If not now, when?

More Dems sign onto bill to impeach Trump

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politics/ ... li=BBnb4R7

"Four more House Democrats have signed on to a bill to begin impeachment proceedings against President Trump after his Twitter rampage against MSNBC host Mika Brzezinski.

Yahoo News reported Saturday that 25 House Democrats are now working on the bill, which has been in the works since April. The bill's primary sponsor is Rep. Jamie Raskin (D-MD).

The bill would create a congressional "oversight" commission that could declare the president incapacitated, leading to his removal from office under the 25th Amendment to the U.S. Constitution."

How long will it take to remove a unqualified, man-child, and unfit A-Hole that managed to get elected POTUS?

Telcoman

No. But try all you'd like.

This will only end badly for the unDemocratic Party. This is a pipe dream for the old left that thinks that because they brought down Nixon, they can do it again.

How many times does the fringe left need to be told, impeachment DOES NOT mean automatic removal. Just ask Bill Clinton.

Attempt to do this and you guarantee Trump a second term.

I don't agree with the POTUS utilizing twitter...I think it's retarded....but your sole basis for impeachment is because of a tweet? Come on man, you have to do better than that! With that being said, I don't consider MSN, FOX, CNN, NBC, or any of those other "news outlets" to be credible sources. I'll stick with my international news. You've yet to explain how he is unqualified and unfit.

No, not time. Impeachment now is just wishful thinking by the media. Impeachment and conviction seems highly unlikely with the RNC controlling both the House and Senate as they are currently aligned with the "Cheato Bandito's" agenda. If the DNC regains control again in 2018 (not an easy thing in the age of gerrymandering), then impeachment seems more plausible, but not because of Trump's boorish behavior on/off Twitter. It'll more likely be due to his violating the Emoluments Clause.

Bubba1 wrote: ↑

Mon Jul 03, 2017 10:25 am

It'll more likely be due to his violating the Emoluments Clause.

Yeah, another long shot pipe dream. Seriously, there's a better chance that Obama will be charged with violating the Logan Act than Trump being charged for violating the Emoluments Clause (btw, Obama violated it, but nobody cared).

So, do you have any kind of proof that Obama violated the Logan Act?

As much evidence as there is for charging Trump with violating the Emoluments Clause.

You're avoiding the question. But ok, the evidence for the Emoluments Clause is actually on record. I'm guessing you get your news from Fox News, as they're not covering it. First, Mr. Trump has refused to either divest ownership in his companies or put them into blind trusts. Instead he has announced that his sons are running his companies, who also happen to work for him. That is not a blind trust. That's Economics 101. Next, the Trump DC hotel, that he still owns, has already publically declined to document how much they've been making off foreign governments that pay to use their hotel. That's a direct violation of the Emoluments Clause. Hair President will not get impeached for it, much less convicted while the Republicans control both houses of Congress. If the Democrats had control, he'd already be impeached by now. That's US politics. Ok, Rogue, now it's your turn. Time for you to provide some actual evidence.

OMG, why is Fox news the go-to boogieman for anyone not drinking the DNC Kool-aid? Not that it should matter but I don't watch Fox, I watch NBC.

So the left's principal complaint is that the Trump family owns hotels and foreigners are paying to stay there? Since you suggested I stop watching Fox, how about you stop reading the Washington Post and Huffington Post? They've distorted and twisted the true meaning of the Emoluments Clause to fit their political narrative.

History lesson: President George Washington asked a British official to help find renters for his land: “On Dec. 12, 1793, Washington wrote to Arthur Young, an officer of the U.K. Board of Agriculture … The president asked for Young’s help in renting out his Mount Vernon lands to secure an income for his retirement. Not finding customers in America, he wondered if Young, with his agricultural connections, could find and organize some would-be farmers in his home country and send them over.” Wow, a sitting President contacted a foreign dignitary asking for his help in securing renters for his land. Wonder why he wasn't impeached?

The creation of the Emoluments Clause was over concern about GIFTS to officials from foreign powers. Do you have any proof Trump's been given GIFTS from foreign dignitaries? I'm sure the FBI would be interested if you do. Making money off renting rooms is NOT a receipt of a gift, it's a business transaction, or as you blithely pointed out it's Economics 101. Please don't give me the 'we need to see his tax returns' shtick, as that's right up there with the birther stuff.

Sadly we're getting a preview of what's to come in the next election cycle. The Democrats are moving heaven and earth to stop/derail Trump, and that will be the message they put out at election time, "Stop Trump." I didn't vote for Trump, and frankly I don't see a compelling reason to vote for anyone in a political party who's singular message is "We Need To Stop Trump."

1. The answer to your question is yes, the "gifts" or profits came from FOREIGN corporations controlled or owned by those countries, or the governments directly, via their embassies and/or individual dignitaries.
2. Gifts can take the form of profits to the politician's owned entities. The basic principle absolutely still applies as written by our founding fathers despite Trump not being around back then, though his hair might date that far back.
3. Evidence comes in the form of transaction records, easily subpoenaed. And trust me, the FBI and CIA aleady know. The only form of punishment for this type of abuse is impeachment, a political process. And an RNC majority in Congress stops it from even starting.
4. The story came out from more center and left leaning outlets than just wp, so based on your response it seems logical to assume you get your news from right leaning outlets that did not report it. It also sounds like you follow the Trumpian philosophy about news. It's fake unless it benefits your cause..
5. I also disagree about the Dems moving heaven and earth to derail Trump. They have limited power due their dreadful performances during elections ever since they pushed thru ACA without a single RNC vote. Though I do agree they need to put together a better message than "Trump sucks" if they want to gain more influence. But luckily for the DNC, the RNC is acting equally inept as the DNC at governing and has been shooting themselves in the foot with their even worse proposed partisan tax cut...er...healthcare plan.
6. Once again, and most importantly, you have STILL not supplied a single shred of evidence that Obama violated the Logan Act. It's like I'm discussing this stuff with Rogue-anne Conway here. If you don't have any actual proof, then perhaps it's time to admit it.
or to sum it up....
[youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0YIJQ1jgEI[/youtube]



7. Finally, as far as NBC news, I think Hallie Jackson is kinda cute.

Only 7.5 more years of the incessant crying butthurt babies. I can't even imagine what it would be like to have facebook anymore.

Uh, both sides are incessant crying butthurt babies, but it's easy to imagine life without FB. There'd be a lot less political lies publicized, fewer selfies, and fewer pictures of prepaed foods that almost no one cares to see.

Rep. Sherman of California introduces articles of impeachment against Trump

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/politi...NZF?li=BBnb7Kz

"LOS ANGELES —Rep. Brad Sherman, D-Calif., has introduced articles of impeachment against President Donald Trump, making good on a promise he made to move the process forward.

Sherman, an 11-term Democrat who represents part of the San Fernando Valley, was the first to draft and circulate articles of impeachment last month. He formally introduced the measure, HR 438, on the House floor Wednesday afternoon.

The measure accuses Trump of obstruction of justice and seeking to "use his authority to hinder and cause the termination" of an investigation into former national security adviser Michael Flynn, including "through threatening, and then terminating, James Comey."

Rep. Al Green, D-Texas, who had previously held a joint news conference with Sherman supporting the effort to impeach Trump, was the only co-sponsor of the measure.

Sherman had previously said no other members had signed on to support his proposal. After House Democratic leaders expressed concern about his effort, Sherman said he assured House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi that he wouldn't ask for a floor vote on impeachment without consulting the Democratic caucus."

Telcoman

Seems like the DNC is doing a similar waste of legislative time the as RNC's monthly attempts to repeal ACA when they knew lacked the votes to pass it, especially while the DNC controlled both houses. And people wonder why nothing gets done in Congress.

Bubba1 wrote: ↑

Thu Jul 13, 2017 2:00 am

And people wonder why nothing gets done in Congress.

You mean like all the time wasted on Benghazi?

Telcoman

IF as you allude making a profit on the sale of an item is is a 'gift', then the copies of Obama's book purchased by members of the Canadian government would fall under that definition. So a foreign agent pays to stay at a Trump hotel and somehow that's a 'gift' to Trump, and the foreign agent got what in return, a bath towel perhaps?

Could you please direct me to the actual law and the legal rulings that uphold said law that says profits are gifts? Surely it's buried somewhere in the 74,608 pages of the federal tax code?

I get my info from a variety of sources. CNN: Trump's businesses aren't a violation of Constitution. The word "emoluments" is limited to benefits derived from one's office. Says who? Says the Supreme Court, for one.

Whether Obama or even Mike Flynn may have violated the Logan Act is pretty much a moot point as just about all legal experts consider the law is unconstitutional.

2 last thoughts about the Logan Act

1. you STILL have yet to provide any examples of Obama violating it. Time's up. Perhaps it's time you admit you got snookered by some right wing fake news. Shockingly both sides do it, not just liberals.

2. If you acknowledge the Logan Act is "unconstitutional", then why on earth are you arguing that Obama is guilty of it (and without any proof)?. Again, [youtube]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Z0YIJQ1jgEI[/youtube]

So tell me again, how are you going to get your way with Mike Pence taking the hot seat in the event that DJT was ever impeached (protip: he won't)?

Be constructive and compromising. Both sides. We all have to share this rock floating through space at 390 KM/sec. With that said, we've had worse presidents and we've had better presidents. The continuous bashing is definitely helping noone. Likewise for RNC opposing Obama and so on and so forth for US, nay, human history.

It does seem more than a coincidence that the "worst" presidents in history happened during an era whenwe had the worst, most uncooperative partisan Congresses in history. why we as voters keep re-electing the same awful people that we know put party before country is beyond me.

Bubba1 wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:41 am

why we as voters keep re-electing the same awful people that we know put party before country is beyond me.

Damn good question ... we are pathetic as voters!

Z

Bubba1 wrote: ↑

Fri Jul 14, 2017 8:41 am

It does seem more than a coincidence that the "worst" presidents in history happened during an era whenwe had the worst, most uncooperative partisan Congresses in history. why we as voters keep re-electing the same awful people that we know put party before country is beyond me.

I belive you answer your own question there. But just incase. A lot of voters vote for party before country hence why u keep havng the same officials elected.

A lot of voters vote for party before they even do their own self interests, what our schools have given us now.

It's pretty sad to hear all the Trump voters in Appalachia brag about voting for him then in the next second hope he will lift a finger to protect their Medicaid. There will be much pain there.......

American jobs week, where several Trump businesses file H2Bs with the government to hire foreign workers..................where else but in America, the stupid country.

I told people I give it 2 years before impeachment when he was elected............Trump however is performing better than expected, we'll be ramping that up I think.

We are moving in that direction!

Looking for normalcy in Washington? Don’t look to Trump and his White House.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/politics ... litics_pop


By Dan Balz Chief correspondent July 21 at 3:27 PM

"Anyone searching for signs of normalcy in President Trump’s administration would have come up empty this week. Instead, the president used his days to demonstrate disdain for the structures of constitutional government, a misunderstanding of the proper powers of the presidency and a continued willingness to disrupt his own operation.

Friday’s dramatic staff shake-up was only the culmination of a turbulent week in the Trump presidency, one that also included a remarkable presidential scolding of Attorney General Jeff Sessions, an apparent warning to special counsel Robert Mueller, and the dramatic collapse of the Senate health-care bill that produced an exhortation by Trump for the senators to get back to work — without offering constructive ideas of his own.

These were new and ominous signs of an administration that remains adrift and of a president frustrated with almost everything and everyone around him. Together, they portray a president who appears to believe that if he can only put the most loyal people in the most critical jobs, his troubles will somehow disappear. That, too, is a misunderstanding of the situation in which he now finds himself.

Take them one at a time, starting with the White House staff changes. Out the door went Sean Spicer, the embattled press secretary who always had a tenuous relationship with the president and who was cast into one of the most difficult positions in the White House. Trump has long been unhappy about critical news coverage, and the blame often fell on Spicer’s shoulders and his press operation, to his undoing.

In as communications director came Anthony Scaramucci, the financier and hedge fund operator who has been one of the president’s most combative public defenders. Scaramucci was one of the few big-time fundraisers who went all in for Trump almost immediately after Trump clinched the GOP presidential nomination.
President Trump reacts as he leaves after a meeting with survivors from the USS Arizona in the Oval Office of the White House in Washington, D.C., July 21, 2017. (Carlos Barria/Reuters)

[Spicer resigns as White House press secretary, Scaramucci to be communications director]

Scaramucci is a loyalist to be sure with the same kind of New York-inspired confidence often projected by the president. He has no formal background for the responsibilities that traditionally come with the post he now holds, but Trump will serve as the communicator-in-chief regardless.

The arrival of Scaramucci appeared to undercut White House Chief of Staff Reince Priebus, who was closely allied with Spicer from their days at the Republican National Committee and who, like Spicer, has been in an embattled position for months. Scaramucci expressed his friendship with Priebus on Friday when addressing reporters in the White House briefing room and dismissed reports that the two were at odds.

Still, Spicer is the second key ally Priebus has lost from the White House staff he helped assemble. Earlier, he lost Katie Walsh, who was a deputy White House chief of staff. She will soon be returning to the RNC, where she previously served as Priebus’s chief of staff.

Yet Friday was only one of the shocks of the week. Earlier, in a remarkable interview with three New York Times reporters, the president attacked Sessions and Mueller, who is leading the Russia investigation. Privately, according to separate reports in The Post and the Times, Trump also has been rearranging his legal team due to his personal dissatisfaction and asking about his powers to pardon those now under investigation while some advisers plot a strategy apparently designed to discredit the special counsel and members of his unit.

[Trump team seeks to control, block Mueller’s Russia investigation]

The president’s concerns about the Russia investigation are real and perhaps justifiable. His comments about Sessions and Mueller are only the latest data points highlighting the degree to which he is obsessed with the investigation and would like to find a way to contain it, control it, shut it down or otherwise make it disappear.

So far as president he has fired an acting attorney general (Sally Yates), fired an FBI director (James B. Comey) and belittled one of his earliest allies for doing the proper thing in recusing himself from the Russia investigation. Sessions was forced to do that because he had compromised himself by not giving full and accurate testimony to the Senate during his confirmation hearings. Trump does not seem to understand why Sessions had to recuse himself.

He also seems to believe that had Sessions not taken that step, Mueller would not be where he is today. It’s true that by recusing himself, Sessions left Rod J. Rosenstein, the former career prosecutor who is now deputy attorney general, with oversight over the FBI’s Russia investigation, and it was Rosenstein who appointed Muller. But it was Comey’s firing, a decision in which Sessions participated, that brought Mueller into the picture.

Interestingly, Trump also now blames Rosenstein for the decision to fire Comey. That is a 180-degree reversal on an earlier 180-degree reversal by the president and his White House about the circumstances that led to that controversial and consequential decision.

Rosenstein and Sessions initially were cited as the reason Comey was dismissed, with the White House pointing to Rosenstein’s memo that outlined a bill of particulars against Comey for his handling of the investigation into Hillary Clinton’s emails and later testimony before Congress. Trump undercut that claim days after Comey was fired, saying he had already decided to get rid of the FBI director before receiving the recommendation from Sessions and Rosenstein. Now he tells the Times that Rosenstein made him do it.

All of this angst that Trump displays over the Russia probe portends an inevitable and potentially explosive collision between the presidency and the Mueller investigation, unless there is some pulling back on the part of the president, which is not in his character. Mueller, by all indications, continues to plow ahead and is digging into areas that increasingly could come close to the president or his family.

Meanwhile, after the collapse of the Republican health-care bill in the Senate, the president issued a series of conflicting statements about what he thought should happen next. He summoned GOP senators to lunch at the White House and made comments that once again showed limited patience with the legislative process and limited knowledge of details of the bill that have tied up the senators.

Throughout the Senate process, Trump has been a mostly minor player. The powers of the presidency had little impact on the various senators who have problems with the bill. To the extent he has been an influence on the legislative battle, it often has been negative — sending signals contrary to what congressional leaders wanted or needed from the White House. He conveys impatience with the inevitable ups and downs of drafting and passing complex legislation. As in other areas, he tries to use cheerleading, generalities and sometimes outright misstatements as a substitute for real leadership.

The president has now crossed the six-month mark of his presidency. He is the same now as he was on Inauguration Day, the same as he was 53 weeks ago when he accepted the Republican nomination. But the successes he imagined coming his way largely have not, even as the Russia investigation has clouded his presidency in ways he never imagined. The past few days have demonstrated his unhappiness, and that’s not likely to be eased by shuffling the personnel ranks of his administration. Bigger things are at work.

Eventually Trumps tax returns will be made public and things will then really get very interesting.
Trump during the campaign enjoyed riling up his crowds to chant "lock her up" referring to Hillary but it may not be too far in the future when a majority of the American people begin to chant "Lock him up"

Drip, Drip, Drip

Tick, Tick, Tick

Telcoman

I like the REPUBLICAN take on PBS today on the latest Trump 'erroneous wanderings' to the 'failing' NY Times. If it's failing and so bad then why does he go there??? Or more statements that say one thing then the other in same sentence. The man does NOT have a firm grasp on reality other than in terms of how to hurt people.

Anyway, he was described as 'making everyone that works with him WORSE in whatever they do' and a perfect description of his best skills. HE is NEVER the problem, it always being somebody else when they look like idiots for espousing his crazy beliefs. Momma taught me long ago to not look at that, rather look at the common denominator there, the one person who ties all those bad choices together, if you want to find the true cause of problems. Keep on changing the personnel Don, it will only choke you further and further.

The statement about Trump's 'disturbingly incoherent' thinking was a real gem........................

I have to admit, I did enjoy the brief tenure of "the Mooch". The comedy fodder he provided late night comedians in such a short amount of time was "unpresidented". I know there are there are Ivanka fans who feel she could be a viable 2020 candidate. But one little tidbit. Guess who recommended 'da Mooch for that job ? yep, Ivanka Trump.