CNN is reporting that Trump ORDERED officials to defy law and BLOCK Migrants - IMPEACHABLE OFFENSE!

[Vinnie From Indy]

Sources tell CNN's Jake Tapper that President Trump insisted on reinstating broader family separation policies and sought to close the port of El Paso, Texas. Ultimately, acting White House chief of staff Mick Mulvaney seemed to have been able to talk the President out of closing the port.

On Friday, during a visit to Calexico, Calif., Trump told border patrol agents behind the scenes not to let any migrants in and, if ordered to by a judge, to respond, “Sorry, judge, I can’t do it. We don’t have the room,” two sources told CNN.

When the agents later asked their commanding officers about the remarks, their superiors said policy was to obey the law and that they would face personal liability if they complied with Trump's orders, according to the network.

Nielsen pushed back on the idea, arguing that closing down the ports would simply shut down legal commerce and travel while migrants entered between the ports. Trump reportedly responded “I don’t care,” according to two people in the room, CNN reports.


https://thehill.com/latino/437914-trump-told-border-patrol-to-defy-law-block-migrants-report


This is an impeachable offense. Ordering an underling to commit a felony is a felony.

[doompatrol39]

1. Add it to the list...

...I'm sure they'll get right on it!

[LonePirate]

28. Exactly. One more makes no difference. He has to commit one which will compel Repubs to convict him.

[ehrnst]

44. Indeed. The Senate Repubs are his Sgt Schultz. (nt)

[Smackdown2019]

58. No, but col klinks

Schultz was actually on the American side.... I watched all of Hogan heroes shows and schultz on cared about staying out of the war, trouble and strudels.

Rep senators are col klinks that sceme to get a head and make money no matter whose toes they step on....

But, it should be added to the book of impeachments Trump has committed. At this stage, UN should file charges on him!

[ehrnst]

70. I was just thinking "I know nothing, I saw nothing..." (nt)

[atreides1]

52. The only thing that will compel the Republicans

Is the destruction of those ledgers that show who got money and the amount they received from foreign donors!!!


As long as Trump has access to information showing payoffs to Republicans in Congress, he could shoot a 2 year old Honduran child, on national TV and he would still get away with it!!!!

[malaise]

2. The Con believes he is above the law

Lock him up

[Blue_true]

9. With a morally blind AG in place, he likely is. nt

[Volaris]

26. He also clearly doesn't understand how court ORDERS work ...

They're not fucking SUGGESTIONS

'Your Honor, I think we don't have room...we just don't have the room.'

'Oh, well fuck me; jeez I wish you had said so in the first place..yeah guys, go ahead with whatever you gotta do, it's cool with the Judicial System.'

LOL...NO. Judges tend to get right riled about such caviler attitudes toward the purpose of their Branch. Congressional majorities...ehh...you can 'play the politics' of fucking around with them for a while, and probably be ok in the short term.

Federal fuck judges, not so much...

[malaise]

27. I worry about the extent to which ReTHUGs have corrupted the courts

We shall see - I still believe the Con will be the loser but I can't wait for his downfall.

[pangaia]

141. "I worry about the extent to which ReTHUGs have corrupted the courts"

Me too too too..
And it is getting worse by the day..
Suddenly we will realize they HAVE the coyrts.
The it is game over.

[malaise]

142. Judges can be impeached and nothing is ever that simple

Count on a major scandal involving more than a few of them - I'd check out ownership in private prisons for starters

[onit2day]

81. Impeachment throws a wrench into all his criminal dealings. Can't wait

[malaise]

106. Same here

[anarch]

108. the fact that he is still where he is says to me that there really isn't any law

Oh sure, we have lots of police around to keep the little people in line and protect the status quo, but that's only "law enforcement" when it's convenient. It really boils down more to being "protection of property and capital." The rich have always been a bit "above the law"--that's what the word "privilege" means...a "private set of laws" for the wealthy and powered classes. This current bunch of bastards has just decided not to even bother trying to hide it.


At any rate it seems we in America have collectively lost all integrity when it comes to being a nation of laws. I think it's going to be a rough road ahead for what used to be the U.S.

[malaise]

109. Sadly it does appear this way

I am still expecting justice for America
ITTMF!

[Tommy_Carcetti]

3. Every day it's an impeachable offense.

We're stuck in some weird twilight zone where a President keeps on committing impeachable offenses in plain sight and never seems to suffer any repercussions.

[orangecrush]

67. This.

[Laura PourMeADrink]

112. You shouldn't use the I word. It's just too divisive. It

Is so much better to just look the other way. The general public doesn't like us bringing up silly ole law breaking. Geesh.

[ehrnst]

119. You may not know that impeachment is a political process, not a criminal justice process.

The general public doesn't seem to know that, and seems to want a "Benghazi" type pointless investigation that makes the target look like they are the subject of a witch hunt, and when they come out of it with no charges, get a bump in ratings.

Perhaps the general public doesn't know that the Senate is held by the GOP and there is no way they would vote to remove him, so impeachment would be picking a fight that Democratic leaders know we can't win, and would result in handing a 'victory' to DT.

But I guess it's so much better to look the other way when Dem leaders do their job, and demand a televised defeat for Democrats.

Geesh.

[ehrnst]

118. Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal justice process.

The Constitution requires a Senate majority that wants to remove him. That does not exist at this time.

Impeaching under that circumstance, especially without evidence of a serious crime that the public would press the GOP on, it would be nothing more than a Democratic "Benghazi" investigation, something that only accomplishes throwing red meat to the base.

In this case, however, DT beating impeachment would be red meat for the GOP base, as well. They would see him as victorious over a partisan witch hunt.

Who wants to hand him that, with no chance of removing him?

[calimary]

129. So basically we should just shrug and "let this one go"

to use the phrase The Asset used while leaning on Comey to turn a blind eye to Mike Flynn’s betrayals?

I’m just concerned about what will be in the history books. We have it in the books and on the books that Clinton was impeached basically for lying about a sex act with a consenting adult. The Dem-controlled Senate did not vote to convict, so the CONS who owned the House weren’t able to remove him from office. And, granted, with the GOP owning this Senate, even if this Democratic House impeached, we’d likely see the same outcome.

But that impeachment stuck. It’s there on President Clinton’s historical record - for all time. For a comparatively insignificant offense - basically because that’s all they could get him on after a four-year inquisition and 60 or 70 million taxpayer dollars going through everything they thought they could find, short of combing through his bellybutton lint?

So what’s the choice then? Must we let trump skate? With no such blemish on his record in the history books? Without that punitive asterisk by his name that denotes his inclusion on that particular “wall of shame”?

With all due respect, my friend, I can’t agree. I don’t think we should just let that one go. Or let trump skate. And yes I know the cost could be high in the next election.* This wasn’t some stupid peccadillo with a consenting adult. He and his were in bed with the fucking RUSSIANS (also known as a HOSTILE FOREIGN POWER)

* I put an asterisk in to add one BIG point about why now is not necessarily, and need not necessarily be, a history-repeating-itself scenario. Conditions are different now. It’s been said that if Nixon had had a Pox Noise behind him as trump now has, he’d have survived Watergate and served two full terms. I think that’s a fair assumption.

But guess what WE have? A reawakened, organized, and energized grassroots platform. A “supergroup” so to speak, of activated forces under the Indivisible banner. The Indivisible movement is well established by now, flowering in every Congressional district in America.

We’re really on it, in my Individible group. We issue directed and well-researched “call to action” emails every week. We meet with our somewhat unruly Congressman every month. We have two “Postcard Parties” a month to put our directives to our House and Senate Reps in writing, we partner with the larger neighboring Indivisible Oregon chapter in multiple ways, and we even have one of our own running for school board next month. Our Direct Action committee chair has been reaching out to other progressive groups and he reported to our leadership meeting yesterday that the reaction is enthusiastic across the board. They want to team up with us. Eager to do so. We’re not rolling over and giving up or going back to sleep.

And similar stuff is going on from coast-to-coast. Indivisible has been publicly credited for the successful blue wave last November that washed 40 republi-CONS out of the House of Reps and gave Democrats the majority again. In our little neck of the woods, we bolstered the re-election of Governor Kate Brown and flipped a state House district in our own backyard.

Dems didn’t have a powerful backing infrastructure during the Bill Clinton persecution, until it was already underway and grassroots efforts started sprouting to lobby Congress to move on. That eventually crystallized into what we now know as MoveOn.org.

So we have tools now. We have muscle now. We also have a track record of the old slogan “getting things done”. Flipping the House of Reps and an army of other improvements at the stage and local level across America, for example. The “Big Woke”, as it were, is on OUR side this time.

Sorry about the length...

[fascisthunter]

4. and the GOP will do nothing about it

because their end-game was always to take over permanently. Just like a corporate take-over. These weirdos believe in this crap. Fools who sold out their immediate responsibilities for a future they will never have. And now they deserve it.

[slumcamper]

54. Maybe. But to be certain, DEMS must do something first.

I get your point, and you're likely correct. Weirdos seeking permanent power--definitely plenty of RWers with that motive.

I think it's well past time to call their bluff. IMPEACH on so many counts they are too numerous to mention. And seize the narrative. And put the onus on the GOP.

Let's see their true color. My money is on yellow.

[onit2day]

82. Mueller report, Trumps taxes all get released under impeachment hearings

It will stop his move towards war as well. We must impeach before it is too late. Only people like, him support him. Impeach him now.before he turns dictator completely.

[MyOwnPeace]

76. Mitch keeps proving it, doesn't he?

And yes, it needs to be continually thrown at them. Not that anything will happen until the next election or somebody breaks the silence and blows the cover of where all the money has gone to the Repug leaders.

[Polly Hennessey]

5. Yet he continues to do it because

no one stops him. I thought we were a country of laws. Yet, because he is President he can do what he wants. Are our elected representatives afraid to do anything. Credit to the commanding officers for reminding their agents to follow the rule of law.

[uponit7771]

6. I don't think people understand how deflating this is

Last edited Mon Apr 8, 2019, 07:51 PM - Edit history (1)

[Blue_true]

10. I don't think you understand how little Dem leadership can do.

Please stop blaming democrats. Republicans have packed the Courts and hold the Senate and the Presidency.

Why don't you assign the correct blame to people like Susan Sarandon, Cornell West and the "vote my principles" morons that gave republican's a leeway for seizing strong control of the levers of government. Of course you won't blame them, because "Dem leaders" are just so convenient.

[triron]

17. I see his point. I am impatient already with Nadler.

Last Wednesday the judiciary voted to subpoena the entire Mueller. Today is 5 days
later and still nada.

[Blue_true]

20. When that vote was taken, it was taken with the understanding that Nadler

would give Barr until an April date to produce the report is full. I don't remember what that date was, maybe that date has not passed.

[RobertDevereaux]

42. April 2nd if I recall correctly.

[Takket]

64. that was schiff's deadline. Barr made his own promise of mid april sometime...

having computed how long it takes one person, working 2 hours a day, to redact 300 pages of material

[ehrnst]

65. So.... should have happened WAY earlier, clearly.

Have you called his office and demanded to know why he is deliberately delaying this?

Let us know when you find out.

[uponit7771]

29. Red Don can be impeached for emolument violations RIGHT NOW! We're not asking to string him

... by his toes while removing him from office just more accountability.

[defacto7]

48. I'll go with stringing him by his toes.

[ehrnst]

66. If that's true, then why isn't Nancy doing that?

If that's so obviously the solution, then why hasn't it been done?

If you think it's simple, then it must be. Right?

What's holding them up? You think Nancy really secretly likes Trump?

Any ideas?

[uponit7771]

102. She doesn't believe the Russians were effective in their campaign in 16. If Pelosi understood the ..

... efficacy she'd want him out of office right now seeing Red Don is de-funding the means to keep the Russians out of the 2020 elections.

[ehrnst]

117. What are you even talking about?

Nancy Pelosi doesn't believe Russians effectively interfered in 2016 election? Is there another Nancy Pelosi you're talking about other than Speaker Pelosi?

Pelosi calls for independent committee to investigate Russian interference
House Minority Leader Nancy Pelosi (D-Calif.) called March 30 for a bipartisan and independent committee to investigate alleged Russian interference in the 2016 presidential election.

“It’s very interesting to see the kinds of people the president of the United States surrounded himself with,” Pelosi told reporters. “This connection to the integrity of our elections is obviously something we have to get the truth about.

https://thehill.com/homenews/house/426970-pelosi-responds-to-stone-indictment-interesting-to-see-the-kinds-of-people

What makes you think that she doesn't want him out of office right now? What makes you think that she doesn't know as much as you do about what is and is not possible, and what would make him look like a victim of partisan politics?

It's clear she has way more experience and knowlege than you do concerning this. More than anyone else, actually. I'll trust her judgement, because I know enough to know what I don't know.

[Kurt V.]

116. Yes. She's afraid to rile up trumps base. for me, that's not good enough.

[ehrnst]

125. "Afraid" to rile up Trump's base? Her being female riles up Trump's base...

Remember her response to being told that first time Democrats were running on opposing her for speaker? "Do what you need to do. Just win, baby!" Fear isn't something she's known for, but savvy is.

Maybe you are misunderstanding her 2018 statement that she wasn't going to hand GOP candidates in the mid-terms the soundbyte that voting for a Democrat would be bad for Trump because they will impeach him the minute they are in the majority....

She's doing more for the Democrats than any speaker in history. "Afraid" isn't in her vocabulary.

You think that she should start an impeachment process that will fail to remove him without support from GOP senators? Isn't that what the Benghazi "investigation" was? Intended to be red meat for their base, but instead backfired, and showed the world HRC's stamina, intellect, temprament, command of the facts, nerves of steel and sense of humor.

Why waste enormous amounts of time and resources on an impeachment (which by the way, they are prepared to launch the minute the minimum number of GOP senators might be willing to remove him) when there are cabinet members to investigate, judge nominations to block, and LEGISLATION TO BE PASSED, and health care to try to protect.

I personally would prefer to support them in doing what is actually possible, because we don't have time and resources to waste. I don't require red meat, bread and circuses, or gladiator for distraction.

Nancy knows more than all of us put together about procedure, legal options and herding cats through the legislative process.

[uponit7771]

133. THIS !!!!

[Demsrule86]

12. Stop blaming Democrats.

Maybe some will consider voting for the nominee in 20 and not put us in this situation.

[Blue_true]

21. Bingo!!!!!!!

People don't vote for democrats in critical elections then wonder the fuck what happened. Maybe they should start by looking at how some people vote.

[Demsrule86]

84. If you knee cap Democrats ...what do they expect.

[uponit7771]

31. You believe we have 2 years, I don't think we have 2 more hours ...

[ehrnst]

56. Do you have some sort of magic wand to make the GOP Senators become ethical in the next 2 hours?

Wringing one's hands and complaining about people being honest instead of telling hopeful fairy tales doesn't accomplish anything, does it?

If you can't endure two more hours, then I guess we won't be seeing you here tomorrow, will we?

The rest of us, however, will go on facing the facts without wailing and shutting down and lashing out Dem leaders, but doing what we can with what we have, in the real world. Some are cut out to resist, and some aren't, I guess.

Your choice. I hope you decide to to join us.

You are going to need to learn to cope with disappointment, however.

[Demsrule86]

92. Great post...well done.

[uponit7771]

100. No, we have the law to enforce and then start putting them in jail. They'd do that to us in a second

... calling them in contempt of congress and put them in jail.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

86. I have sometimes wondered

If the choice for the population lay between freedom and a comfortable life in a fascist country which would they choose ?

[Demsrule86]

93. That is a good question...as long as you belong.....quite a nice life.

I believe I would choose freedom.

[Demsrule86]

91. We have no way remote Trump from office, The GOP will not convict even

If we impeach.And we could end up giving him another term if we generate sympathy with impeachment. I am frustrated too. He is dangerous.

[uponit7771]

101. Conviction and removal are a red herring to impeachment. Let the voters see who are going to keep

... an impeached president in office.

Republicans did their job with Clinton and won in 2000 and Red Don is not anywhere as popular as Clinton and will never be.

[ehrnst]

170. GOP Senators care about what Trump voters think so that's *why* they will keep him in office.

It does not matter that they are in the minority - they have the Senate majority.

You know that Watergate took two years, right? You know how long it is until the 2020 elections?

[uponit7771]

173. Watergate "INVESTIGATION" took two years, the house didn't take two years after they got the

... investigation report.

[ehrnst]

63. Thank you.

The gnashing of teeth and sky is falling defeatism was getting very cloying.

[Demsrule86]

79. Cloying is the word.

[ehrnst]

51. I heard that in 2001 about Gore just "giving up" when SCOTUS ruled against him.

As if Democrats were owed a futile, expensive, pointless raging by Gore because the SCOTUS ruling was deflating.

Gore, however understood that there was no higher court than SCOTUS to appeal to and got on with something that did accomplish something - teaching the world about the dangers of climate change.

Democrats refusing to go tilting at windmills in front of the press should not deflate us - it should make us encouraged that they aren't wasting their time on such theatrics, and are doing their damn job.

[Blue_true]

75. If just 1,000 people in Florida had voted for Gore instead of wasting a vote

on Nader, the world would likely look very different today. This is the issue that I have about the "vote my principles" assholes, they have NO introspection, they can't ever imagine that their stupidity helped create the situations that they rail against. So Bush gets elected and want to go into Iraq, given the information that they had, Hillary and Biden make the best vote possible. Bush creates a clusterfuck and Hillary gets blamed for her vote, as will Biden. But the "vote my principles" MORONS!!!! never think about what better situation would have happened with Gore in the Oval Office if they had gained some commonsense and voted for him. Gore would have paid attention to months of intelligence saying that Bin Laden was planning an attack. Maybe there would not have been a 9/11 or Afghan or Iraq war. There most likely would not have been a 2008 financial meltdown. It is all what ifs, but one thing that I have seen over and over is that the "vote my principles" morons can't fucking get over themselves and vote for a sound candidate given the alternative.

[Fiendish Thingy]

90. 300,000 democrats in Florida voted for Bush

Kinda blows that Nader theory out of the water, huh?

[Demsrule86]

94. If Nader had not run , Gore would have won.

[Demsrule86]

83. Gore did what he could.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

107. "The highest court in the land"

When the decision they arrived at on 12/12/2000 was rendered and there was but ONE protester outside that building my mind spit out three thoughts in rapid succession:

1. The "money" would get funny quickly. (It only took a calendar quarter and like magic the surplus disappeared)
2. We would be at war in short order. (THAT only took nine months)
3. Free and fair elections in 2004 ???????

One thing that troubled me at the end of the counting in that "election" was the fact that none of the various entities reporting or commenting on it agreed on the absolute total of votes in the state of Florida. In fact I was so curious about this that I contacted the Supervisor of Elections in each and every county of that state. Per the laws in Florida they were required to produce the information that I requested. And provide they did. I wound up with the precinct level returns for the entire state. What I found was a second curiosity.
In five of the sixty seven counties the numbers as reported by the State SOE agreed with that as recorded by the counties.
In the other sixty two counties this condition DID NOT exist.

So I spent some time wondering about that and then encountered another interesting bit of data. That being that in the summer of 2001 a car was fished out of a canal somewhere in Miami-Dade. Then at the police impound they popped the trunk and found a strongbox of some kind. In it was an additional 25,000 ballots. Guess who at least 16.000 of them were cast for...

[ehrnst]

110. SCOTUS is not going to pay attention to protestors. In fact, their job is to

not be pressured by outside sources. This is why they have a lifetime appointment. Anyone protesting outside SCOTUS is doing it to make a statement to the media - not that it's bad to make a statement to the media, but it will not affect what is going on in the building.

Many of us in lefty progressive organizations were busy getting ready for what we predicted would be a negative ruling by the court.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

115. Just as there was one protester at the "Court"

There was one individual among five different parties they I got this information to that was willing to act on it's merits.

1. A progressive protest group. The data disappeared down a rabbit hole as it is that I heard nothing back...
2. A Congressman from my district. He waved it off with that "the high court has ruled routine"...
3. A Senator from the same state. He waved it off with that "the high court has ruled routine"...
4. A writer whose theory as to what had happened was ballyhooed around these here parts and gee whiz same deal as #1 on this list.

The last party is an interesting one. A former U.S. Congressman from the same state as the others.
He took a period to thoroughly study and verify the information I brought him.
His conclusion was that it was sufficient for the impeachment of members of the "highest court".
And the fact being that he held a Law Degree from Harvard indicates to me that he wasn't just whistling' dixie...

[ehrnst]

124. You lost me...

What "information" are you talking about that you "brought" to these groups, ending with a "former congressman from the same state as the others?"

What does that have to do with protesting outside SCOTUS?

What does that have to do with the SCOTUS ruling being the final word on Gore v Bush?

[Ani Yun Wiya]

149. The information referred to...

Consisted of something in excess of 700 documents (8.5 x 11 inch printouts) and a few hundred MB of digital information.
The information contained in this was the precinct by precinct polling data. You know, the record of how many votes were cast for each and every candidate in the race.

I compiled this information on CD and in all but one case put this disc in a person's hand.

The conclusion reached by the former congressman was that the information gathered constituted prima facia evidence of election fraud. He also saw a clear legal path to challenge Gore v Bush as well as a clear legal path to impeachment of at least one member of the court.

What does that have to do with protesting outside SCOTUS?

I was simply comparing one instance of ONE person (the protester) seeing through the garbage that SC decision was and acting on it and another instance of ONE person who saw that some form of legal action was more than justified.

[ehrnst]

150. I still have no idea what this "information" is.

I assume that you are saying that the explosive evidence that you had on your disc, presumably about the FL elections and/or a SCOTUS judge, and slipped into the hand of a former congressmant should have been enough for Gore to press voter fraud charges and not "give up" on trying to at least get some legal satisfaction in another way.

If you are talking about Sandra Day O'connor's statement of disappointment when it appeared that Gore won, and should have recused herself, that was determined to have been moot.

So why do you think that the "former congressman" didn't act on it, if indeed he saw "a clear legal path to challenge Gore v Bush as well as a clear legal path to impeachment of at least one member of [SCOTUS]. There are more than enough lawyers, not to mention the ACLU who specialize in these things. Certainly someone would have taken that on.

I was simply comparing one instance of ONE person (the protester) seeing through the garbage that SC decision was and acting on it and another instance of ONE person who saw that some form of legal action was more than justified.

Still trying to unpack this... So you think that protesting outside SCOTUS when Gore v. Bush was being heard is comparable to someone else who "saw that some form of legal action was more than justified." Is this other person you, who you are implying got data that some other form of legal action was more than justified?

[Ani Yun Wiya]

152. I will "simplify"

The "numbers" (how many votes were cast for each candidate in the race) as CERTIFIED by each county were not the same as what was certified for each county by the State Supervisor of Elections Katherine Harris.
In ONLY 5 of 67 counties did the tabulation of ballots cast match.

I do hope that makes sense for ya' now...

[ehrnst]

156. That wasn't hard, now was it? So, are you going to answer the other question?

So why do you think that the "former congressman" didn't act on it, if indeed he saw "a clear legal path to challenge Gore v Bush as well as a clear legal path to impeachment of at least one member of [SCOTUS]." There are more than enough lawyers, not to mention the ACLU who specialize in these things. Certainly someone would have taken that on.

[Ani Yun Wiya]

158. Certainly.

It took me until just about February of 2002 to collect the data from the officials in Florida.
Then some time was spent in analyzing and organizing the resultant tabulations.
Then some time reflecting and researching to whom this information should be given.
Most everyone I initially encountered gave me the song and dance of "The Court has ruled, nuttin' can be done"
It was not until summer of 2004 that I learned that the former congressman had a law office quite near to me.
About six weeks after reviewing the matter with him and one week after he told me his conclusions on the matter he had a stroke and was dead by the first day of 2005.

There was nowhere else for me to go with this as I have no money or powerful associates...

[ehrnst]

159. There are numerous political and investigative journalists who would be very interested in

such explosive, verifiable evidence that could impeach a sitting SCOTUS member, not to mention revive an election fraud case. Contacting one or more would not require any money or powerful associates....

Especially in light of the current spotlight on election interference, Florida political journalists especially would jump at the chance to see this, if it's what you say. Of course, they will ask you how you came to be in possession of such.

Here is a list off the top of my head:

https://www.politico.com/states/florida/staff/matt-dixon

https://www.politico.com/states/staff/alexandra-glorioso

https://www.tampabay.com/author/emily-l-mahoney/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/amy-gardner/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/sean-sullivan/

The Justice Kavanaugh hearings make this a prime time for investigative journalism on the actions or disqualifications of SCOTUS judges.

SCOTUS blog and WAPO would be most interested in what you say is evidence of impeachable offensives on the part of a SCOTUS judge. The thing that you want to consider, and they will as well, is that if a SCOTUS judge is impeached, DT will be the one nominating the replacement.

https://www.scotusblog.com/author/kevin-russell/

https://www.washingtonpost.com/people/robert-barnes/

You're welcome for "simplifying it" so it "makes sense for ya now."

Contact them today.

[Blues Heron]

154. Cool story bro

there was a huge crowd outside the SC on 12/12/2000

[Ani Yun Wiya]

155. Well do forgive me, but

The only image I saw that night where someone was protesting the decision was that of a solitary individual.
Might you have pictures that show other wise ?

[ehrnst]

157. Here you go:

https://www.google.com/search?q=protesters+gore+v+bush&source=lnms&tbm=isch&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjj3YS2zcXhAhWwq1kKHczWCBYQ_AUIECgD&biw=1152&bih=631

Apology accepted, and you're welcome.

Care to revise any of your previous declarations concerning this?

I was simply comparing one instance of ONE person (the protester) seeing through the garbage that SC decision was and acting on it and another instance of ONE person who saw that some form of legal action was more than justified.

When the decision they arrived at on 12/12/2000 was rendered and there was but ONE protester outside that building my mind spit out three thoughts in rapid succession:

[ehrnst]

71. What leaders are "afraid?"

Are you familiar at all with Nancy Pelosi and Chuck Schumer?

You might want to look them up....

[onenote]

7. What felony would have been committed?

I don't think anything is US law makes it a felony for an border officer to refuse to allow entry to someone wanting to apply for asylum, even though doing so is contrary to US and International Law. Nor would it subject the border officer to any personal liability since, the statute dealing with asylum applicants states that:
Nothing in this subsection shall be construed to create any substantive or procedural right or benefit that is legally enforceable by any party against the United States or its agencies or officers or any other person.

[world wide wally]

14. I venture to say that it is against the law to give a subordinate a direct order to break the law.

[triron]

18. I'm with you but not being an attorney, I am left with frustration and bewilderment.

Perhaps it's time for the people to rise up. They won't though. We are sheeple.

[onenote]

33. A mistake often made by non-lawyers.

If someone directs a subordinate to commit a felony, that is a crime. But I'm unaware of anything that makes it a felony for border patrol officers to deny entry to someone claiming asylum.

The mistake that non-lawyers make is equating unlawful with criminal. Not every unlawful act (which barring a migrant from applying for asylum would be) is a crime.

For example, migrants in this country without documentation may be here unlawfully but they are not committing any crime by being here.

[cstanleytech]

40. I suspect the felony part would have been if they had done it despite a court order blocking them.

Granted on appeal they might have won (depending on the law in question of course) however not even a President can override the judiciary only SCOTUS can or the legislature by passing new laws that do not violate the Constitution.

[vsrazdem]

49. It does not have to be a felony. It is an unlawful order. Agents are to uphold the laws of the

United States as is the president. If the president does not uphold or obey the laws, he can and should be impeached.

[onenote]

60. For the third time. My comment was addressed only

to the OP’s statement that Trump had committed a felony.

[Fiendish Thingy]

16. It's a violation of the oath of office

To see that the laws are faithfully executed.

[onenote]

30. Yes. But is it a felony?

I was addressing that particular assertion in the OP.

[Fiendish Thingy]

43. It's an impeachable offense

The president doesn't have commit a statutory violation of a law to be impeached.

[ehrnst]

68. But we need the Senate to remove him. We don't have that.

Picking a fight we know we will lose is pretty much the definition of a partisan witch hunt, and really no different than the Benghazi fiasco.

We are smarter than that. Certainly Nancy is, thank God.

[onit2day]

85. Nonsense. That's an excuse. We don't need a conviction if we expose him

the public will convict him and make all senators who refused to convict, accomplices. It's a win win. Mueller report and taxes made public plus all the obstruction and lies to break the law. We must hold him accountable. Pelosi refused to hold Bush accountable and we lost the House over it...and it got us Trump thinking he's above the law too. We must hold Presidents accountable to show they are not above the law.

[Fiendish Thingy]

89. THIS nt

[Demsrule86]

95. That is not true,.. and it could make him a sympathetic figure,

[ehrnst]

120. No, it's not the public who convicts him. It's the GOP Senate. They believe that if they

even SAY anything bad about Dear Leader, they will be primaried. And polls show that's true. All the GOP leaders who "retired" from the sinking ship were the ones who knew that they would have to continue to support that nutcase in order to keep their jobs, and just didn't want to.

The vast majority of the Republican base refuses to believe anything Dear Leader does is wrong, or illegal. We all know this. It's a cult of personality. Any news that they don't like about him is "fake news." They will simply see impeachment as a witch hunt, so no, it will not convince his base that he should be removed, and therefore the Senate GOP will not convict.

Impeachment is a political process, not a criminal justice process.

Pelosi is right not to pick a fight we know we will lose. Trash her all you want, but she knows what the hell she's doing, far more than either you or I.

[Fiendish Thingy]

87. Are we too smart to defend the Constitution?

"We only fight when we know we will win" is not a very good slogan for the Democratic Party.

I prefer "win or lose, we will fight for what's right".

[Demsrule86]

96. We don't have the tools because some voted for fucking Stein

In 16. And that is the truth. Elections have consequences.

[better]

127. Whoah there.

No, in fact, that is not the definition of a partisan witch hunt. A witch hunt is characterized by the true underlying motive being to harass or undermine those with differing views, regardless of the actual facts. That is a very different thing from Republicans in the Senate refusing to convict, regardless of the facts.

I agree that impeachment at this point would be a politically risky move, and could ultimately backfire on us. That said, however, impeachment unquestionably remains the correct and wholly appropriate remedy, for the simple reason that Trump is uniquely unfit for office, and has committed numerous impeachable offenses in full public view. The unlikelihood of the Senate voting to convict and remove him absolutely does not change this core fact.

By all means, argue against impeachment on the grounds of political wisdom if you feel it would be politically unwise. But please refrain from carrying the right's water by adopting the kind of false equivalence they are so very well known for spreading. These things are not equal, and we should not reinforce the false narrative that they are.

[tritsofme]

99. An impeachable offense is whatever a majority of the House decides it is at any given moment

[Fiendish Thingy]

122. Yes, indeed

And at this moment, there are plenty of impeachable offenses to choose from...choosing not to act is unacceptable.

[SeattleVet]

45. The Presidential Oath of Office has a huge loophole for him.

It clearly states "and will, to the best of my ability..."

Since the stupid motherfucker has demonstrated absolutely ZERO ability, he's in the clear.

[oldsoftie]

61. oh shit, thats the best answer i've read in a LONG time.

[onit2day]

88. But ignorance of the law is no excuse

[ehrnst]

121. Plausible deniability is. That's why so many testify that "they didn't recall" doing that thing.

Or, "I didn't know it was going on."

Impeachment is not a court of law, it's a political event.

[uponit7771]

32. Doesn't have to be a felony, he can be impeach for violating the emoluments clause right now

[onenote]

34. Again, I was only addressing the OP's assertion that Trump had committed a felony.

If we want to start listing all the impeachable actions he's taken we'll be here all day.

[uponit7771]

39. +1, ... Telling his lawyer, Cohen, to break the law ... that's in the public sphere.

[ehrnst]

46. I would think that the AG lawsuits would need to be successful first.

And that will likely take longer than a year.

[ehrnst]

123. It doesn't matter if the GOP Senate will not vote to remove him.

You can say he's a crook, and recite his crimes until you are blue in the face, but as long as the GOP has the Senate, there will be no removing of him.

They believe they will lose their jobs if they anger Trump fans, which are the base now. They will not believe that their leader can do any wrong. They will say it's fake news.

Impeachment also takes years. We're less than two years away from the 2020 election. The GOP might not vote to impeach him, but they might be able to make the case to their base that Pence should run in 2020 because impeachment hearings would make it difficult for Trump to campaign. I don't want to hand the GOP that on a silver platter.

Do you?

[uponit7771]

128. I reject the premise that it will be handing them anything seeing it's worked for GOP in the past

... I'm seeing the arguments against impeachment are not relaying a couple of salient facts

1. Red Don will .. NEVER EVER... be as popular to democrats as Clinton was to republicans in the late 90s.
2. Republicans ... WON ... after deep redundant investigations and impeachment proceedings in 98, 15 and 16.
3. Pence stands little to no chance of becoming president after being Red Don's escort.

[ehrnst]

130. As I said, Nancy Pelosi knows more than both of us combined. Her premise is

rooted in knowledge, savvy, judgement and decades experience in politics.

Yours?

Her peers in Congress chose her for a reason. I know enough to know what I don't know, and to listen to someone who does know what they are doing.

That said, let's look at your premise:

1. Red Don will .. NEVER EVER... be as popular to democrats as Clinton was to republicans in the late 90s.

And? He doesn't need to be popular with Democrats, just the base that elects the Senate Republicans.

2. Republicans ... WON ... after deep redundant investigations and impeachment proceedings in 98, 15 and 16.

And yet HRC actually won more votes than anyone not named Obama, despite Russian interference, voter suppression laws, the statistical improbability of a party holding the WH for more than 2 consecutive terms, AND misogyny on the left and right. I'd say that Benghazi didn't win the GOP anything, however Trump stands to gain rage and fury in the GOTV campaigns for 2020. We all know that's what fuels his base.

3. Pence stands little to no chance of becoming president after being Red Don's escort.

Here's a salient fact: Pence is the evangelicals' wet dream candidate, even more so than DT. He already has a PAC. They get the anti-abortion judges WITH actual knowledge of Bible verses with no annoying temper tantrums, or pussy grabbing adultery with porn stars. Even if Republican Senators grew a conscience and decided to remove DT, it would likely take until mid 2020 to complete - if DT didn't resign when he learned of traitors in the GOP. That leaves Pence. Pence will be the next GOP candidate for POTUS because he already has the GOP base. He'll get MAGA humpers plus the more moderate "pro-life" GOPs that either voted for Johnson or stayed home because Trump's annoying temper tantrums, and pussy grabbing adultery with porn stars.

[uponit7771]

132. "They know more than us" has been done before and didn't work then ...

I'm not taking congress persons wisdom as end all be all, been there done that and got a trillion dollar war bill to pay for it.

1. If you're number one is true then there's little reason to use the Clinton experience to justify ... NOT ... impeaching trump RIGHT NOW !!

Trump ... WILL NOT .. become more popular than Clinton and pose a threat to reelection which is the base logic of the "don't impeach" movement.

2. Pop vote is irrelevant and you know that... and again, if #1 is true then "Trump stands to gain rage" is also irrelevant. The "rage" isn't coming from enough people to get him reelected now and didn't get him elected in 16 either !!! ... we're talking about numbers not what we feel.

3. There aren't enough evangelicals either !!! Blacks didn't come out to vote in midwest states, Red Don didn't ... GAIN ... over McCain or rMoney democrats ... LOST ... voters that decided not to show up !!

The "Trump Democrat" is straight up beltway group think and not rooted in ... ANY ... reality.

https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2017/9/18/16305486/what-really-happened-in-2016

But Trump actually received a slightly smaller share of the vote than Romney did ....

The big difference, nationally, is that Clinton did a lot worse than Obama and third-party candidates did a lot better.

The same holds for a critical subset of the population: white voters. Romney got 59 percent of the white vote in 2012 and still lost the election, leading many analysts to reach the conclusion that America had become too diverse for Republicans to win without making major inroads among voters of color. Trump, however, won the election with just 58 percent of the white vote thanks to Clinton slipping to 37 percent down from Obama’s 39 percent with the excess going third party.

The "Trumps base will be angry" and therefore will show up does ... NOT ... hold water relative to the facts.

There weren't enough of them then to get him of the rMoney hump without the list of helpers you mentioned.

Looking at the .. facts... of

1. Republicans do their job with stupid investigations and impeachment and still win elections.
2. Red Don's "angry and motivated" base numbers are small at best and dems will have a more popular candidate in 2020
3. Red Don will never ever be as popular as Clinton was to republicans after Clinton's impeachment. There will be no backlash ... that's not rational
4. Pence wasn't popular in 16 but he's more popular now after being Trumps escort for 2 years doesn't make sense either.

Factually, there's no Trump base that can get him reelected due to outrage of his impeachment without removal.

There's little reason ... NOT ... to impeach.

[ehrnst]

134. How many strawmen are being attacked here...

I'm not taking congress persons wisdom as end all be all, been there done that and got a trillion dollar war bill to pay for it.

I never said that one should take a congress persons wisdom as "the be all to end all," I suggested that Nancy Pelosi has way more experience than either you or I, and has the collective confidence of her peers. She's not simply a garden variety congress person, she's one of the best in history in terms of accomplishments, and as such her judgement is far, far more informed and reliable than yours or mine. Objectively, that's just fact based. Now, if you can produce some evidence as to your superior experience and judgement's to Nancy's, I'll reassess. Until then, basic logic wins the day. Yours seems to indicate that no congressperson Democratic or Republican can be trusted because War. You might be surprised at some of the votes by congresspersons and Senators to finance wars who claim to oppose war.

1. If you're number one is true then there's little reason to use the Clinton experience to justify ... NOT ... impeaching trump RIGHT NOW !!

Your number one is attacking a straw man fallacy, so that doesn't apply to my statements does it? Do you think that using all caps and ellipses somehow makes your argument more credible or factual? Not sure if you are talking about the Bill Clinton impeachment here or HRC's Benghazi fiasco, but I'll go with HRC: I simply made comparisons to the futility of both the Benghazi investigations to prove Hillary would be a bad candidate and the futility of impeaching DT knowing that he wouldn't be removed. I don't need HRC's experience to see that an impeachment of DT without the Senate would be stupid and futile as well.

2. Pop vote is irrelevant and you know that... and again, if #1 is true then "Trump stands to gain rage" is also irrelevant. The "rage" isn't coming from enough people to get him reelected now and didn't get him elected in 16 either !!! ... we're talking about numbers not what we feel.

No, Pop vote is not "irrelevant" otherwise why would we even know the final count? It shows the extent of election interference and targeted voter suppression loud and clear. And again... your # 1 is attacking a strawman ( see above) The "rage" would certainly be enough to get out the vote amongst his base, as that is their common bond. Your premise is a misrepresentation of what I said, so your extrapolations of such are not valid. "we're talking about numbers not what we feel." Actually, I'm talking numbers, and you are talking about what you feel.

3. There aren't enough evangelicals either !!! Blacks didn't come out to vote in midwest states, Red Don didn't ... GAIN ... over McCain or rMoney democrats ... LOST ... voters that decided not to show up !!

Mea Culpa, I should have said "white evangelicals wet dream." BTW, what the heck are "rMoney democrats?"

The "Trumps base will be angry" and therefore will show up does ... NOT ... hold water relative to the facts.

Are you confusing me with someone else your going around and around with? I said that the Trump base lives on anger and for red meat. That's what drives them to the polls. Maybe you're just too angry to keep different people separate?

There weren't enough of them then to get him of the rMoney hump without the list of helpers you mentioned.

No idea what your point is here... I can't quite follow your sentence structure or your pronouns. Typing less furiously might help.

1. Republicans do their job with stupid investigations and impeachment and still win elections.

Actually Republicans lost after impeaching Clinton. Look it up. I agree that an impeachment would be a "stupid investigation," and the other ones going on right now both in Congress and in SDNY will be far more fruitful than picking a fight we know we will lose...

Factually, there's no Trump base that can get him reelected due to outrage of his impeachment without removal.

Again, your sentence structure is bewildering, but I'll give it a try.. "Factually" - no backup, no sources, just the assumption that because you say it's factual, then it surely must be!!

"there's no Trump base that can get him reelected due to outrage of his impeachment without removal." Are you saying that his base won't be outraged if he's impeached, or only if he's not removed? Or are you saying that there aren't enough Trump supporters to re-elect him. Well, didn't we all think that in 2016? Can you clarify?

There's little reason ... NOT ... to impeach.

Because you say so? Again, I'll put my faith in the judgement an deep understanding of procedure and political strategy of a Speaker with decades of experience in congress, including actually seeing the impeachment process firsthand, the confidence of her Dem peers, has no ambition for office higher than she has, and no fucks left to give over the judgement of someone who thinks that putting the word "factually" at the beginning of a sentence they type makes it a fact. Ellipses and all caps notwithstanding, a record of success and actual expertise are worth more when vetting a source. That's called knowing when someone else actually knows more than you do on a topic, despite how utterly one might be convinced that one's feelings and opinions indeed carry the weight of fact.

[uponit7771]

136. "Because you say so?" ... no facts do, lets look at them and agree on some

It sounds like you're saying there should be no impeachment because ...

"The "rage" would certainly be enough to get out the vote amongst his base,"
& "...
Trump base lives on anger and for red meat. That's what drives them to the polls."

My ... FACTUAL ... counters to this position are:

Fact 1: Trump wont be as popular to democrats as Clinton was to indies and republicans after Clinton's impeachment in the late 90s. So there will be no to little post Clinton impeachment effect after Trumps impeachment

AND ... even if there was a post Clinton impeachment bump...

Fact 2: There isn't enough of Trumps enraged "base" to get him elected en-masse in 2020 ... period end of story*, they couldn't even help in in 2018 while he was under investigation.

For 2016 to happen Trump would need :

1. democrats not to show up in 2012 numbers... AGAIN,
2. indie candidates to get as high as 2016 votes with dem white voters ... AGAIN.

That's two things are ... NOT ... going to happen because dems decided to impeach Trump ... can we agree on that?!



Therefore based off those facts I stated( that I'm presuming we agree on the substance of them), impeachment ... SHOULD ... be on the table.

What say you?

Regards


* my source being the VOX article that Trump got less white voters than rMoney. Democrats didn't show up in 16 ...not Trump did good or his base is significant .. 2 - 3% of democratic white votes went to indies.

[ehrnst]

137. You keep attacking strawmen, then extrapolating off the misrepresentation to faulty conclusions

as though it gives your argument undeniable grounding in fact.

My ... FACTUAL ... counters to this position are:

Fact 1: Trump wont be as popular to democrats as Clinton was to indies and republicans after Clinton's impeachment in the late 90s. So there will be no to little post Clinton impeachment effect after Trumps impeachment

You keep using that work "factual", but I don't think it means what you think it does. You are guessing, not stating facts, even all caps and ellipses don't change that. Just own it as an opinion on what might happen, because it's not a fact if it hasn't happened, now is it?

Fact 2: There isn't enough of Trumps enraged "base" to get him elected en-masse in 2020 ... period end of story*, they couldn't even help in in 2018 !!

Again, another guess. You do know that the GOP won some important Senate seats in 2018? That's what is known as a fact...period end of story. "There isn't enough of Trumps enraged "base" to get him elected en-masse in 2020" again, that's a prediction, not a fact. Look it up.

For 2016 to happen Trump would need :

What are you talking about with "2016 to happen to trump?" Winning in 2020?

1. democrats not to show up in 2012 numbers... AGAIN,

2. indie candidates to get as high as 2016 votes with dem white voters ... AGAIN.

Do you have some citations for your numbers? The claims you are making are quantifiable, and your lack of sources doesn't give you credibility in these statements, even if you put "... AGAIN" after them.

That's two things are ... NOT ... going to happen because dems decided to impeach Trump ... can we agree on that?!

Since I'm not clear on what you're ranting about, I can't say if I agree or don't agree with your opinions about what might happen in 202O.

Under what circumstances are you positing that Trump will be impeached? I believe Nancy Pelosi when she said that she would not decide to impeach without "hard evidence and bipartisan support" So is that the theoretical scenario you're demanding I agree with - that the Dems decide to impeach because the GOP Senate agrees to turn on him prior to the start of proceedings?

[uponit7771]

138. You didn't address my position in the beginning of my post, without agree on that what are we ...

... talking about ?

You said

"The "rage" would certainly be enough to get out the vote amongst his base,"
& "...
Trump base lives on anger and for red meat. That's what drives them to the polls."

Is this close to your argument for not impeaching?

If not, could you be more reductive in stating your position

tia

[ehrnst]

139. I told you that you misrepresented my statements...

It sounds like you're saying there should be no impeachment because ...


"The "rage" would certainly be enough to get out the vote amongst his base,"
& "...
Trump base lives on anger and for red meat. That's what drives them to the polls."

I have repeatedly said that I agree with Pelosi that there should be no impeachment "without hard evidence and bi-partisan support."

I didn't say that there should be no impeachment under any circumstances. That doesn't seem to sink in. Do I need to type it in all caps?

I said that the threat of Democrats impeaching right away if they took the House was being used in 2018 by the GOP to get out the base for the midterms, and by the rage all over social media, it was effective at doing that. I don't have the comparative % of GOP turnout for the previous midterms. Do you?

And yes, the Trump base lives on anger fed by the red meat Trump throws non-college educated white men who fear that they are indeed the "most persecuted" of all Americans.

I believe (note, I don't say FACTUALLY SPEAKING when I make a guess) that the GOP will continue to use the threat of "Dems led by that witch will impeach DT just to SMEAR HIM and CHALLENGE HIS AUTHORITY and by extension YOUR VERY MANHOOD" if DT runs again in 2020, and there has been no "hard evidence and bi-partisan support" to make impeachment worthwhile. There are a lot of variables that could come into play before that time - many more investigations and lawsuits of DT that might be more effective at getting him to give up before an impeachment.

Does that clarify things for you?

[uponit7771]

143. There is hard evidence of emoluments violations, I said this too

[ehrnst]

145. I wasn't talking about that. You know exactly what I was talking about.

Evasion doesn't lend one's arguments credibility.

But since you brought it up, hard evidence on violations of the emoluments clause will be determined valid and admissible via the judge in the DC and MD AG lawsuits, and/or the investigation by the House Committee on Oversight and Reform. (You see what I did there? I linked to ''sources' for my statements. It's not hard at all!)

If you have validated "hard evidence" of violations of the emoluments clause, by all means please submit it to Rep. Elijah Cummings. He's head of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform and would LOVE to have all that work they're doing on this to be over with.

Yay.

[uponit7771]

147. "without hard evidence and bi-partisan support." ... there's hard evidence of emoluments clause ...

... violations.

If you have validated "hard evidence" of violations of the emoluments clause, by all means please submit it to Rep. Elijah Cummings. He's head of the House Committee on Oversight and Reform and would LOVE to have all that work they're doing on this to be over with.

Here- https://www.nytimes.com/2017/02/03/us/politics/donald-trump-business.html
and
Here- https://assets.documentcloud.org/documents/3442581/Trump-International-Hotel-Liquor-License-Filings.pdf

What’s more, the purpose of the Donald J. Trump Revocable Trust is to hold assets for the “exclusive benefit” of the president. This trust remains under Mr. Trump’s Social Security number, at least as far as federal taxes are concerned.

He's named beneficiary of the trust where profits from holding go to and he's one of the trustees

That's in writing,

So ... using one of ... YOUR OWN REQUIREMENTS ... the house can impeach today just off the fact that Red Don is named a Trustee and the trust is in his own SSN.

Oh yea, there doesn't need to be a legal standard for impeachment, ... you know that .... so the rest of the DC judge crap is out the window.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/High_crimes_and_misdemeanors

The charge of high crimes and misdemeanors covers allegations of misconduct by officials, such as perjury of oath, abuse of authority, bribery, intimidation, misuse of assets, failure to supervise, dereliction of duty, unbecoming conduct, refusal to obey a lawful order, chronic intoxication, and tax evasion.

Oh, BTW ...as proof in my previous post I mention AXIOs link in source more than once... you read that too ... The links here are easier reads.

[ehrnst]

151. Again....

Last edited Wed Apr 10, 2019, 10:04 AM - Edit history (11)

Your definition of hard evidence also called "verifiable evidence" (which is part of the DC and AG lawsuits) apparently hasn't been applied yet to those documents. We are AWAITING the RESULTS of DISCOVERY on those in order to VERIFY them as credible and as described:

Discovery is the pre-trial phase in a lawsuit in which each party investigates the facts of a case, through the rules of civil procedure, by obtaining evidence from the opposing party and others by means of discovery devices including requests for answers to interrogatories, requests for production of documents and things, requests for admissions, and depositions.

https://www.hg.org/legal-articles/what-is-discovery-in-a-civil-case-30930

So ... using one of ... YOUR OWN REQUIREMENTS ... the house can impeach today just off the fact that Red Don is named a Trustee and the trust is in his own SSN.

Actually, no, those are HOUSE SPEAKER NANCY PELOSI's (not mine...I have no authority in the matter, thank you.) requirements, for impeachment including BI-PARTISAN SUPPORT that have not yet been met. THE SPEAKER OF THE HOUSE is the one who represents the majority of congress. Well, yes, the House can theoretically accuse and impeach at any time, any POTUS, but doing so has enormous consequences - both on the party that accuses as well as the accused, so the Speaker makes a decision on what terms impeachment will proceed, and on what charges, VERY carefully. "If you come at the King, you best not miss." Is that clearer?

Oh yea, there doesn't need to be a legal standard for impeachment, ... you know that .... so the rest of the DC judge crap is out the window.

That's because IMPEACHMENT is a POLITICAL process not a LEGAL SYSTEM PROCESS. CONGRESS via Speaker Pelosi is the one that DECIDES when and if there is impeachment, and SPEAKER PELOSI is the one tasked with MAKING THE POLITICAL DECISION to IMPEACH, and on of her conditions for such is when she gets HARD EVIDENCE as VERIFIED by the LEGAL SYSTEM. When the discovery phase of the AG Emoluments lawsuit is OVER, then there may be some LEGALLY VERIFIED HARD EVIDENCE to consider. Meanwhile other investigations continue, so no, NONE of the congressional Dems let alone SPEAKER PELOSI, are just sitting around in the Cannon Office building doing nothing until then thinking that everything's just fine with this POTUS.

SHE has made the following conditions for IMPEACHMENT: "Hard evidence AND bi-partisan support."

The impeached official remains in office until a trial is held. [bThat trial, and their removal from office if convicted, is separate from the act of impeachment itself.]

IS THAT ENOUGH FORMATTING AND CAPS SO YOU WILL READ MY POST BEFORE REPLYING NEXT TIME?

[uponit7771]

160. Red Don isn't an un-indicted co-conspirator in case involving Cohen and payoffs?!

One of Pelosi's requirements is "hard evidence" against Red Don, ... we don't have hard evidence there?

Thx in advance

Also, the Trump Trust agreement is verified and doesn't have to be part of discovery PTM from a court. Congress can simply ask someone, including his kids, is the document true or just get them the documents regarding the trust.


I don't want Red Don to be impeached just because I don't like him ... there should be more ... I think there's beyond enough at this point to impeach him on legal and job related issues.



It looks like we agree on what ... CAN ... be done in the process of impeachment.

Sounds like we do not agree on Pelosi's requirements for impeachment ...

Is that a fair assessment?

Thx in advance

[ehrnst]

161. Now you're moving the goalposts yet again.

Red Don isn't an un-indicted co-conspirator in case involving Cohen and payoffs?!

I take it that you have given up on trying to equate "charges" with "hard evidence" concerning emoluments clause lawsuits. Well, that's progress.

If you have seen verified evidence of "co-conspirator" charges other than opinions of those who aren't a judge on the case, by all means share it.

Thx in advance

You're welcome.

I don't want Red Don to be impeached just because I don't like him ... there should be more ... I think there's beyond enough at this point to impeach him on legal and job related issues.

You "thinking that there is beyond enough" is not the same as there actually being legally verified evidence. The evidence will be most effective for impeachment if it concerns crimes done while in office, not before his inaguration. Other entities, such as the NY AG should concentrate on crimes before January 2017, so they will be ready to drop a subpoena on him the minute he is out of office, however that happens.

It looks like we agree on what ... CAN ... be done in the process of impeachment.

What I think can be done right now is to continue investigations into alleged crimes committed in office and see what they turn up. If they turn up hard evidence of crimes, AND the Senate Republicans agree that the evidence is a dealbreaker, then impeachment can proceed.

Sounds like we do not agree on Pelosi's requirements for impeachment ...

I believe that you mean to say that we have differing opinions on the value of starting impeachment without the possibility of removing DT, rather than her requirements. Her requirements are the only circumstance under which DT can be removed by impeachment. You seem to think there is only positive outcomes by impeaching without the Senate. I see a lot of negative outcomes.

That's where we disagree.

[uponit7771]

162. I've not moved the goal post on "hard evidence" it doesn't matter what that evidence is ...

... apparent that Red Don has done something impeachable

It's hard and its there and actionable by congress ... right now ... That's a fact that's not in dispute


No, I haven't given up on anything in regards to the emoluments issues I'm just not accepting your ... IMPLIED ... premise (by bringing up court procedures) that the issues needs to go through court motions to be litigated in congress.


Same for un-indicted co-conspirator ... the house does ... NOT ... need to depend on other investigative process's to get to whether the president is 'charged' with a crime.

Even being charged with a crime in this case can be cause for impeachment.

There's hard evidence ... period

I believe that you mean to say that we have differing opinions on the value of starting impeachment without the possibility of removing DT, rather than her requirements. Her requirements are the only circumstance under which DT can be removed by impeachment. You seem to think there is only positive outcomes by impeaching without the Senate. I see a lot of negative outcomes

Well ... this .... too

But I'm trying to at least get to the point where we agree on elements to start impeachment process ...

I don't see that we agree on the law in this case.

Thx in advance for your input, ... I do appreciated the different perspective

[ehrnst]

163. So now "it doesn't matter what the evidence is..."

It's hard and its there and actionable by congress ... right now ... That's a fact that's not in dispute

Because you say so? No actual backup for your proclamations yet again. You are mixing up court system terms with political action terms, so there's not a lot you could do to back it up. What is actionable by congress, and what the speaker chooses to do are two different things. "Verifiable evidence" comes from a criminal or civil investigation... and the cases that you mentioned are not even out of DISCOVERY yet, let alone producing "verified evidence of a crime." But this just falls on deaf ears any time I explain it, so never mind.

Even being charged with a crime in this case can be cause for impeachment.

Notwithstanding he hasn't been charged for a crime yet, The cause for impeachment can be anything, but it is up to the Speaker to determine what will be enough. Fact. You keep confusing and moving the line between criminal processes and the impeachment process, which is a political one.

There's hard evidence ... period

No, you haven't shown any. Typing "....period" after it doesn't make it a fact. That is a fact.

But I'm trying to at least get to the point where we agree on elements to start impeachment process ...

I agree with Pelosi, who is the one who decides, which is when we have "Hard evidence AND bi-partisan support." You and I don't agree on the benefit of impeaching when we KNOW the Senate won't remove him.

I don't see that we agree on the law in this case.

You are all over the map with concern to what the definition of "hard evidence" is, the difference between a political process, and a court system process, what "charged" involves, and "discovery" and we'd have to have the same definitions to even discuss it. It's all rolling around in your head, and you pick out various pieces to try to string together to support your feelings that HE CAN BE IMPEACHED RIGHT NOW, AND I THINK THAT THERE IS HARD EVIDENCE BECAUSE IT'S SO OBVIOUS, AND PELOSI DOESN'T KNOW AS MUCH AS I DO as being fact....period.

We are all frustrated, I get it. Spinning our wheels does no good, however. Just because you want something to be true, doesn't make it true. Feeling angry certainly makes one feel more in control than feeling helpless about something we can't control.

[uponit7771]

164. Doesn't matter what the "hard evidence" is ... there is "hard evidence" ...

... and not because " I say so"

Because ... WE (me and you) ... agree there is hard evidence for impeachment.

Right !?

[ehrnst]

165. Actually, if you want someone to agree with you that there is "hard evidence"

then yes, it matters what you mean by hard evidence.

I believe that he has done illegal things in office. Is that hard evidence that he has? No. My suspicions are not the determiner of what is or isn't "hard evidence."

If you are asking me if agree with you that I am also certain that he has done impeachable things since he has taken office, I am. This is an educated guess, based on the secrecy of the administration, the disregard of ethical guidelines followed by previous POTUS, the convicted felons that were in his inner circle, his documented past unethical and illegal activities, and his reluctance to be questioned under oath.

If you are asking me if I agree with you that there exists right now, confirmed, verified "hard evidence" of crimes he has committed while in office, admissible in a court of law, I do not, because I have not heard about such hard evidence of such from reliable sources. Just because I am convinced doesn't make it a fact....period.

I am not saying that none exists, but if it does, it has been kept from the media and other outlets. We have not seen the Mueller report, nor the conclusions of other investigations. Until such a time as it is reported, I can't say that it exists, and that is one of the two requirements for impeachment.

[uponit7771]

174. " reliable sources" - The child kidnapping wasn't Red Don's policy? tia

[ehrnst]

175. What does that even have to do with my reply?

When you refuse to answer questions, then try to drag the discussion down another tangent, it doesn't make much sense to anyone trying to have a conversation with you....

You have your own defintion of verifiable evidence of a crime, that doesn't really have to do with a legal definition as much as what makes you angry.

There is no basis for communication about verifiable evidence under that condition, not to mention the complete lack of probability of "bi-partisan support."

[Blue_true]

8. Don't worry, Barr will write a memo on why it is legal.

And bury any analysis that says otherwise.

[spanone]

11. The King has Spoken...

goddamn this evil fuck

[superpatriotman]

13. We will send a strongly worded memo

That’ll fix him.

[Stuart G]

15. Maybe this will be it..Maybe?. k and r. no text.

[riversedge]

19. Trump told border agents to break U.S. law and defy judicial orders

Trump told border agents to break U.S. law and defy judicial orders https://www.cnn.com/2019/04/08/politics/trump-family-separation-el-paso-kirstjen-nielsen/index.html …

Link to tweet

Link to tweet

[ffr]

22. I hope when it comes time for a democrat, we give him/her the same leniency

McConnell is giving this guy on impeachable offenses.

Because I will be, but multiplied x 2, just so republicans can eat shit!

[bluestarone]

23. I was against impeachment until the right time. BUT

When a president is openly defying a judges order,decisions have to be re-evaluated. THIS cannot continue. It will get really really bad if allowed to continue. We are getting very close to him shooting someone on 5th. ave here.

[bluestarone]

24. Immediate subpoena here

The house should subpoena these border patrol agents!

[PufPuf23]

25. There is no shortage of impeachable offenses.

What is lacking is acting in response to impeachable offenses.

It is getting ever closer to too late to act on impeachment.

[ehrnst]

50. Yep, until the GOP Repubs grow spines or a sense of ethics, we lack the ability to remove him

Last edited Mon Apr 8, 2019, 09:10 PM - Edit history (1)

before November 2020.

Who else do you think isn't acting who could?

[sarcasmo]

35. Nothing will impeach this fool, #GOTV is the only way.

[katmondoo]

37. Can the president be impeached more than once? What if he commits more offense's after being

acquitted on the first charge's.

[Tipperary]

38. Put it in caps all you want.

This guy is untouchable. We need to vote.

[Turbineguy]

41. There are no impeachable offenses

with a republican controlled senate.

[BlueWI]

47. The Senate acquits or convicts.

The House impeaches, and Democrats are in the majority.

Risk averse when the country is in peril, per usual. Impeachment is a risk, but so is the waiting game.

We BETTER win in 2020, or we completely lose an opportunity to rescue the republic from this steady drift away from the rule of law.

[Turbineguy]

57. You are correct.

Those who support trump have no idea of the danger they are standing into.

[ehrnst]

73. Picking a fight we know we will lose is what the GOP did with the Benghazi "investigation."

How did that work out for them?

What "waiting game" are you talking about? No one is just sitting waiting for him to leave on his own.

Google Nancy Pelosi....

[uponit7771]

103. ... and they won with the "Benghazi" investigations too.

[ehrnst]

111. Didn't win? What "Benghazi" investigation are you talking about?

The one that showed a nation HRC's stamina, intellect and humor and grace for 11 straight hours under questioning?

The one with the GOP report that acknowledged that there was no basis for the charge of incompetency?

[BlueWI]

166. So are we winning now?

Trump is free to continue his graft and exert control over the federal infrastructure. How is that not losing too?

Benghazi wasn't a winning strategy because there was no there there. It was a charade. These issues are not, the president's collusion, corruption, and obstruction of justice is obvious.

Gridlock with divided government is an improvement, thanks to the resist movement and ordinary people getting involved enough to win the house.

Why do we pretend to know the consequences of either impeachment or "the long game"/heightened congressional oversight? We have no idea of what the long term consequences will be of either approach, neither is a guarantee of lesser harm and greater gain It's reasonable to disagree about which strategy is best, but it's not reasonable to dismiss impeachment, especially in the face of this corrupt to the core presidency.

[ehrnst]

167. You seem to think that there is some way that Democrats can "win" right now.

And just aren't bothering to do it.

Why do we pretend to know the consequences of either impeachment or "the long game"/heightened congressional oversight?

What we DO KNOW: No matter if DT is or isn't doing these things, as long as the Senate won't vote to remove him, Impeachment is just an exercise in televised questioning, which will not lead to him being removed. Those who like him will not be convinced of any wrong doing, and as long as the GOP Senators think that they will be primaried by those fans for opposing him, they won't take him out. They will keep him in as long as they can to get their justices in.

We have no idea of what the long term consequences will be of either approach, neither is a guarantee of lesser harm and greater gain It's reasonable to disagree about which strategy is best, but it's not reasonable to dismiss impeachment, especially in the face of this corrupt to the core presidency.

We know that impeachment will not take him out, because the Senate will not vote to remove him. We therefore know that he will be able to say that he has been "exonerated" by the proceedings when that happens. Why waste time and resources to give him that?

We can investigate, but you need to remember we only got Congress back in January, and the first month was a shutdown by POTUS and the GOP, I believe, to delay Democrats starting the process of investigating and holding them accountable. Democrat have had only two months, and you are complaining that he's not gone yet, so that means we are LOSING?



It's absolutely reasonable to rule out picking that losing fight when we can spend time and resources subpeoning various people for deep information that we don't have right now. Why on earth would we want to impeach someone without all the evidence? Two months, remember, we have only had Congress for two months not two years. Dems could not start congressional investigations until we were in charge of the commitees.

I get that you are frustrated. We all are. Just because you are frustrated and want it to be over doesn't mean that there's a fix for this right now. He is in the Oval Office, and the constitution makes it very hard for POTUS to be removed by Congress before their term is up. In fact, no POTUS in history has.

It certainly gives one a feeling of more control to be angry at someone or something than face feelings of helplessness at a situation that is not going to be changed any time soon. But that's life. Elections have consequences, and we're living with them right now.

They want us fighting and picking each other and angry emotionally exhausted. Trump LOVES to get on twitter and watch the explosions. He is an abuser who provokes people into anger. He's especially effective at provoking men, because he knows their buttons.

I strongly suggest that you to figure out a way to deal with feelings of not being in control, and DT being in office for the time being. It can destroy your health. Watergate took two years - and 2020 is less than two years away, even IF the GOP Senate decided that they had a spine or a soul to agree to impeach, we likely won't have the time to do it before November 2020.

[BlueWI]

168. It's perfectly ok to agree to disagree.

And it's mainly a question of strategy, not emotion.No need to act like a psychologist. Even if these concerns for my emotions were meant generously, it's extremely condescending and inappropriate for a conversation between adults who are strangers.

I agree with you that to pursue impeachment has risks. But the current approach also has risks. It's that simple, and there's no need to be so categorical in your disagreement. Being lectured to like children because of different reasoning and conclusions about strategy is a common part of the DU experience too much of the time. We are supposed to be a big tent party, but the patronizing attitude shown toward those who favor impeachment suggests otherwise. I am active in the party, have followed politics closely since the 1970s. But I am also a left outlier in this party, living with thinking like yours in every election cycle - stop complaining, stop wanting unicorns and ponies, adapt to bad Republican governance, have a beer summit, etc. It's not just Trump's rhetoric that feeds division among party voters. Your take on this subject does it too.

Yes, we are indeed losing in a political environment of gridlock, no bold solutions in sight for pressing problems, a presidency in crisis, and the steady drift toward civil division continuing. We won't agree on what Democrats as a whole should have done or should do to make the best of a largely no-win situation, so I won't even go there.

Too bad there's not more conversation about strategy - on this site and elsewhere - that includes simple respect for differences in reasoning.

[ehrnst]

169. Your post sounded emotional.

And my post was not condescending. But tt's perfectly OK for you to disagree.

I think that the risks of impeachment that will be voted down by the Senate are far risk than doing things right.

thinking like yours in every election cycle - stop complaining, stop wanting unicorns and ponies, adapt to bad Republican governance, have a beer summit, etc.

Now who's being condescending? Not to mention attacking a straw man.

We won't agree on what Democrats as a whole should have done or should do to make the best of a largely no-win situation, so I won't even go there.

But isn't that exactly what you are doing when you say we should impeach now?

We are supposed to be a big tent party, but the patronizing attitude shown toward those who favor impeachment suggests otherwise.

Well, that's not an emotional response at all.

Too bad there's not more conversation about strategy - on this site and elsewhere - that includes simple respect for differences in reasoning.

You mean "simple respect for differences in reasoning" like:

So are we winning now? Trump is free to continue his graft and exert control over the federal infrastructure. How is that not losing too?

[BlueWI]

171. It is 100% condescending

to tell an adult stranger that they need to find a way to deal with not being in control.

Be intellectually honest enough to own your condescension. Or not, your choice.

Beyond that, enjoy having the last word.

[ehrnst]

172. You are perfectly free to disagree.

Being intellectually honest enough to see your own condescension, and your own emotional reactions on an issue is a skill worth cultivating.

Or not. Your choice.

[barbtries]

69. unless the president is a Democrat.

then they don't even need a reason

[ancianita]

53. If it's deposed it's still what's called hearsay, not necessarily evidence. Hearing what a president

says is always tricky, and even if true, not strong enough by standards of evidence, for the Senate. That's just how it is.

For that reason, not all impeachable offenses become impeachment.

[riversedge]

55. Past time to put Impeachment on the table.

[Dorian Gray]

59. I wish that this would make a difference to

any of the republicans sitting in the senate.

House Impeaches him... then what?

[James48]

62. You have to wait until

Somebody is turned away; then a Uudge orders the border reopened; and then a birder guard refuses to obey the Jusges order, because the President ordered him not to.
18 USC 3691 Criminal Contempt

https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/3691

THAT would be a case of the President being in CONTEMPT- (could also be obstructing Justice in ordering the guard not to comply.)

Check 18 USC 402.

Or can you tack a conspiracy to obstruct charge on him for giving the order?

[Ferrets are Cool]

74. And??

This motherfucker can do any fucking thing he wants and get away with it in America.

I will stick to this story till I am proven wrong.

[SergeStorms]

77. Impeachable?

In which country? Certainly not ours. Not as long as republicans control the Senate.

[SunSeeker]

78. K & R

[itsrobert]

80. This was posted over 5 hours ago

Media doesn't care.

[YOHABLO]

97. Sorry but I'm disgusted that he's not under impeachment hearings NOW!

EEEHM ! SomeBODY needs to get fierce. I'm tired of all this shit. Anyone else?

[SHRED]

144. We should have never let them get this far

"For the good of the country" must never again be the excuse to look away .

[struggle4progress]

98. US Constitution:

Article II. Section 1. Paragraph 8. Before he enter on the execution of his office, he shall take the following oath or affirmation:--"I do solemnly swear (or affirm) that I will faithfully execute the office of President of the United States, and will to the best of my ability, preserve, protect and defend the Constitution of the United States."

Article II. Section 3 ... he shall take care that the laws be faithfully executed ...

Article III. Section 2. The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States, and treaties made, or which shall be made, under their authority ...

[pansypoo53219]

104. prima donnie follow the law?!? pfft. he knows better than LAWYERS!

[Mc Mike]

105. He swore an oath to defend the Constitution, he's violating that oath.

Felony foreswearing. He perjured himself when taking the oath of office.

[Vinca]

113. In Trump world, that was just called Monday.

[Honeycombe8]

114. Apparently committing impeachable offenses no longer matters.

[Kashkakat v.2.0]

126. Y'KNOW, this business of waiting until the repubs are on board w impeachment is starting to sound

a bit LAME. In what universe will that ever happen?

Cant we just do what we gotta do - follow what the constitution has outlined as a remedy and let the chips fall where they may.

"It will divide the country."

NEWS FLASH - it is divided

One of two things happen. Either the repubs go full-on authoritarian coup (which could very well happen anyway, regardless) OR the 60% of who are non-cultists come out of the woodwork, incl some repus and former repubs, hear the evidence presented under oath in a formal setting.... and come around to taking a stand for impeachment/conviction and possibly removal.

[lpbk2713]

131. Trump has no respect for the law.

He thinks anyone who abides by the law is a sucker.

Trump is a criminal and a traitor.

[oasis]

148. +9,000

[Mike Nelson]

135. It doesn't matter...

… Republicans don't care... they won't convict him on this... they let far more serious charges go...

[pangaia]

140. republicans.. go after republicans.. everywhere THEY are to blame..

[VOX]

146. Lawlessness without any consequence is a feature of Trumplandia.

But if you’re a TV actress who lied and cheated to get your kids into college, boy, can we nail the living bejeezus out of you for money laundering and assorted other crimes.

But if you’re Trump, and breaking every law on the books, and destroying American democracy, you’re freer than ever.

[Freethinker65]

153. But if you are a brain addled celebrity President, they (the GOP) let you do it!

You can do anything!!! (Provided you continue to cut social programs, decrease taxes for GOP donors, weaken regulations, and nominate unqualified partisan judges loyal to the GOP)

[spanone]

176. K&R...👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍🏼👍