It's Draft Time: Impeachment Edition

[xxlt]

(02-19-2017, 01:41 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: If the Democrats win the House in 2018, they'll impeach him. That's an "if".  They won't get enough votes in the Senate to remove him, though.

They need to stop saying "impeach", though, and just focus on his failure as a leader and the disorder in the White House. Point to actual things occurring, not pipe dreams based on something that has not been done yet.

I just read a list of five possible violations of the Constitution. Pretty impressive in just a month. Here it is:


In just his first month Trump has arguably violated 5 provisions of the U.S. Constitution:

1. By raking in money from foreign governments, Trump may have violated Article I, Section 9: “no person holding office shall… accept any emolument … from a foreign state.”
2. By banning travel from 7 countries with a majority of Muslims, and exempting Christians, Trump may have violated the 1st Amendment’s prohibition of any “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
3. By denigrating the free press, publicly calling it an “enemy of the American people,” and seeking to turn the public against it, Trump may have abridged the freedom of the press under the 1st Amendment.
4. By disparaging and inciting violence against Mexican Americans, Muslim Americans, and African-Americans, Trump may have violated the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause.
5. If he knew of or participated in Russia’s attempt to get him elected he violated Article III, Section 3: “Treason against the United States shall consist in … adhering to [America’s] enemies.”


That list was compiled by former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. So, he is an idiot, he don't no nothin' 'bout govmint, and he hates Trump. Not credible. So much hate. Terrible, really. Terrible.

But there it is. And Reich says be patient, a bipartisan call for impeachment will come. But, see above to debunk that theory.

[GMDino]

(02-20-2017, 11:29 AM)xxlt Wrote: I just read a list of five possible violations of the Constitution. Pretty impressive in just a month. Here it is:


In just his first month Trump has arguably violated 5 provisions of the U.S. Constitution:

1. By raking in money from foreign governments, Trump may have violated Article I, Section 9: “no person holding office shall… accept any emolument … from a foreign state.”
2. By banning travel from 7 countries with a majority of Muslims, and exempting Christians, Trump may have violated the 1st Amendment’s prohibition of any “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
3. By denigrating the free press, publicly calling it an “enemy of the American people,” and seeking to turn the public against it, Trump may have abridged the freedom of the press under the 1st Amendment.
4. By disparaging and inciting violence against Mexican Americans, Muslim Americans, and African-Americans, Trump may have violated the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause.
5. If he knew of or participated in Russia’s attempt to get him elected he violated Article III, Section 3: “Treason against the United States shall consist in … adhering to [America’s] enemies.”


That list was compiled by former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. So, he is an idiot, he don't no nothin' 'bout govmint, and he hates Trump. Not credible. So much hate. Terrible, really. Terrible.

But there it is. And Reich says be patient, a bipartisan call for impeachment will come. But, see above to debunk that theory.

#3 & #4 I have a problem with as it is all talk.  He hasn't made a legal move to repress the press or allow violence against minorities.

Personally I think he'll quit before he's ever close to impeached.

[*bfine32*]

(02-20-2017, 11:29 AM)xxlt Wrote: I just read a list of five possible violations of the Constitution. Pretty impressive in just a month. Here it is:


In just his first month Trump has arguably violated 5 provisions of the U.S. Constitution:

1. By raking in money from foreign governments, Trump may have violated Article I, Section 9: “no person holding office shall… accept any emolument … from a foreign state.”
2. By banning travel from 7 countries with a majority of Muslims, and exempting Christians, Trump may have violated the 1st Amendment’s prohibition of any “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
3. By denigrating the free press, publicly calling it an “enemy of the American people,” and seeking to turn the public against it, Trump may have abridged the freedom of the press under the 1st Amendment.
4. By disparaging and inciting violence against Mexican Americans, Muslim Americans, and African-Americans, Trump may have violated the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause.
5. If he knew of or participated in Russia’s attempt to get him elected he violated Article III, Section 3: “Treason against the United States shall consist in … adhering to [America’s] enemies.”


That list was compiled by former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. So, he is an idiot, he don't no nothin' 'bout govmint, and he hates Trump. Not credible. So much hate. Terrible, really. Terrible.

But there it is. And Reich says be patient, a bipartisan call for impeachment will come. But, see above to debunk that theory.

Dude forgot violation of Article II, Section 1: "No Person except a natural born Citizen, or a Citizen of the United States, at the time of the Adoption of this Constitution, shall be eligible to the Office of President;"


Everybody knows Hitler was born in Austria. 

[Benton]

(02-20-2017, 11:32 AM)GMDino Wrote: #3 & #4 I have a problem with as it is all talk.  He hasn't made a legal move to repress the press or allow violence against minorities.

Personally I think he'll quit before he's ever close to impeached.

He's dipping his toe in the water with #3.

Back in January his Trump International hotel banned media. Which is only relevant because that location is leased to the GSA and part of the lease requires parts of the building to be open to the public. General rule of thumb, anything open to the public is open to the press.

[GMDino]

(02-20-2017, 01:20 PM)Benton Wrote: He's dipping his toe in the water with #3.

Back in January his Trump International hotel banned media. Which is only relevant because that location is leased to the GSA and part of the lease requires parts of the building to be open to the public. General rule of thumb, anything open to the public is open to the press.

No doubt he'd love to only have "friendly" media follow him around.  But he hasn't tried to pass a law yet or an EO.

[BmorePat87]

(02-20-2017, 11:29 AM)xxlt Wrote: I just read a list of five possible violations of the Constitution. Pretty impressive in just a month. Here it is:


In just his first month Trump has arguably violated 5 provisions of the U.S. Constitution:

1. By raking in money from foreign governments, Trump may have violated Article I, Section 9: “no person holding office shall… accept any emolument … from a foreign state.”
2. By banning travel from 7 countries with a majority of Muslims, and exempting Christians, Trump may have violated the 1st Amendment’s prohibition of any “law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof.”
3. By denigrating the free press, publicly calling it an “enemy of the American people,” and seeking to turn the public against it, Trump may have abridged the freedom of the press under the 1st Amendment.
4. By disparaging and inciting violence against Mexican Americans, Muslim Americans, and African-Americans, Trump may have violated the 14th Amendment’s “equal protection” clause.
5. If he knew of or participated in Russia’s attempt to get him elected he violated Article III, Section 3: “Treason against the United States shall consist in … adhering to [America’s] enemies.”


That list was compiled by former Clinton Labor Secretary Robert Reich. So, he is an idiot, he don't no nothin' 'bout govmint, and he hates Trump. Not credible. So much hate. Terrible, really. Terrible.

But there it is. And Reich says be patient, a bipartisan call for impeachment will come. But, see above to debunk that theory.

#1, the argument is this is only from gifts, not from personally benefiting from what the government does.
#2, good luck convincing Republicans to accept that argument
#3, he's not actually preventing them from being free, he's just trash talking them
#4, again, good luck convincing Republicans that he is inciting violence. You need concrete proof of a violation.
#5, this is an "if" and I would say this is the only one that could eventually be accepted by Republicans. 

[Belsnickel]

The first one, the one about emoluments, has to go through the courts. It has yet to be tested because we have never had a judiciable situation in the history of our country with regards to this. It has been filed, however, and the deadline for a response from Trump is 21 April.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/storage.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/23222937/Complaint-17-458.pdf

[xxlt]

(02-20-2017, 02:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The first one, the one about emoluments, has to go through the courts. It has yet to be tested because we have never had a judiciable situation in the history of our country with regards to this. It has been filed, however, and the deadline for a response from Trump is 21 April.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/storage.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/23222937/Complaint-17-458.pdf

Wow! The complainants attorneys are an impressive group.

I just skimmed the first few pages but this looks (not at all surprisingly) like a solid and well reasoned complaint. I look forward to seeing this move through the so called courts.

Thanks for this post Belsnickel!

[*michaelsean*]

(02-20-2017, 02:46 PM)Belsnickel Wrote: The first one, the one about emoluments, has to go through the courts. It has yet to be tested because we have never had a judiciable situation in the history of our country with regards to this. It has been filed, however, and the deadline for a response from Trump is 21 April.

http://s3.amazonaws.com/storage.citizensforethics.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/01/23222937/Complaint-17-458.pdf

Section I-8 made me chuckle.  

[Dill]

(02-19-2017, 07:45 PM)TheLeonardLeap Wrote:



(I think on election day morning, Hillary was at -500 and Trump was at like +350. Don't know the Libertarian odds, sadly. I don't think Roto or I were really betting the farm on it. I was really hoping that they'd reach that 5% mark, though.)

So no poor odds for inauguration?

[Dill]

(02-20-2017, 02:19 PM)BmorePat87 Wrote: #1, the argument is this is only from gifts, not from personally benefiting from what the government does.
#2, good luck convincing Republicans to accept that argument
#3, he's not actually preventing them from being free, he's just trash talking them
#4, again, good luck convincing Republicans that he is inciting violence. You need concrete proof of a violation.
#5, this is an "if" and I would say this is the only one that could eventually be accepted by Republicans. 

I don't know if the point is that any of these "violations" are good to go now.

I think the point is that someone pushing constitutional boundaries like this right out of the gate is bound to mess up,
in this case sooner rather than later.

We haven't had a big foreign policy crises yet, perhaps precipitated by misuse or misunderstanding of intel. If Trump keeps blowing off briefings and dissing the Intel community, he might not know what he needs to when he has to make real time decisions which risks American lives.

[xxlt]

(02-20-2017, 04:05 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't know if the point is that any of these "violations" are good to go now.

I think the point is that someone pushing constitutional boundaries like this right out of the gate is bound to mess up,
in this case sooner rather than later.

We haven't had a big foreign policy crises yet, perhaps precipitated by misuse or misunderstanding of intel. If Trump keeps blowing off briefings and dissing the Intel community, he might not know what he needs to when he has to make real time decisions which risks American lives.

You mean things like ordering a raid that your Generals recommend against? And then sleeping through it. Or discussing national security matters in front of your dinner guests at the club? I mean, come on, what kind of incompetent would do things like that?

[Dill]

(02-20-2017, 04:20 PM)xxlt Wrote: You mean things like ordering a raid that your Generals recommend against? And then sleeping through it. Or discussing national security matters in front of your dinner guests at the club? I mean, come on, what kind of incompetent would do things like that?

Those kinds of things. Yes. But the body count has to be higher, and the link to rejection of briefing protocols clearer.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-20-2017, 04:05 PM)Dill Wrote: I don't know if the point is that any of these "violations" are good to go now.

I think the point is that someone pushing constitutional boundaries like this right out of the gate is bound to mess up,
in this case sooner rather than later.

We haven't had a big foreign policy crises yet, perhaps precipitated by misuse or misunderstanding of intel. If Trump keeps blowing off briefings and dissing the Intel community, he might not know what he needs to when he has to make real time decisions which risks American lives.

Issuing an order that is later declared unconstitutional is not in itself grounds for impeachment.  I think it happens if not often, then at  least on occasion.  

[xxlt]

(02-20-2017, 04:36 PM)Dill Wrote: Those kinds of things. Yes. But the body count has to be higher, and the link to rejection of briefing protocols clearer.

Sadly, I believe you are quite correct.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-20-2017, 04:36 PM)Dill Wrote: Those kinds of things. Yes. But the body count has to be higher, and the link to rejection of briefing protocols clearer.

Seems we had some pretty good non-target body counts with the last admin. 14 people returning from a wedding in Yemen?  Too late to impeach?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-strikes_us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff

And i honestly haven't seen it, and I've looked, but I don't see any stories that say Trump went against recommendations.

[BmorePat87]

(02-20-2017, 04:59 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Issuing an order that is later declared unconstitutional is not in itself grounds for impeachment.  I think it happens if not often, then at  least on occasion.  

Correct, issuing an order or passing a law that is later deemed unconstitutional isn't the equivalent of committing a "high crime or misdemeanor".

Hell, Obama did it.

[Dill]

(02-20-2017, 05:44 PM)michaelsean Wrote: Seems we had some pretty good non-target body counts with the last admin.  14 people returning from a wedding in Yemen?  Too late to impeach?

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/civilian-deaths-drone-strikes_us_561fafe2e4b028dd7ea6c4ff

And i honestly haven't seen it, and I've looked, but I don't see any stories that say Trump went against recommendations.

Were any of those people returning from that wedding U.S. citizens?   No? 

Body count of bodies that count=0.

I said that Trump blows off briefings and has dissed the intel community (e.g., comparing them to Nazis).
I did not say he went against recommendations. The Pentagon "ok'd" the Yemeni raid, but you have to understand that such oks are not based upon real time intel. The decision is deferred to the president, who must decide upon conditions given at the moment he says go for it, not conditions 10 or 24 hours prior.  

Though since you allude to the Yemen raid, it brings up a clear difference with Obama, who respected intel and paid attention during briefings.  OBAMA SAID NO GO. Trump said "F*** Yea!"

Now two Americans are dead, plus a 70 million dollar Osprey, no intel resulted, and Yemen has revised its cooperation with the US, apparently preventing any further such ground operations. A policy option has been removed from the table. 

So of course the raid was a SUCCESS by Trump standards, but not by anyone else's.

Back to my original point, Trump's failure to do his homework, to put due diligence into his foreign decisions involving military action, could lead to his removal from office if it costs US lives.  Especially if it happens more than once, becomes a pattern.  

If he attempts to scale back and moderate his foreign policy, he will still make egregious policy mistakes when circumstances force him to act, lacking the competence and knowledge of Obama or Clinton, and unwilling to learn on the job.

[*michaelsean*]

(02-21-2017, 01:14 PM)Dill Wrote: Were any of those people returning from that wedding U.S. citizens?   No? 

Body count of bodies that count=0.

I said that Trump blows off briefings and has dissed the intel community (e.g., comparing them to Nazis).
I did not say he went against recommendations. The Pentagon "ok'd" the Yemeni raid, but you have to understand that such oks are not based upon real time intel. The decision is deferred to the president, who must decide upon conditions given at the moment he says go for it, not conditions 10 or 24 hours prior.  

Though since you allude to the Yemen raid, it brings up a clear difference with Obama, who respected intel and paid attention during briefings.  OBAMA SAID NO GO. Trump said "F*** Yea!"

Now two Americans are dead, plus a 70 million dollar Osprey, no intel resulted, and Yemen has revised its cooperation with the US, apparently preventing any further such ground operations. A policy option has been removed from the table. 

So of course the raid was a SUCCESS by Trump standards, but not by anyone else's.

Back to my original point, Trump's failure to do his homework, to put due diligence into his foreign decisions involving military action, could lead to his removal from office if it costs US lives.  Especially if it happens more than once, becomes a pattern.  

If he attempts to scale back and moderate his foreign policy, he will still make egregious policy mistakes when circumstances force him to act, lacking the competence and knowledge of Obama or Clinton, and unwilling to learn on the job.

Obama didn't say no go.  They had to wait for the next moonless night which came after the transition according to what I read.  If the military says it is good to go, the President has no way of ascertaining whether they are or not.  I'm not sure what you expect here, or maybe i'm misunderstanding.  

I didn't know we were talking about only American dead.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2011_Chinook_shootdown_in_Afghanistan

Now can we retroactively impeach?

[xxlt]

(02-21-2017, 01:14 PM)Dill Wrote: Were any of those people returning from that wedding U.S. citizens?   No? 

Body count of bodies that count=0.

I said that Trump blows off briefings and has dissed the intel community (e.g., comparing them to Nazis).
I did not say he went against recommendations. The Pentagon "ok'd" the Yemeni raid, but you have to understand that such oks are not based upon real time intel. The decision is deferred to the president, who must decide upon conditions given at the moment he says go for it, not conditions 10 or 24 hours prior.  

Though since you allude to the Yemen raid, it brings up a clear difference with Obama, who respected intel and paid attention during briefings.  OBAMA SAID NO GO. Trump said "F*** Yea!"

Now two Americans are dead, plus a 70 million dollar Osprey, no intel resulted, and Yemen has revised its cooperation with the US, apparently preventing any further such ground operations. A policy option has been removed from the table. 

So of course the raid was a SUCCESS by Trump standards, but not by anyone else's.

Back to my original point, Trump's failure to do his homework, to put due diligence into his foreign decisions involving military action, could lead to his removal from office if it costs US lives.  Especially if it happens more than once, becomes a pattern.  

If he attempts to scale back and moderate his foreign policy, he will still make egregious policy mistakes when circumstances force him to act, lacking the competence and knowledge of Obama or Clinton, and unwilling to learn on the job.

You are just a nattering neighbob of negativity aren't you?