With his commingling of his official duties and his personal enrichment, Trump will be in violation of the Emoluments Clause of the Constitution, which unambiguously prohibits any person holding public office from profiting from gifts or financial benefits from “any king, prince or Foreign state.”

Trump, who has entangled his business interests with his political connections at home and abroad, has already declared his contempt for these Constitutional protections. He declared, “The law is totally on my side, meaning the president can’t have a conflict of interest.” Oh, yes he can, and this president will.

In his dalliance with Vladimir Putin, Trump’s actions are skirting treason. John Shattuck, former Assistant Secretary of State for Human Rights and former Washington legal director of the ACLU has pointed to the constitutional definition of treason: a crime committed by a person “owing allegiance to the United States who... adheres to their enemies, giving them aid or comfort.” By undermining further investigation or sanctions against the Russian manipulation of the 2016 election, Trump as president would be giving aid and comfort to Russian interference with American democracy.

There will be a lot more once Trump takes office. Trump will make grievous mistakes. If we are lucky, they will be political and policy mistakes, not the sort of nuclear miscalculation that leaves the planet a cinder. If the blunders and assaults against the Constitution are serious enough, even Republicans in the House, which needs to originate an impeachment inquiry, will begin having second thoughts.

For instance, Trump will very likely use agencies of government to punish political enemies. The Articles of Impeachment against Richard Nixon explicitly cited Nixon’s political misuse of the CIA, the FBI and the IRS.

It’s worth recalling the Nixon chronology. In two years, the idea of impeaching Nixon went from loony-left fantasy, to mainstream, to inevitable.

More: Impeaching Trump | The Huffington Post

Now is the time for all good men and women to come to the aid of their country.

I don't know about any of that, except I am getting worried at how far he has taken his stance against believing the FBI, CIA, et al that Russia hacked the DNC. A President publicly refuting all of this country's intelligence agencies cannot be a good thing. At some point, this will cause problems.

The problem is Obama has so grossly distorted and gravely misused the intel for political purposes that Trump would be remiss in his duties if he did not call all of this into question.

No, Obama hasn't. Trump can quietly look into whatever he questions, but this....this is not going to be helpful to anyone.

Obama has been lying his ass off about what the evidence is. So far there is no evidence any of the Wikileaks emails came from Russian hacks and the only evidence that Russians may have hacked the DNC is that some lines of code used in the recent hack were also used in the past by Russians. If you take a minute to ask why the Russians would have given Wikileaks emails that did nothing to influence the election, you will realize they would have had no reason to. The only person who was hurt by these leaks was Debbi Wasserman-Schulz and the only people who wanted to hurt her were Sanders supporters.

Obama's claims that the Russians tried to influence our election is bizarre since none of the leaks could have conceivably influenced the election, and that means his sanctions and expulsions of Russians is without any basis in fact or logic and is clearly motivated by politics and not by policy considerations.

That is your opinion, based on no facts whatever. If there weren't evidence of some kind, they wouldn't have said there was. You talk as if you know the inside details of this investigation, which I highly doubt. You are taking a dangerous partisan position, apparently to support Trump's big mistake and make it sound sensible. I have no reason to blame Russia above any other hostile, but like I said, I do have reservations about flipping the table over on our intelligence agencies.

It is you who is taking a staunchly partisan position by closing your eyes to the facts. The only evidence that has been put forward by the intel agencies is that a few lines of code used in a hack of the DNC were also used in the past by Russians. This is the single fact that has been put forward, and even if you were to accept this as proof, which it isn't, that the Russians hacked the DNC, while the CIA has said it believes the Russians were trying to influence the election, the Director of National Intelligence and the FBI have said there is no proof this is true.

Common sense alone should tell you that Obama's charges that the Russians were trying to influence the election are nonsense since none of the Wikileaks emails could have conceivably have influenced the election. If you read them, you know this is true.

So the question is, why is Obama using this as a pretext to try to drag us into another Cold War with Russia?

 

[OldLady]

I don't know about any of that, except I am getting worried at how far he has taken his stance against believing the FBI, CIA, et al that Russia hacked the DNC. A President publicly refuting all of this country's intelligence agencies cannot be a good thing. At some point, this will cause problems.

The problem is Obama has so grossly distorted and gravely misused the intel for political purposes that Trump would be remiss in his duties if he did not call all of this into question.

No, Obama hasn't. Trump can quietly look into whatever he questions, but this....this is not going to be helpful to anyone.

Obama has been lying his ass off about what the evidence is. So far there is no evidence any of the Wikileaks emails came from Russian hacks and the only evidence that Russians may have hacked the DNC is that some lines of code used in the recent hack were also used in the past by Russians. If you take a minute to ask why the Russians would have given Wikileaks emails that did nothing to influence the election, you will realize they would have had no reason to. The only person who was hurt by these leaks was Debbi Wasserman-Schulz and the only people who wanted to hurt her were Sanders supporters.

Obama's claims that the Russians tried to influence our election is bizarre since none of the leaks could have conceivably influenced the election, and that means his sanctions and expulsions of Russians is without any basis in fact or logic and is clearly motivated by politics and not by policy considerations.

That is your opinion, based on no facts whatever. If there weren't evidence of some kind, they wouldn't have said there was. You talk as if you know the inside details of this investigation, which I highly doubt. You are taking a dangerous partisan position, apparently to support Trump's big mistake and make it sound sensible. I have no reason to blame Russia above any other hostile, but like I said, I do have reservations about flipping the table over on our intelligence agencies.

It is you who is taking a staunchly partisan position by closing your eyes to the facts. The only evidence that has been put forward by the intel agencies is that a few lines of code used in a hack of the DNC were also used in the past by Russians. This is the single fact that has been put forward, and even if you were to accept this as proof, which it isn't, that the Russians hacked the DNC, while the CIA has said it believes the Russians were trying to influence the election, the Director of National Intelligence and the FBI have said there is no proof this is true.

Common sense alone should tell you that Obama's charges that the Russians were trying to influence the election are nonsense since none of the Wikileaks emails could have conceivably have influenced the election. If you read them, you know this is true.

So the question is, why is Obama using this as a pretext to try to drag us into another Cold War with Russia?

We should have gotten into a war with Russia when they took Crimea, at least as part of the NATO alliance. We had promised Ukraine we would if they wouldn't keep nukes, and they agreed and we reneged when Russia came and took part of their country. It is still pushing on the gates of the rest of Ukraine, and Russia is without shame spreading its influence in the Middle East, at complete loggerheads to democracy and Western values.

I will not give Russia more benefit of the doubt than our own CIA and FBI. They both HAVE, by the way, confirmed that they have no doubt Russia did the hacks. Do you really think their knowledge on this matter is no more than a few lines of code used by the Russians once before?

I am not going into the "influenced the election" part of it and unfortunately, neither is Trump. If he made it clear that was his only beef, I'd say "Go for it." But he is clearly and repeatedly saying he doesn't have any reason to believe the Russians did the hacking. That is a different issue.

 

[toomuchtime_]

The problem is Obama has so grossly distorted and gravely misused the intel for political purposes that Trump would be remiss in his duties if he did not call all of this into question.

No, Obama hasn't. Trump can quietly look into whatever he questions, but this....this is not going to be helpful to anyone.

Obama has been lying his ass off about what the evidence is. So far there is no evidence any of the Wikileaks emails came from Russian hacks and the only evidence that Russians may have hacked the DNC is that some lines of code used in the recent hack were also used in the past by Russians. If you take a minute to ask why the Russians would have given Wikileaks emails that did nothing to influence the election, you will realize they would have had no reason to. The only person who was hurt by these leaks was Debbi Wasserman-Schulz and the only people who wanted to hurt her were Sanders supporters.

Obama's claims that the Russians tried to influence our election is bizarre since none of the leaks could have conceivably influenced the election, and that means his sanctions and expulsions of Russians is without any basis in fact or logic and is clearly motivated by politics and not by policy considerations.

That is your opinion, based on no facts whatever. If there weren't evidence of some kind, they wouldn't have said there was. You talk as if you know the inside details of this investigation, which I highly doubt. You are taking a dangerous partisan position, apparently to support Trump's big mistake and make it sound sensible. I have no reason to blame Russia above any other hostile, but like I said, I do have reservations about flipping the table over on our intelligence agencies.

It is you who is taking a staunchly partisan position by closing your eyes to the facts. The only evidence that has been put forward by the intel agencies is that a few lines of code used in a hack of the DNC were also used in the past by Russians. This is the single fact that has been put forward, and even if you were to accept this as proof, which it isn't, that the Russians hacked the DNC, while the CIA has said it believes the Russians were trying to influence the election, the Director of National Intelligence and the FBI have said there is no proof this is true.

Common sense alone should tell you that Obama's charges that the Russians were trying to influence the election are nonsense since none of the Wikileaks emails could have conceivably have influenced the election. If you read them, you know this is true.

So the question is, why is Obama using this as a pretext to try to drag us into another Cold War with Russia?

We should have gotten into a war with Russia when they took Crimea, at least as part of the NATO alliance. We had promised Ukraine we would if they wouldn't keep nukes, and they agreed and we reneged when Russia came and took part of their country. It is still pushing on the gates of the rest of Ukraine, and Russia is without shame spreading its influence in the Middle East, at complete loggerheads to democracy and Western values.

I will not give Russia more benefit of the doubt than our own CIA and FBI. They both HAVE, by the way, confirmed that they have no doubt Russia did the hacks. Do you really think their knowledge on this matter is no more than a few lines of code used by the Russians once before?

I am not going into the "influenced the election" part of it and unfortunately, neither is Trump. If he made it clear that was his only beef, I'd say "Go for it." But he is clearly and repeatedly saying he doesn't have any reason to believe the Russians did the hacking. That is a different issue.

So you are saying you are not bothered by Obama making bizarre charges about Russia influencing the election and using it as a pretext for dragging the US into another Cold War with Russia because you are hot to go to war with Russia anyway, but you are upset that Trump doubts the CIA which has been famously wrong twice about Saddam having nuclear weapons? I think they have a pill for that.

 

[peabody]

Trump could be impeached under the Constitution’s emoluments clause. This clause prohibits a federal officeholder from receiving from a foreign power anything of value that could compromise the exclusive loyalty owed to the Constitution. Trump’s global businesses make him vulnerable to foreign pressure from countries where he has assets.

 

[Hellbilly]

Trump could be impeached under the Constitution’s emoluments clause. This clause prohibits a federal officeholder from receiving from a foreign power anything of value that could compromise the exclusive loyalty owed to the Constitution. Trump’s global businesses make him vulnerable to foreign pressure from countries where he has assets.

Not any more. He's just the President. No conflict of interest.