The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Moderators: Elvis, DrVolin, Jeff

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Thu Dec 22, 2016 7:15 pm

:P

The Line-Up for Donald Trump’s Inauguration Ball Is Grounds for Impeachment All On Its Own
Shout out DJ Freedom!

Music | By Tom Hawking | December 22, 2016
It’s not exactly shocking that Donald Trump has been having well-publicized difficulties finding anyone willing to provide the music at his inauguration — Wagner is long gone, Skrewdriver’s singer died in a richly deserved car crash 20 years ago, Ace of Base seem to be on hiatus, and while those creepy Freedom Kids have joined the ranks of People Who Dropped Their Lawsuits Against the Donald Once He Became the Führer Daddy, they’ve also not performed since realizing that in Trump’s America, freedom means doing things for free. Last week, several outlets reported that Trump was so desperate to get someone, anyone, to play his very important big party, he was dangling ambassadorships in front of potential talent, a story that would have seemed utterly batshit even a couple of months ago, but now seems all too credible.

But! But! Trump’s party people have dutifully scraped the bottom of the barrel, and in doing so, have finally extracted some sort of gummy sediment willing to provide the soundtrack to The Donald’s ascension. Who’s playing? Not Ted Nugent, who one would imagine would be happy to sit down and swap stories of, um, sadly not getting to Fight for Freedom™ in Vietnam with Trump; not Kid Rock, whose brand of pickup-truck-cold-beer-casual-racism Americana seems like a perfect fit. Not even that red-white-and-blue asshole who made the months after 9/11 even worse than they already were. Nope, presumably such conservative marquee acts either wanted too much money or have some vague vestigial sense of decency (go on, guess which one.)

Instead, the line-up for the Donald Trump Very Big and Very Important Please Clap All-American Ball is as follows:

– Beau Davidson (some sort of country singer, notable for having a song called “Blessed” and eyes that are disconcertingly close to one another);
– The Reagan Years (“one of the HOTTEST 80’s cover band [sic] in the US!”);
– DJ Romin (“As of right now Romin’s current goals are to expand his reach and audience to a global level and begin traveling and performing all over the world” — that ambassadorship will no doubt come in handy, eh?);
– DJ Young Rye (one of Just Blaze’s obscure cousins, apparently);
– “DJ Freedom” (I swear I am not making this up);
– The MIXXX (“The Mixx is the Mid-Atlantic’s hottest Party Band! The Mixx is a live playlist of the biggest hits of the past 5 decades!”);
– The Star-Spangled Singers (40 likes on Facebook!);
– A Place To Be Trio – Heroes Tribute, comprising the hitherto unheralded trio of Amy Stone (“Amy finds her Cerebral Palsy to be a gift not a disorder.”), Brendan Friedrich (“Brendan’s goal is to be an announcer and America’s first blind meteorologist”) and Forrest Allen (“Forrest had a severe snow boarding accident five years ago and sustained a Traumatic Brain Injury”); and
– Buzz Aldrin (yes, that Buzz Aldrin).

The “honored guest/presenter” will be Oliver North, whose peerless ability to keep a straight face — honed by lying to Congress and a decade of calling himself a “novelist” — will no doubt come in handy. Tickets to this hilarious shitshow start at a trifling $250 if you get in quickly — but hurry, because they’re allegedly selling “at record pace”! Yes, people are apparently paying real American dollars to attend this thing; but then, perhaps that’s not entirely surprising, given that — as the website proudly notes — “America is rife with … amazing patriots.” Is it ever.
http://flavorwire.com/596334/the-line-u ... on-its-own



:rofl:

please forgive me for posting this

The Reagan Years

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TXIhB5R0744

DJ Romin

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LHNwsjULMvg


https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iKcVSc7PBSY
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Jan 08, 2017 12:53 pm

Let's Impeach Him Now: The Case for Preparing for the End of Trump's Presidency Before It Even Begins
The president-elect has already committed criminal offenses. Democrats can't let them slide.
By Heather Digby Parton / Salon January 6, 2017

If anyone thought that the new Congress might be a moderating force on the Donald Trump wrecking crew, the latest news from Capitol Hill isn’t reassuring. This headline for a story by David Weigel in the Washington Post says it all: Claiming mandate, GOP Congress lays plans to propel sweeping conservative agenda.

When the 115th Congress begins this week, with Republicans firmly in charge of the House and Senate, much of that legislation will form the basis of the most ambitious conservative policy agenda since the 1920s. And rather than a Democratic president standing in the way, a soon-to-be-inaugurated Donald Trump seems ready to sign much of it into law.

After a huge public outcry this week, even Trump questioned the timing of the new Congress’ first initiative, which was to roll back certain ethics procedures. (He wasn’t actually against the rollback, just thought it was premature.) There are also some encouraging signs that repealing the Affordable Care Act may not be quite as easy as Republicans had hoped, which could tangle them up with their followers all over again. If they can be similarly stopped or slowed from enacting the rest of their agenda, we might just get through this thing.

As Weigel reports, however, the larger agenda has been in the planning stages for a long time:

In 2012, Americans for Tax Reform’s Grover Norquist described the ideal president as “a Republican with enough working digits to handle a pen” and “sign the legislation that has already been prepared.” In 2015, when Senate Republicans used procedural maneuvers to undermine a potential Democratic filibuster and vote to repeal the health-care law, it did not matter that President Obama’s White House stopped them: As the conservative advocacy group Heritage Action put it, the process was “a trial run for 2017, when we will hopefully have a President willing to sign a full repeal bill.”

Paul Ryan asked his caucus a year ago, “Assume you get the White House and Congress. Come 2018, what do you want to have accomplished?” They basically want to accomplish a legislative revolution, virtually none of which was discussed in the last campaign.

Trump can at least hold a pen. As long as congressional Republicans let him strut around taking credit for “getting things done,” he’ll be happy to sign anything they put in front of him. Remember, Donald Trump Jr. reportedly told John Kasich’s aides, as he was trying to recruit the Ohio governor for the ticket, that Kasich would be the most powerful vice president in history, pretty much in charge of everything, because Trump would be busy “making America great again.” He has no interest in getting into the weeds of governing, so he’s happy to sign off on Mike Pence’s dream platform.

So what are Democrats to do with this? It’s already going to be an overwhelming task to fight off Trump’s worst nominees, battle back legislation that’s coming from 20 different directions and expose the mountain of scandals that are quickly piling up. The Trump train wreck is already creating a chain reaction of one explosion after another.

There are many interest groups starting to mobilize against the basket of deplorable nominees, none of whom are being adequately vetted by the transition team, and are also failing to cooperate with congressional requests. Other interest groups are trying to find some reasonable division of labor to resist the flurry of odious legislation, from healthcare to financial reform to deregulation and reversal of environmental rules, the Republicans have planned. But nobody knows exactly how the House and Senate Democrats are going to react. Will they try to cut deals for some crumbs in the legislation and then stand beaming behind the president at his signing ceremony, lending a bipartisan sheen to the carnage? If history is any guide it’s certainly possible.

There are some creative strategic thinkers out there, however, who are looking at the big picture and coming up with some exciting propositions. For instance, Robert Kuttner wrote a provocative piece for the Huffington Post, advocating for a group of experts, preferably bipartisan, to begin seriously putting together the case for impeachment:

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.

He goes on to enumerate the high crimes and misdemeanors in which Trump is already implicated, beginning with the massive corruption inherent in his continued ownership of a privately held international company, the details of which he refuses to divulge. There are also his strange and uncharacteristic fondness for Vladimir Putin and his untrammeled nepotism, just for starters.

Some people are reflexively opposed to making such a strong statement so early in the administration. But Trump is already committing impeachable offenses, and dealing with someone like this requires being well prepared to take advantage of any openings to stop him. It is certainly what the Republicans would do if the shoe were on the other foot. In fact, it is exactly what they were planning to do.

The point is to keep the pressure on and keep the focus on Trump’s ongoing corruption scandals. This will not take the place of resistance to the Pence and Ryan express, which is vital. But Democrats have got to walk and chew gum on a high wire blindfolded in this moment, and this is the kind of planning they will need if we are to survive the Trump era.
http://www.alternet.org/news-amp-politi ... ven-begins
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Jan 08, 2017 1:12 pm

Legal Battle Over Paint Bill Lingers as Trump Preps for Presidency
by TRACY CONNOR

After his election, Donald Trump quickly settled a series of business disputes — but just days before his inauguration, the president-elect's company is still waging a legal battle against a Florida shop owner over an unpaid bill.

The matter could have been settled for what amounts to pocket change for a billionaire, but the Trump Organization decided to take its chances in court.

Now Trump stands to lose hundreds of thousands of dollars. And if he wins, it could force a small businessman — one of hundreds who say they were stiffed by Trump over the years — possibly into bankruptcy.

Play Trump Contractors: 'It Was the Beginning of the End for Us' Facebook Twitter Google PlusEmbed
Trump Contractors: 'It Was the Beginning of the End for Us' 2:57
That businessman, Juan Carlos Enriquez, owner of The Paint Spot, won the first round of the legal skirmish last summer when a judge found a lien he slapped on the Trump National Doral golf resort was valid.

The court ordered Trump to pay for $32,000 worth of paint, plus nearly $300,000 in legal fees. Trump's company appealed, and barring a last-minute resolution, the case will be pending when he takes office; the deadline for final briefs is two days before he becomes the most powerful person in America.

Enriquez's lawyer, Daniel Vega, said he is not surprised it has gone this far.

"The Trump litigation team litigated this case from day one like lions on fresh meat and continue to do so now on appeal," he told NBC News.

The matter dates back to the fall of 2013 when Enriquez, who owns three Miami paint stores, was tapped by a subcontractor to supply paint for a major remodeling project at the Doral resort, owned and operated by a Trump company called Trump Endeavor.

There is no dispute that the paint was delivered and used on the property, according to court records. But after the subcontractor walked off the job weeks before completion, Enriquez didn't get a final payment.

In a deposition, a project manager for general contractor Straticon testified that he failed to get the Trump Organization to pay the balance.

"Were you trying to pay him," Vega asked the manager, Jamie Gram, during the sessions.

"I was," Gram replied.

"And what happened?"

"Somebody chose not to," Gram said.

"Who?" the lawyer asked.

"The Trump Organization," Gram said.

"Who at Trump?"

"I don't know," Gram said. "Mr. Trump. Donald Trump."

In October 2014, Enriquez filed a lien — a legal tool that can be used to recover a debt by tying up a piece of property — against Doral.

Eight months later, Enriquez filed a lawsuit against Trump Endeavor, seeking to foreclose on the 800-acre resort.

Image: Then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump drives himself around the golf course
Then-Republican presidential candidate Donald Trump drives himself around the golf course on March 6, 2016, in Doral, Florida. Luis M. Alvarez / AP
The Trump team's defense was largely technical.

It turned out that when Enriquez took the job he submitted paperwork called a Notice to Owner, which would allow him to file a lien against the property if a bill wasn't paid.

A Trump official gave him a form to work off — but it listed the general contractor for a different part of the project, and Enriquez repeated the mistake on his notice.

Gram later noticed and flagged the error. Enriquez said he would fix it but never did, court documents show.

At trial, though, Gram testified that the decision not to pay Enriquez "had nothing to do with a defective notice to owner."

He went on to explain that the bill went unpaid because the Trump Organization had already paid "a decent amount of money" to the subcontractor, M&P, before it abandoned the job. The resort used any money left over, plus additional funds, to complete the unfinished paint job, he said.

Gram's testimony appeared to distress Trump's legal team, Miami-Dade Circuit Court Judge Jorge Cueto noted in his June 2016 ruling.

"When Mr. Gram made that admission, Trump's trial attorneys visibly winced, began breathing heavily and attempted to make eye contact with him," the judge wrote.

The judge found that Enriquez had made "diligent efforts" to comply with the lien law and that being given the wrong paperwork by the Trump official was the root of the mistake. He also dismissed Trump clams that the bill was fraudulent, subtracting only $76.39 for a stepladder from the bottom line.

Cueto then dealt the Trump team a bigger blow, ruling that they had to pay Enriquez's legal costs. Because Vega had taken the case on contingency, meaning he would not get paid if they lost, the judge tacked on a multiplier to compensate him for the risk he took, nearly doubling the award to $283,949.91.

"Trump elected to fight this case 'tooth and nail' instead of resolving it for a reasonable amount, driving up Paint Spot's litigation fees and costs," the judge explained.

Play Trump business entanglements survive scandal Facebook Twitter Google PlusEmbed
Trump business entanglements survive scandal 17:57
The Trump trial attorneys did not respond to requests for comment, nor did the Trump Organization's general counsel. The attorney handling the appeal, Bruce Rogow, did not respond to a question about who should have paid Enriquez for the paint used at Doral.

"Florida Statutes on liens are very specific and the appeal seeks to enforce those statutes which would mean that there was no valid lien to begin with and therefore the plaintiff was not entitled to any relief," he wrote in an email. "That really is all that is at issue."

Rogow did not respond to a question about whether the president-elect was personally involved in the decision to appeal the judgement. A spokesperson for Trump also did not respond to questions from NBC News.

Vega said he is confident The Paint Spot will win the appeal. But if he loses, he said, Enriquez could be saddled with Trump legal fees and might face bankruptcy. Trump's attorney declined to say whether they would seek to recoup the legal fees.

Despite the stakes, Vega said he and his client were not afraid to take on the litigious billionaire.

"The Paint Spot is also owned by a proud small business owner... and he felt and we agreed that he was right factually and legally and therefore, we both decided to take on the risk," Vega said.
http://www.nbcnews.com/news/us-news/leg ... cy-n701201
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Jan 11, 2017 5:08 pm

Donald Trump Won’t Divest From His Business Interests, Opening Door To Years Of Ethics Conflicts
He will still retain an interest in the company.
01/11/2017 11:57 am ET | Updated 1 hour ago
Paul Blumenthal

WASHINGTON ― President-elect Donald Trump announced Wednesday that he would place his two sons, Donald Trump Jr. and Eric Trump, in charge of his multibillion-dollar Trump Organization.

“My two sons, who are right here, Don and Eric, are going to be running the company,” Trump said at a press conference in New York. “They are going to be running it in a very professional manner. They’re not going to discuss it with me.”

Sheri Dillon, a financial adviser at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius, said at the event that Trump’s sons would have no business-related contact with their father while he serves as president, and the company will appoint an ethics adviser to oversee any possible conflicts. The president-elect and his daughter Ivanka Trump, whose husband will become a senior White House adviser, will resign all positions in the Trump Organization, Dillon said.

Dillon added that the Trump Organization will not make any new foreign deals during his administration. The company will still pursue domestic deals.

The decision to put his two adult sons in charge of his company while the president-elect maintains a financial stake in the business will do little to alleviate concerns about the conflicts of interest he will face in office.

Norm Eisen, the top ethics adviser to President Barack Obama, laid out a simple test for Trump prior to the press conference.

“Is he turning it over all to the trustee or not?” Eisen said. “Clean break, blind trust or equivalent as every president has done for four decades. If he fails that test, he’s failing the presidency, he’s failing the American people, he’s failing the Constitution and failing all of us.”

Trump’s announcement falls far short of that standard. He will maintain a financial stake in his business, meaning that he will be subject to certain laws and constitutional provisions targeting financial conflicts of interest of the president of the United States.

At the end of his press conference, the president-elect made clear to note that he would still maintain a stake in his company that he could return to later. “I hope at the end of eight years I’ll come back and say, ‘Oh, you did a good job,’” he said. “Otherwise, if they do a bad job, I’ll say, ‘You’re fired.’”

President-elect Trump should not be expected to destroy the company he built.
Sheri Dillon, financial adviser at Morgan, Lewis & Bockius
Dillon said during the press conference that Trump did not pursue a sale of assets because any effort to sell the company would be hampered by the fact that its largest asset is the brand name associated with the president-elect.

“Selling his assets without the rights to the brand would greatly diminish the value of the assets and create a fire sale,” Dillon said. “President-elect Trump should not be expected to destroy the company he built.”

She added that Trump could not pursue a blind trust, as he knows what he owns and which buildings have his name on them. This is a point that’s been made by ethics experts, who have advocated for Trump to appoint an independent trustee to sell his assets and put the proceeds into a true blind trust.

Richard Painter, the former top ethics advisor to President George W. Bush, said that Trump’s plan for his business “does not work because he’s retained an ownership stake and all the existing conflicts of interest are in place.”

“It’s completely unprecedented,” he added, noting that every other president has extricated themselves from their business conflicts, “except for this one.”

Questions about Trump’s conflicts of interest related to his business holdings barely made noise during the presidential campaign. He was asked in debates and television interviews what he would do with his business if he won. “I would have nothing to do with my company,” he said in September. He floated handing off the business to his three adult children.

After his victory on Nov. 8, it became readily apparent that Trump, his campaign and his business had no plans for how to extricate the president-elect from business conflicts. Numerous foreign business partners attended his election-night celebration. Two of his Indian business partners came to Trump Tower to pay their respects and try to solidify new deals with the man about to assume the highest office of the United States. Trump promoted one of his partners in a phone call with Turkish President Recep Tayyip Erdogan.

In a conversation with Nigel Farage, former head of the right wing anti-immigrant United Kingdom Independence Party, Trump asked Farage to agitate against offshore wind farms in Britain. Trump has long opposed the construction of a wind farm in the waters off one of his golf courses in Scotland because he feels it will ruin the view.

Trump also appointed all three of his children to the executive committee of his presidential transition. In those positions, they helped direct policy, interviewed candidates for Cabinet positions and met with foreign dignitaries. These appointments mixed business roles with governmental and policy roles, making it impossible to avoid conflicts if any of the children were appointed to head the Trump Organization.

In November, Trump angrily denounced those reporting on his financial conflicts of interest.


And in an interview with The New York Times, Trump dismissed any concerns about conflicts of interest with his business by stating that it is not illegal if the president does it. “The law’s totally on my side, meaning, the president can’t have a conflict of interest,” Trump said.

Conflict of interest rules mandate that Cabinet officials divest from holdings that would conflict with their official duties on behalf of the American people. Those rules do not apply to the president or the vice president.

But since the adoption of these laws, every president has acted as though they have applied to their office. In addition, there are both laws and constitutional provisions that necessitate the divestment of certain business holdings to avoid legal conflicts.

Trump’s failure to fully extricate himself from his business also means that he will remain as the beneficiary of his Trump International Hotel in Washington, D.C. The hotel’s lease with the General Services Administration specifically states that an “elected official of the Government of the United States” cannot “be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom.” If Trump still retains a financial stake in the hotel, this means that he and his company will be in violation of his lease.

Since the election, the hotel has pitched its expensive luxury rooms to foreign diplomats as a way to curry favor with the incoming Trump regime. Some foreign governments, including Bahrain and Azerbaijan, and corporate lobbying groups have since held events at the hotel.

At the press conference Wednesday, Dillon announced that the Trump Organization will voluntarily direct all profits made from any foreign governments using any Trump hotel property to the U.S. Treasury. Dillon did not clarify if this meant the hotels would direct all payments to the Treasury, or only the profits.

Trump initially announced plans for a Dec. 15 press conference solely devoted to laying out plans for the Trump Organization, but postponed it as it became clear that the task would be far more complicated than initially thought.

The president-elect and his aides have made conflicting statements since then. Trump adviser Kellyanne Conway told CNN in December that “it’s a very unconventional situation.” But Trump said later in the month, “Honestly, it’s a very routine thing. It’s not a big deal. You people are making that a big deal — the business.”

The reality is that the Trump Organization is actually just a string of interlocking LLCs that each individually own specific properties and specific debt. Many of these individual LLCs are linked to one of the more than two dozen foreign business deals Trump has been engaged in over the years.

Beginning in December, the Trump Organization began to extricate itself from some foreign business deals. The company cancelled deals to license the Trump name to buildings in Brazil; Azerbaijan; Argentina; Georgia; and Pune, India.

In Brazil, a federal prosecutor opened a criminal investigation into the real estate development company that sought to license the Trump name for a Trump Tower and Trump hotel. The plan to build a Trump-named building in Buenos Aires, Argentina, faced increased scrutiny after it was reported that Trump pressed President Mauricio Macri to help get the proper permits from the city government. Both Trump and Macri denied this topic of conversation coming up in their call.

Even though these business deals were canceled, many others continue apace. Two Trump-named resorts are being developed in Indonesia by the developer Hary Tanoesoedibjo, who also runs his own political party in the world’s third-largest democracy. Tanoesoedibjo is reportedly coming to Trump’s inauguration to help solidify his business relationship with the Trump Organization.

“I have to underline that it’s a business relationship,” Tanoesoedibjo told Bloomberg in an interview on Monday. “I’m sure when he becomes president, Mr. Trump, everything won’t be much different from now.”
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/entry/don ... 7a465cdf13
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Jan 11, 2017 6:32 pm

The Latest: Ethics office chief pans Trump on businesses

President-elect Donald Trump waits with family members Ivanka Trump, left, and Donald Trump Jr. before speaking at a news conference, Wednesday, Jan. 11, 2017, in New York. The news conference was his first as President-elect. (Seth Wenig/Associated Press)
By Associated Press January 11 at 4:28 PM
WASHINGTON — The Latest on President-elect Donald Trump (all times EST):

4:20 p.m.

The head of the Office of Government Ethics is publicly slamming President-elect Donald Trump’s plans to continue profiting from his international company while he is in the White House.

Walter Shaub took the extraordinary step of saying Trump’s plan to retain a stake in the Trump Organization while his adult sons run the day-to-day operations falls short of what the OGE had advised him to do. The office counseled Trump to sell off his business assets and place the proceeds in a trust overseen by an independent manager.

Shaub says: “I wish circumstances were different and I didn’t feel the need to make public remarks today. Of Trump’s plan, he says: “It doesn’t meet the standards that the best of his nominees are meeting” and that previous presidents have followed.

Shaub says he is happy to provide Trump “constructive feedback” on how to divest his business interests.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... 7a79616772
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Wed Jan 11, 2017 9:11 pm

Opinions
Trump’s ‘blind trust’ is neither blind nor trustworthy


By Richard Painter and Norman Eisen November 15, 2016
About the authors
Richard Painter, a professor of law at the University of Minnesota, was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President George W. Bush from 2005 to 2007. Norman Eisen, a visiting fellow at the Brookings Institution, was the chief White House ethics lawyer for President Obama from 2009 to 2011.

Donald Trump must urgently rethink his plan to allow his children to run his businesses. As drastic as it may seem to him, he should instead put all his conflict-generating assets in a true blind trust run by an independent trustee. The good of his own administration, and that of the country, demand nothing less.

As former ethics counsels to Presidents George W. Bush and Barack Obama, we dealt extensively with blind trusts in the White House. More than most, we recognize that asking Trump to put his vast holdings in one of these entities is no small thing. Making a total break with his complex U.S. and international interests would be a difficult and expensive sacrifice on his part.

Every president for the past four decades has used some combination of a blind trust or widely diversified, publicly traded holdings to ensure that their decisions are conflict-free. A blind trust is defined by federal law as one in which a federal official selects an independent trustee (with no familial ties) who sells the official’s known assets and purchases investments unknown to the official. That is what makes it blind.

The president-elect and his spokespeople have instead suggested that he will allow his children to guide his enterprises while he retains all or most of the ownership interest. This arrangement has two major flaws. First, Trump will know what is in the trust. (He cannot put Trump Tower in a blind trust and then forget that he owns it.) Second, he knows the people who will be managing the assets; he is their father. This is the opposite of a blind trust. It is a demand that the American people blindly trust Trump and his family.

Here’s what he should do instead.

First, Trump should appoint an independent, professional trustee to take charge of liquidating and converting to cash Trump business holdings through an initial public offering or leveraged buyout.

Second, the proceeds of the IPO or buyout should be turned over to the trustee to be managed. The trustee can then invest these assets on Trump’s behalf. The trustee would report to Trump regularly on the value of the trust but not on what is in it. Some of the proceeds of the sale of the businesses could also be invested in U.S. treasury bonds, mutual funds and other widely diversified assets that do not create conflicts of interest with the duties of the presidency.

Why President-elect Donald Trump chose Bannon and Priebus for top White House positions Play Video2:15
The Post’s Robert Costa and Paul Farhi discuss the appointments by President-elect Donald Trump of Stephen K. Bannon as chief strategist and senior counselor and Reince Priebus as chief of staff. (Bastien Inzaurralde/The Washington Post)
Third, while Trump’s children and their spouses are dealing with any Trump business matters, he should ask them to step away from the transition team and the White House, and to not advise him or be involved in any U.S. government affairs.

Trump ally Rudolph W. Giuliani has argued that it would not be fair to cut the Trump children out of the family businesses. We understand. So if the Trump children end up having a continuing role in any of the Trump businesses, including after the sale, the new president should establish an ethics “firewall.” He should pledge not to discuss the businesses with his kids or anyone else involved. As an extra safeguard, contacts about the Trump businesses should be prohibited between all other administration officials and people involved in the businesses, including the Trump children. Except for personal communication with the president or first lady, such telephone calls and emails should be routed to White House counsel to make sure that the firewall is not breached.

The alternative approach apparently being contemplated — Trump maintaining an interest in his businesses and letting his children manage that interest — risks making his transition and his presidency the most conflicted in modern history. To take only a few examples:

Read These Comments
The best conversations at The Washington Post
Sign up
●Every time Trump makes a decision as president-elect or president, or someone who works for him makes a decision, critics will allege that it is intended to benefit the Trump businesses. This includes decisions about regulation of the financial sector and the potential dismantling of the Dodd-Frank banking law, as the Trump Organization, like most real estate empires, is heavily indebted to banks and other lenders.

●Every time an officer or employee of the Trump businesses discusses the possibility of favorable or unfavorable action by the U.S. government toward a person or entity dealing with the Trump businesses, that person could be accused of soliciting a bribe or extorting money on Trump’s behalf.

●Every time any foreign government or company controlled by a foreign government does business with a Trump entity, the president could be accused of accepting a payment in violation of the emoluments clause of the Constitution, creating a constitutional crisis that could even result in threats of impeachment.

●Every time any private party sees an opening for litigation against a Trump business entity, that person, perhaps in collusion with the president’s political opponents, could file suit, perhaps even against Trump personally, embroiling the presidency in litigation.

We hope the president-elect will “drain the swamp,” as he has pledged. Setting up a true blind trust would reassure the voters that the decisions he makes are not influenced by his personal financial interests, or those of his business empire or his family. Otherwise he risks flooding the swamp instead.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/opinions ... d074dcdca1



I guess I can post ZeroHedge....everyone else is

Trump Impeachment Now Even Odds At Bookies
Image
http://www.zerohedge.com/news/2017-01-1 ... ds-bookies




In total there are 91 users online :: 2 registered, 5 hidden and 84 guests (based on users active over the past 5 minutes)
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby divideandconquer » Fri Jan 20, 2017 10:15 am

I'm beginning to think the only reason Trump is in office is because he's the most impeachable and attention-whoring president in history. For the next four years the only news will revolve around The Donald. They won't even need to use false-flags--for distraction purposes anyway-- because Trump is nothing but a HUGE distraction as the powers behind the scenes go about their business doing god knows what...
'I see clearly that man in this world deceives himself by admiring and esteeming things which are not, and neither sees nor esteems the things which are.' — St. Catherine of Genoa
User avatar
divideandconquer
 
Posts: 1021
Joined: Mon Dec 24, 2012 3:23 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby mentalgongfu2 » Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:57 am

"Protestor" provacateurs running amok in DC on inauguration day.

https://mobile.twitter.com/BBCBreaking/status/822471093193576449/video/1
"When I'm done ranting about elite power that rules the planet under a totalitarian government that uses the media in order to keep people stupid, my throat gets parched. That's why I drink Orange Drink!"
User avatar
mentalgongfu2
 
Posts: 1966
Joined: Tue Aug 14, 2007 6:02 pm
Blog: View Blog (0)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Jan 20, 2017 12:58 pm

in a weeks time a competitor of Trump's businesses will be filling an impeachment suit
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Fri Jan 20, 2017 11:26 pm

TRUMP NOW VIOLATING CONSTITUTION
FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE
January 20, 2017 CONTACT: Jordan Libowitz
202-408-5565 | jlibowitz@citizensforethics.org

CREW STATEMENT: TRUMP NOW VIOLATING CONSTITUTION

WATCHDOG ALSO FILES COMPLAINTS REGARDING TRUMP HOTEL AND CLIMATE CHANGE WITCH HUNT

Washington, DC—As Donald Trump was sworn in as the 45th President of the United States, Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) Executive Director Noah Bookbinder released the following statement:

“Now that he has taken the oath of office, President Trump stands in violation of the Constitution’s emoluments clause. He just swore on the Bible to ‘preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States,’ but by continuing to accept payments from foreign governments, he has already failed. We do not yet know just to what extent this violation goes—because he is the first person elected to the presidency in decades to fail to clear the ethical bar of Richard Nixon and release his tax returns, much of his foreign business has remained secret. But we do know that there must be accountability for anyone, including the president, for violating the Constitution.”

In addition, after taking the oath of office, President Trump appears to be in violation of his lease on the Old Post Office—site of the Trump International Hotel, according to a complaint CREW filed today with the General Services Administration (GSA). The lease bars elected government officials from receiving “any share or part of [the Lease], or to any benefit that may arise therefrom.” Trump owns more than three-quarters of Trump Old Post Office LLC, which holds the lease.

“The lease bans elected officials from benefitting to avoid conflicts of interest with their duties,” Bookbinder said. “We know Trump likes to renegotiate contracts for better deals. If that happened here, it will be the President negotiating against the government he leads. His best interests are not the same as those of the American tax payer.”

As GSA Deputy Commissioner Michael Gelber told Congress last month, this is a standard part of their contracts to “protect the interests of the American people.” If Trump’s company does not resolve this breach of contract, GSA should exercise its right to terminate the lease.

CREW also filed a suit against the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) for failing to turn over information about possible questionnaires from Trump’s transition team seeking names of those working on climate change, which we requested under the Freedom Of Information Act (FOIA).

“We know that NOAA received our request, but have not heard anything since. The law is simple, they have to respond,” Bookbinder said. “If they have information about the Trump team’s search for climate scientists, Americans deserve to know; and if they don’t, a simple ‘no’ would suffice, but there’s no reason to withhold that information.”

CLICK HERE TO READ THE GSA COMPLAINT

CLICK HERE TO READ THE NOAA SUIT

-30-

Citizens for Responsibility and Ethics in Washington (CREW) is a non-profit legal watchdog group dedicated to holding public officials accountable for their actions. For more information, please visit http://www.citizensforethics.org or contact Jordan Libowitz at 202-408-5565 or jlibowitz@citizensforethics.org.



In First of Many, ACLU FOIA Request Seeks Information About the New President’s Conflicts of Interests


By Brett Max Kaufman, Staff Attorney, ACLU Center for Democracy
JANUARY 19, 2017 | 9:00 PM


Trump FOIA filed
During the Trump administration, our country faces an unprecedented constellation of threats to the regular oversight processes that keep the powers that be in check. Faced with attacks on journalists critical of the president as perpetrators of “fake news,” an era of one-party rule threatening healthy competition between the branches of government, the constant subversion of democratic and ethical norms, and more, the ACLU and the citizenry will unfortunately have many opportunities to provide a public check to keep our government honest.

Well, we just couldn’t wait: on Thursday, we filed our first Freedom of Information Act request of the Trump Era, seeking documents relating President Trump’s actual or potential conflicts of interest relating to his business and family connections.

Since the election, it has become clear that during the Trump administration the public’s relentless focus on government transparency will be critical to documenting and pushing back against government violations of civil liberties. While Trump has, both during the election campaign and since his Electoral College victory, threatened to violate the Constitution in numerous ways, the presidential transition brought to the fore a host of potential ethical and financial conflicts of interest that undermine the Constitution in a pervasive way: by casting doubt on the longstanding American value of the impartiality in government decisionmaking.

As ACLU Executive Director Anthony Romero said:

"Trump took the oath, but he didn't take the steps necessary to ensure that he and his family’s business interests comply with the Constitution and other federal statutes. Freedom of information requests are our democracy’s X-ray and they will be vitally important to expose and curb the abuses of a president who believes the rules don’t apply to him and his family."
The sheer number of potential ethical issues facing our new president is sobering. Bipartisan ethics experts have raised alarm bells about Trump’s many business interests across the globe. He’s reportedly in millions of dollars in debt to foreign countries or entities, including China. He faces mounds of civil lawsuits, with more on the way. His son-in-law will have a White House office, in potential violation of the nepotism laws.

DEMAND TRANSPARENCY FROM TRUMP

DEMAND TRANSPARENCY Indeed, some have even argued that upon taking the oath of office, the new president is already violating the Constitution — in particular, the now-famous Emoluments Clause. As a bipartisan quartet of ethics experts and lawyers wrote this week:

"The emoluments clause forbids any 'Person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States]' from accepting any 'any present, Emolument, Office, or Title, of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince, or foreign State' (unless Congress explicitly consents).

By 'emolument,' this provision means any benefit derived from dealing with a foreign government. It is well-settled that receipt of such emoluments is strictly prohibited for persons holding positions of trust with the U.S. government. A U.S. official need not also have an 'office' with a foreign government in order to receive an emolument from it.

The Framers included this provision in the Constitution to guarantee that private entanglements with foreign states would not blur the loyalties of federal officials, above all the president. Yet that lesson seems lost on Trump, whose continued significant ownership stake in the Trump Organization forges an unbreakable bond between Trump and a global empire that will benefit or suffer in innumerable ways from its dealings with foreign governments. Trump’s actions in office will thus be haunted by the specter (and perhaps reality) of divided interests."
That’s why we’re stepping in now, using FOIA — one of America’s most critical guarantors of government transparency and the central mechanism by which ordinary Americans can provide ongoing public checks and balances on elected officials in the political branches. We want to know how the Trump transition team and the government offices tasked with supervising ethics-related issues for the incoming administration have been thinking about and confronting these potential conflicts. In pursuit of that information, we’ve asked for a gamut of documents — legal opinions, policy advisories, communications, and more — that address them. And we aim to publish the responses so that the American public can do its job conducting broad-based democratic oversight of the new administration.

The many conflict-of-interest issues presented by Donald Trump’s assumption of the presidency threaten to undermine the public’s confidence in government, the global community’s trust in our nation’s chief executive, and even potentially our national security. With this FOIA — surely the first of many to come during the next four years — we hope to facilitate the public’s indispensable role in checking the power of our public officials.

Because remember: While the president may ordinarily play the boss on television, now that he’s taken the oath of office, he works for us.
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Sat Jan 21, 2017 11:57 am

Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Sun Jan 22, 2017 6:12 pm

Clinton Labor Secretary: Republicans In Congress Think Trump Is A Lunatic And Will IMPEACH Him

ERIC OWENS
3:51 PM 01/22/2017

Robert Reich, the Clinton-era secretary of labor, is claiming to have inside information indicating that Republicans in Congress are clandestinely planning to impeach President Donald Trump because they think Trump “is out of his mind.”

Getty Images/Dimitrios Kambouris, Getty Images/Alex Wong Getty Images/Dimitrios Kambouris, Getty Images/Alex Wong
Reich published his exclusive knowledge of the situation on Facebook Saturday morning.

The lowdown comes from a breakfast rendezvous with “a former Republican member of Congress,” Reich said.

The ex-congressman described Trump as “no Republican,” Reich said. “He’s just a big fat ego.”

Republicans in Congress will “play along for a while” with Trump to achieve smaller government: “tax cuts galore, deregulation, military buildup, slash all those poverty programs, and then get to work on Social Security and Medicare — and blame him. And he’s such a fool he’ll want to take credit for everything.”

Eventually, Reich quotes the ex-congressman as saying, Republicans in Congress will seize on “something really dumb” Trump does that “violates the law in a big stupid clumsy way.”

Congressional Republicans will then impeach Trump.

“They like Pence,” the unidentified former congressman told Reich, according to Reich. “Pence is their guy. They all think Trump is out of his mind.

http://dailycaller.com/2017/01/22/clint ... z4WWzGT2BV
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby seemslikeadream » Tue Jan 24, 2017 9:39 am

JANUARY 24, 2017
Why Impeach Donald Trump
by DAVID SWANSON

What are the grounds for impeachment?

They will likely be piling up rapidly. President Trump did use Day 1 to advise the CIA that the United States should have stolen all of Iraq’s oil. But here is a place to start. We already have a president who is violating two clauses in the U.S. Constitution, one forbidding any gifts or benefits from foreign governments, the other forbidding the same from the U.S. government or any U.S. state. This is the result of Donald Trump refusing to separate himself from major business interests as past presidents have done. Those interests will also inevitably involve Trump in violating the STOCK Act which forbids the use of non-public government information to make a private profit.

Article II, Section 1 of the Constitution states: “The President … shall not receive … any other emolument from the United States, or any of them.” This means that the President cannot receive personal financial gains from the United States government or from the governments of any of the 50 states while he is president. This restriction is absolute and cannot be waived by Congress. Trump is already in violation of it and will be more so with every law, rule, regulation, enforcement, or lack thereof that his subordinates, Congress, or any agency of the federal government enacts to the benefit of Trump’s businesses and possessions.

For example, Trump’s lease of the Old Post Office Building violates an explicit clause in the General Services Administration lease contract which states: “No … elected official of the Government of the United States … shall be admitted to any share or part of this Lease, or to any benefit that may arise therefrom.” The GSA’s failure to enforce that contract is an unconstitutional benefit to Trump.

Or, to take a state-level example: since 1980 Trump and his businesses have garnered “$885 million in tax breaks, grants and other subsidies for luxury apartments, hotels and office buildings in New York.” Continuing or increasing those subsidies puts Trump in violation of the Constitution.

Article I, Section 9 of the Constitution says that “no person holding any office of profit or trust under [the United States government], shall, without the consent of the Congress, accept of any present, emolument, office, or title, of any kind whatever, from any king, prince, or foreign state.” This is essentially the same ban as above, but applied to foreign governments.

The Trump Organization has licensing deals with two Trump Towers in Istanbul. Trump himself says, “I have a little conflict of interest, because I have a major, major building in Istanbul.” China’s state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China is the largest tenant in Trump Tower. It is also a major lender to Trump. Its rent payments and its loans put Trump in violation of the Constitution. Foreign diplomats have begun shifting their D.C. hotel and event reservations to Trump International Hotel. The Embassy of Kuwait was reportedly pressured by the Trump Organization to do so. Pressured or not, Kuwait’s business at a Trump hotel puts Trump in violation of the highest law of the land.

In November, there were reports (denied by Trump) that Trump had asked the president of Argentina for help with a building permit in Buenos Aires. Whether he did or not, and whether he receives that help or not, President Trump will be frequently granted or denied similar approval for his business ventures from numerous foreign and domestic governments.

Why punish a successful business man?

We can set aside the legality and morality of Trump’s business success, and the question of how successful he has been. A campaign to impeach him for his violations of the Constitution can hold the position that Trump is perfectly welcome to keep all of his businesses and loans. He just cannot simultaneously hold an office in which they create gross violations of the U.S. Constitution. Past presidents have sold off their assets or placed them in a blind trust. A blind trust would not, however, be blind for Trump who would inevitably learn of the approval of new towers or the sale of properties. Selling (and using a truly blind trust to do so) was Trump’s only option other than not being president. He chose not to take his only Constitutional choice.

Is this partisanship?

A great many people do anything political for partisan reasons. As I’m unable to put an end to that, it is inevitable that people will favor or oppose impeaching Trump for partisan reasons. But they need not. The above charges against Trump are unprecedented. They should apply to him and any future presidents who engage in the same abuses, regardless of party. Someone who voted for Trump as a way out of corruption should want him impeached as much as someone who voted against him for the same reason. Trump is now the worst possible “insider” — using public office for personal greed.

Is this morally worse than Secretary of State Hillary Clinton taking Saudi government and Boeing funds into her family foundation, and then working to waive legal restrictions on Boeing selling weapons to Saudi Arabia — weapons now being used to slaughter innocents? Some will think so and others not, largely along partisan lines. Personally I’m in favor of impeaching Clinton, Obama, and George W. Bush right now and imposing the penalties of a bar on holding future office and a denial of retirement benefits. But those efforts are simply not the same priority today as halting the presidency of the current president.

When I advocated for impeaching Bush I explained that if he was not held accountable his successors would expand further the abusive powers he had expanded. When I argued that Obama was in fact doing this and should be impeached, I was generally called worse things than partisan. But the longer presidents are allowed to act without a check on their powers, the more they will expand and abuse them. Numerous government officials and members of Congress would best serve the world by resigning. But the place to start is with an unprecedented and unique form and level of corruption in the single highest office in the land.

Is this personal?

A great many people focus their political interest on personalities rather than policies. They forbid themselves to praise a good action by a politician who mostly makes bad ones, or to condemn a bad one by a hero. They make heroes of whoever is not their enemy, and vice versa. They place greater importance on whether they’d like to be friends with someone than on whether that person will benefit or harm the world. Because I lack the strength to change this, many will support or oppose impeaching Trump based on whether they consider him obnoxious or inspiring. They shouldn’t and need not. President Obama oversaw activities that would have horrified his supporters had they not been so focused on his style. History does not look kindly on the impeachment of Bill Clinton for personal flaws, something the majority of the public opposed — while there were much better grounds on which to have impeached him. (History may also frown on Congress’s refusal to even attempt to impeach George W. Bush, something the majority of the public supported.)

Is the point to make Mike Pence president?

The question of who is worse, the president or the vice president, is a very different question from this one: Who is worse, President Trump in an era of total unchecked power and immunity, or President Pence in an age of popular sovereignty with the threat of impeachment looming behind every high-crime-and-misdemeanor that comes up for consideration by the White House? I believe changing the office of the presidency into one that can be lost for substantive crimes and abuses — a radical change from its current state — would be more significant than the personality, ideology, or party of the presidents who come next. I believe part of that significance would derive from the benefits of building the movement that imposes impeachment on a corrupt and partisan and reluctant Congress. Cultural change comes principally from movement building, and very little from the personalities of elected officials.

Why not impeach Trump for being a Russian agent?

Both an impeachment in the U.S. House of Representatives and a trial in the Senate will require public evidence. The case made above relies on readily available and public evidence in great abundance that will grow daily, and may very well come to include benefits from the Russian government.

In contrast, if there exists any evidence of the Russian government hacking Democratic emails or of the Russian government giving those emails to WikiLeaks, it has not been made public. If there exists any evidence of Trump being complicit in those actions, it has not been made public. You may suspect that such evidence exists. If so, it could certainly become the basis for additional articles of impeachment once it is produced. Meanwhile the content of the DNC emails could arguably form part of the basis for a case against current or former civil officers among Democrats involved in manipulating their own primary.

Why not impeach Trump for helping to destroy the earth’s climate, or many other reasons?

I’m in favor of it, yes. But it should wait at least a week or two to allow the damage to accumulate. Removing all mention of climate change from the White House website is not sufficient. And the case will never be as easy a sell to the House of Misrepresentatives. The Constitution does not prohibit destroying the earth’s climate, unless we so interpret the preamble — or so interpret the mythical language that a militarized government has rumored to exist in the Constitution creating a presidential duty to protect the country from danger.

Impeachment is a political process. Individuals and cities and towns and organizations can demand it. Representatives can pursue it. We can impeach for continuing or accelerating the destruction of our natural environment, even if presidential predecessors did the same or similar. We can impeach for war or torture or drone murders or warrantless spying or proclaiming the needs to steal oil or kill families or ban Muslims, or for any form of discrimination or cruelty that we find sufficiently intolerable. And I wish we would. But which charges can clear the hurdles of the House Judiciary, the full House, and the Senate is not a simple moral question.

Why impeach Trump when he could prevent war with Russia?

Yes, Trump seems to favor deescalating the dangerous cold war created under Obama. He may favor this for corrupt or environmentally destructive reasons. Regardless, any steps away from confrontations with nuclear governments are highly desirable. But Trump’s vision is one of greater, not lesser, militarism. His preferred targets just don’t include Russia. And impeaching Trump for abusing his power hardly sends a message to future presidents that they should pursue more wars. Holding one president accountable creates a certain level of accountability in the entire government going forward. And that tends to move us away from war, not toward it.

Is the point to empower the CIA and the corporate media?

That might be the point of going after Trump over Russian hacking rumors. The result might be a failure to impeach if there is no evidence. It might be greater hostility with Russia. And it might be a feather in the cap of a couple of institutions worthy of mountains of scorn. But these are not issues when Trump is impeached for public offenses visible to the naked eye with no spying or journalism required.

Do you really think Congress will impeach a president?

Yes, it certainly might, especially as the evidence of high-crimes-and-misdemeanors accumulates and Trump’s popularity sinks even lower than its current record level — an effect that just opening an impeachment process has usually contributed to (Bill Clinton’s unpopular impeachment being an exception to the rule). But even an unsuccessful impeachment, like Truman’s or Nixon’s can have seriously beneficial results, including ending the abuses for which Truman was almost impeached, and ending the war and presidency of Nixon.

Do you really think everything is normal and nothing radical is needed?

I think all potentially useful strategies are desperately needed and that impeachment is one of them. Others are marches, sit-ins, petitions, media production, legislation, strikes, refusals to cooperate with illegal actions, protection of those in danger, peace initiatives, local and global moves toward sustainable economies, boycotts, divestments, foreign exchanges, art work, parades, etc., etc. But a nonviolent movement seeking to overturn an abusive government would fantasize about an impeachment provision if it didn’t exist. It’s the best gift that the drafters of the Constitution gave us. Much of the rest of the document is horribly out of date, and many of the best parts of it are routinely violated. Continuing to neglect the power of impeachment would be a terrible waste.

Do you really think something as radical as impeachment is needed?

I think it’s needed in much less extreme situations than this one. If it’s not needed now, when would it be?

Wouldn’t our time be better spent holding marches or blocking pipelines or burning limos or educating children or building a new party or designing bunkers or . . . ?

Yes, there are lots of good ideas and bad. I’d like to see all of the good ones pursued, with people putting their energies where their passions and talents lie. But we cannot ignore an out of control government. Taking it (not “taking it back” since we never had it) has to be high on our list of priorities. It is still what Dr. Martin Luther King Jr. said it was 50 years ago this spring: the greatest purveyor of violence on earth. Leaving that entity in the hands of an attention-starved man who wants primarily to personally profit from it is playing with fire.

If I’ve persuaded you, or if you already agreed, please sign this petition: http://ImpeachDonaldTrumpNow.org

http://www.counterpunch.org/2017/01/24/ ... ald-trump/
Mazars and Deutsche Bank could have ended this nightmare before it started.
They could still get him out of office.
But instead, they want mass death.
Don’t forget that.
User avatar
seemslikeadream
 
Posts: 32090
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2005 11:28 pm
Location: into the black
Blog: View Blog (83)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby NeonLX » Tue Jan 24, 2017 5:45 pm

As many others have said, Drumpf is merely a symptom of a really nasty disease. The "system" is broken. But maybe having Drumpf in the Whitehouse will shine attention on the larger issue. But I dunno.
America is a fucked society because there is no room for essential human dignity. Its all about what you have, not who you are.--Joe Hillshoist
User avatar
NeonLX
 
Posts: 2293
Joined: Sat Aug 11, 2007 9:11 am
Location: Enemy Occupied Territory
Blog: View Blog (1)

Re: The Impeachment of President Donald J Trump

Postby Iamwhomiam » Tue Jan 24, 2017 7:13 pm

Ya think, Neon? Shine attention on the larger issue? OK.

Image
User avatar
Iamwhomiam
 
Posts: 6572
Joined: Thu Sep 27, 2007 2:47 am
Blog: View Blog (0)

PreviousNext

Return to General Discussion

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 46 guests