jump to last post 1-8 of 8 discussions (43 posts)

Is It Time to Impeach President Trump?

  1. crankalicious profile image86
    crankaliciousposted 2 months ago

    Here's an article about a group of legal scholars calling for the impeachment of President Trump based on his violation of the Constitution:

    http://time.com/4658633/impeach-donald-trump-congress/

    Here's the part of the Constitution he's violating:

    Article I, Section 9, of the Constitution. It's clause number 8. It states, in pertinent part: "... no person holding any Office of Profit or Trust under [the United States], shall, without the Consent of the Congress, accept of any present, Emolument, Office or Title of any kind whatever, from any King, Prince or foreign State.”

    The Founding Fathers set this up so that no President would ever be influenced by foreign governments. President Trump had said he would remove himself from involvement in his business empire, but that has not happened.

    Should we take this part of the Constitution seriously or does it no longer make any sense?

    1. Ken Burgess profile image81
      Ken Burgessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      I expect that there will be that effort to Impeach.
      Just as there has been every other effort to stall or stop his governing actions.
      And I expect that it will help expose to the majority of Americans, what 'causes' the Democrats champion these days.  As if Obamacare, Open Borders, and trade agreements that helped businesses flee our country and put Americans out of work weren't enough... and for some obviously, it wasn't... but every day things become a bit clearer.
      And that is a good thing.  People need to wake up.

    2. promisem profile image94
      promisemposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      It will be the Republicans who impeach Trump and not the Democrats. The Dems don't have enough votes to make it happen.

      The GOP will want him out before the next congressional elections in November of next year. Otherwise, they will lose very badly.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image81
        Ken Burgessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        That is a bigger miscalculation of what is going on right now, then what I saw for the prior last two elections.
        Based on what is occurring now, and to date, the Democrats are going to be swept out in 2018 as badly as they were in 2010.
        For much the same reasons, only more magnified by not only the actions of their leaders in Congress, but by the riots and threats, and now the obstructionist Judges that are way over-stepping their authority as well as prior precedence and law.

        1. promisem profile image94
          promisemposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          He has the worst approval rating all the way back to Eisenhower when the rating system first began. And he has been in office only a few weeks.

          He is creating new powerful enemies on a daily basis. Note the number of major American companies that are now lined up against him.

          The number of Republicans in Congress who are openly criticizing him is growing quickly as his approval rating plunges.

          The millions of people who marched peacefully during Inauguration weekend are not being ignored by the GOP.

          Obamacare is here to stay because the GOP is now terrified of killing it.

          People who voted for Trump and refuse to see these facts will be surprised when the Republican party gets rid of him.

          By the way, that obstructionist judge is a conservative Republican.

          1. Ken Burgess profile image81
            Ken Burgessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Wow... That is not what I see going on, so you have a completely different set of sources where you are getting your information from.  I scan the NY Times and W.Post... but I do so knowing it is biased dribble intent on putting everything Trump related in the worst light possible, even if that means fabricating or falsifying information.

            I try and stick to Bloomberg and Fox business for information, more to see what is going on, not so much for their spin, I see nothing you are alluding too... I see businesses falling in line and announcing the building of new factories... Intel will announce investing billions tomorrow into a new factory that will bring in thousands of new jobs to AZ.  Japan announced last week (?) that it is investing billions to bring in new jobs to America... every legit source of info I have seen is the exact opposite of what you say.

            Obamacare staying?  No... I can't imagine the Republicans would imagine they will survive that.  The people forced into using it that actually have to pay for it... are done with it... last year's increases have almost everyone who was using it, dropping it... so the only people who might be defending it are Socialists who want massive government controlling everything, or those few who now benefited from the program, while millions of new Americans had to drop having insurance all together because of the new hikes and the new part-time full-time laws which also screwed over millions of working Americans, and helped them lose their insurance.

            I think you don't really understand the full scope of what is going on, and the millions of Americans that have gotten screwed over the past 10 to 20 years... because of so many things... from NAFTA to the ACA... from the open border policy to terminating NASA programs that put tens of thousands of Americans out of work overnight.

            None of these people are going to forget the struggles they have been put through the last decade or two... but almost all of them know where to lay the blame.  Americans aren't done 'cleaning house' in Washington.  The fact that the Dems (and those who support them) still seem totally clueless about this, I find rather amazing really.  Its like a self imposed ignorance... or inability to just deal with that facts that NAFTA, CAFTA, the ACA... all of these things SCREWED tens of millions of people... who were slow to wake up, but now that they ARE awake and voting... until things improve drastically... they are going to continue to be pissed, and continue to hold the Dems accountable for it.

            Maybe they wouldn't have... maybe they would have blamed Trump. But these hysterical Dems, these outrageous threats, these riots... it didn't make people afraid of him... it didn't make people support his opposition. What it did, in reality, is give him a pass.

            1. promisem profile image94
              promisemposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              I don't have time to answer everything in your post, but the tech companies among others have banded together:

              http://www.forbes.com/sites/mattdrange/ … e748ba124b

              There are articles all over the place about the GOP stalling on Obamacare (which they and Trump vowed to kill his first day in office):

              http://www.politico.com/story/2017/02/o … ate-234774

              And those investment announcements didn't suddenly appear right after Trump got elected. It takes months if not years to develop those plans.

              1. Ken Burgess profile image81
                Ken Burgessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                The Forbes article is about the Immigration ban... lets put that in proper context, its not a political or anti-Trump position... it has to do with businesses wanting to be able to get the best and brightest minds working for them, for the most affordable price.  (H1B visas)
                Its no different than Tyson, Toll Bros. and many other national companies wanting that southern border to remain as open as possible, and for refugees to continue to be brought in by the tens of thousands... why? Cheap labor.  That simple.  Its not that they can't find Americans to do the job... its that it costs them a heck of a lot more to hire an American, and then pay for unemployment insurance, workers comp, health ins, etc.... why pay that 100,000 dollar expense per year per employer when they can hire an illegal for only 20,000 per year?
                It's business... its not political. And hence, he's not creating any enemies, unless like Ben&Jerrys they put politics ahead of profit, which is not smart business.
                Obamacare is problematic, it got too far along, and even though it is completely failing tens of millions who refuse to enroll rather than pay the outrageous increases which occurred this year, I agree that the Republicans (not Trump) seem scared... and probably many of them are getting hammered by the Insurance and Pharma and Hospital Lobbyists that are screwing Americans over in massive overcharges.
                What Trump DID kill in his first day... is essentially the penalty, telling the IRS to waive fines... if they start going after all the people that aren't going to pay the Obamacare tax/penalty and aren't going to reimburse for the thousands of overcharges for last year's and next year's insurance it is going to get real interesting.  I know a lot of people that said F-that and aren't carrying any insurance anymore... and I don't imagine they will be paying the penalty, they don't have the money for it. 
                Going to start hearing about people being dragged to court, or to jail, if they push on this... you think there are people out there who like ACA... but I'm telling you there are millions who don't. And those numbers continue to grow daily.
                I admit... the Republicans in Congress may not see it... they may be clueless as to how big a priority and problem it is... but if they let Obamacare roll, and not do away with that BS tax for not having Insurance.  For a lot of people, they don't like not having insurance anymore, but they will deal with it... but you force a tax down their throat for not carrying it... it will blow up on the Republicans just as much as it is blowing up on the Dems right now.
                Dems really are D U M B when it comes to that ACA... they got tossed out in 2010 because of it, and again in 2014 as it started to kick in... and in 2016 as it got worse... and they STILL are going to take the blame in 2018 for it, as much because of all the whining and obstructionism that they are doing now, as anything else... like I said elsewhere they have given Trump exactly what he needs, and they will continue to be blamed for all of Washington's failures.

                1. colorfulone profile image89
                  colorfuloneposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  Finally, President Donald Trump’s nominee to head the Department of Health and Human Services, Tom Price, will move forward after a 52-47 vote.  He will be in charge of repealing and replacing Obamacare.

                  The Democrats delaying Trump's cabinet picks from confirmation are grandstanding for the constituents in hopes of being re-elected.  I hope the voters wise up and get behind some competent people.

    3. Jack Burton profile image79
      Jack Burtonposted 2 months ago in reply to this

      http://usercontent1.hubstatic.com/13400378.jpg

    4. Kathleen Cochran profile image86
      Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

      If the antiquated Electoral College is still taken seriously, then this part should be also.  My prediction: He's out by June.  He's been in violation since he took the oath of office.

      1. Ken Burgess profile image81
        Ken Burgessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        I'll take that bet.

        1. Oztinato profile image81
          Oztinatoposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Count me in. Double or nothing. Let it ride.

      2. Sharlee01 profile image80
        Sharlee01posted 2 months ago in reply to this

        My prediction he will make 8 years. Guess we will have to wait and see... As we did when so many laughed and said he would not win.

    5. wilderness profile image94
      wildernessposted 2 months ago

      Which of the last dozen or so presidents has divested themselves of any and all connection to any business?  No ownership at all, not even a share of stock?

      Or have they all had large holdings that they kept, holdings that produced income from dealings with foreign countries whether in that country or this one?

      1. crankalicious profile image86
        crankaliciousposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        Nobody has asked for divestment. The answer is a blind trust. No President, until now, has been in control of his business while simultaneously being POTUS.

        Do you care about the Constitution? Or is this a clause that simply doesn't matter or is too arcane?

        1. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          Sorry, a blind trust will receive income that goes to Trump.  To satisfy that law requires total divestiture.

          And it requires it doubly so for Donald Trump - his holdings are hardly invisible.  No blind trust will have the authority to sell Trump Tower, for instance, and that means that trust or not Trump will know that renting a room to a King will result in income for him.  Same thing for his golf courses all over the world - a blind trust isn't going to sell them off, which means that Trump knows about them and that increasing income to them means income in his pocket.  That violates the spirit of that clause.

        2. wilderness profile image94
          wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          There is another facet to consider as well, and that is the definition of "emolument".  From the legal dictionary comes several definitions, all with citations:
          Emolument:
          "The profit arising from office, employment, or labor; that which is received as a compensation for services, or which is annexed to the possession of office as salary, fees, and perquisites. Any perquisite, advantage, profit, or gain arising from the possession of an office."  Presuming "office" means the office of President, not a rented office building, none of this applies to a business rental of a hotel room or golf course.

          "n. salary, wages and benefits paid for employment or an office held."  Again, this does not apply to any income Trump might get from his businesses having a business deal with a King or government.

          "in revenue law, income from employment. Statute defines it as including ‘all salaries, fees, wages, perquisites and profits whatsoever’. Perquisites include benefits in kind."  Still about employment, and still does not apply to the types of income Trump might get from his businesses.  Trump is not an employee of a King.

          So it seems that the clause may not apply.  While I'm absolutely positive a lawyer will argue differently, there are two sides and talk of impeachment for following the law seems a little premature.

          http://legal-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Emolument

          1. crankalicious profile image86
            crankaliciousposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            Well, it depends on what the founding fathers intended in the Constitution. The definition of an "emolument" outside of its use in the Constitution itself may not actually be that relevant. What matters is what the founding fathers intended by the clause and what they were trying to prevent.

            Believe it or not, I don't really have an issue with President Trump making money from his businesses as long as he's not using his role as the President to benefit. Whether or not a foreign diplomat stays in his hotel seems irrelevant to me. Making decisions based on whether or not he will profit does make a difference. It certainly seems his wife believes that her role as the first lady will benefit her brand. The benefit doesn't bother me - most who occupy the White House were rich going in and richer coming out (due to notoriety, speaking fees; etc.), so I'm not bothered. But if the office is being used for personal gain, then there's a problem.

            1. wilderness profile image94
              wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              Yes it does (depend on intent), at least to you and I.  To too many judges, not so much. 

              But there is another problem as well, in what society and business has become.  The likes of Trumps "empire" was unknown at the time, and so were the devious ways in which money could filter back to an owner. 

              So we're left with what both you and I think is reasonable: making money off a King is fine as long as money received is commensurate with value given and none of the value on either side comes from the office of President.

              Melania's brand might be a good example; there is little doubt it will improve solely because of her position.  Not from anything she does, not from using that position to promote, but just because she's now famous and often seen.  Trump might even see some increase - will more people stay in Trump Towers or play on his golf course, just to say they played on the President's golf course? 

              But when the office is used to promote the business, maybe in a pay-for-play scheme, then I have an enormous problem with it.

              1. crankalicious profile image86
                crankaliciousposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                Couldn't you say the same thing about the 2nd amendment? The founding fathers had no idea people would have machine guns in their homes.

                1. wilderness profile image94
                  wildernessposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  Oh, I don't know - machine guns were not that far in the future, and are still nothing more than a gun that shoots bullets.  I'm sure they could figure out that there would be improvements.  I'm also sure that they didn't care - that the right to own and bear arms was more important than what the weapon was.  They didn't, for instance, deny the right to own their version of mass destruction - the cannon.  Or a warship, for that matter - private ownership of 'Old Ironsides" would have been quite legal.

                  Flying machines destroying cities larger than anything then known in the blink of an eye - that they might have banned.  But not a gun, no matter how improved.

    6. colorfulone profile image89
      colorfuloneposted 2 months ago

      Pure hogwash!  Another example of Opposition News false calms to stir up people who are unaware of the real facts and the law. 

      The President of the United States, and the Vice President are exempt from financial conflict-of-interest laws. When the law was written the president was exempt, its been that way since about 1974, and later Congress codified the exemptions.  The President has never needed to have a blind trust. 

      They can accept gifts too.  Every president I can remember has accepted gifts, including Obama. 

      Title 18 Section 208 of the U.S. code
      https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/18/208

      There a press conference when President Trump handed over his business empire to his son's publicly with his attorney present who stated legal facts.  Trump wants to dedicate himself to the work of the president for the people.  It is a blindtrust with Eric and Don Trump, who are running every aspect of the business.

      Donald Trump holds his first press conference as President-elect
      Go to about 33:00 mauk:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0l4bQYZcaQk

      He has no conflict of interest.
      Go to about 19:00 mark:   https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tjjkVlpxp8M

      1. crankalicious profile image86
        crankaliciousposted 2 months ago in reply to this

        So Presidents and Vice Presidents are exempt from the Constitution? You are conflating the idea of gifts, which are not usually kept, with business conflicts. You are also confused and misinformed about the definition of a blind trust. Donald Trump's businesses are not in a blind trust. No conflicts of interest? How about this one: China’s state-owned Industrial and Commercial Bank of China is the largest tenant in Trump Tower. That's just one. How about the state-owned bank of China being a lender to Trump?

        I guess you either care about the Constitution and its intent or you don't.

        1. colorfulone profile image89
          colorfuloneposted 2 months ago in reply to this

          The King of Saudi Arabia Gave More Than $1.3M in Gifts to the Obamas
          Dec. 2, 2015
          http://www.usnews.com/news/blogs/data-m … -last-year

          Obama received many gifts during his 8 years as president.  Shall I go on, or do you want to uphold a double standard?   I can do this all day with president after president.

          Donald Trump's attorney did the legal preparations to put President Trump's business empire into a blindtrust ... watch the videos I provided links to.  He did it in a press conference and it was televised for all the world to see that it was done legally.  Even thought he didn't have to do that, because by law as President he is exempt from financial-conflicts-of-interest.

          Oh that's right, the Opposition Media isn't informative, but they sure are good at making things up and leaving out facts.

          1. crankalicious profile image86
            crankaliciousposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            His assets are not in a blind trust.

            1. colorfulone profile image89
              colorfuloneposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              Presidents Trump's business empire is in blindtrust.  Talk to his attorney about it, or stay in denial.  I don't care.  The thing is he didn't have to because he is exempt by law.

              As President, Trump has his own personal money, and plenty of it, that is separate from all business income for as long as he is president.  And, he is not taking a paycheck as President, he is volunteering his time. 

              I still thinks its sweet!  smile  That, Trump is donating to the Dept. of the US Treasury all income from foreign business.  Now, everyone should be happy about that generous deed.  No president has ever done that, that I know of ... its historical.  Excellent!

          2. crankalicious profile image86
            crankaliciousposted 2 months ago in reply to this

            The Obamas did not keep those gifts. You're missing the big difference here. There's no double-standard. You're presenting your information as though Obama made $1.3 million off Saudi Arabia, which is categorically untrue.

            1. colorfulone profile image89
              colorfuloneposted 2 months ago in reply to this

              You are in denial...here is another link. 
              Saudi king showered Obamas with $1.3 million in gifts in 2014
              https://www.yahoo.com/news/saudi-king-s … 43030.html
              Need more proof? 
              ADDED:
              Obama given pricey gifts from foreign leaders
              http://www.foxnews.com/us/2016/10/13/ob … aders.html

              274 gifts given to Barack Obama between 2009 and 2012, ranked
              https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the … 66d82f2710

              12 best gifts world leaders gave the Obamas
              http://www.cnn.com/2015/12/01/politics/ … ama-gifts/

              1. crankalicious profile image86
                crankaliciousposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                So, do you even read the links you provide or do you just read the headline and then draw assumptions from it?

                The U.S. News link you provided clearly states that the Obamas did not keep the gifts. Just to repeat: they did not keep them.

                "The items must be later turned over to the National Archives and Records Administration, or the recipient can pay the market value of the gift and keep it."

                What denial am I in exactly?

              2. crankalicious profile image86
                crankaliciousposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                And this from your second link:

                The first thing to know is that these gifts aren’t bribes. If Obama wants to keep anything he gets from another world leader, he has to pay fair market value for it and take it with him when he leaves office. Otherwise, U.S. law stipulates that the president must turn over everything to the National Archives or other institutions for storage or display. A quick look through this year’s list suggests he did not opt to hold on to any presents.

              3. crankalicious profile image86
                crankaliciousposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                So are you vilifying the Obamas based on the headline alone without reading the actual article?

                1. Paul Wingert profile image78
                  Paul Wingertposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  Notice how trumptards can't complete a statement or even a sentence without using "Obama" or "Hillary" even though the topic has nothing to do with them!

              4. crankalicious profile image86
                crankaliciousposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                What's interesting is how there's been no response to being caught in an obvious misrepresentation of the facts based on pure ignorance. This is proof that if all you do is read the headlines and make assumptions, your assumptions will likely turn out to be wrong. I think there can be no bigger proof of profound ignorance than this kind of misrepresentation and it speaks to everything a person believes when the basis for that belief is nothing other than conjecture and assumption.

                1. colorfulone profile image89
                  colorfuloneposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                  It sounds like you are talking to yourself there sweetie.  Projecting! 
                  I think we all read headlines from time to time.

                  This idiotic thread seems to have started without reading law.
                  I presented law, but I guess you don't read that.

                  1. crankalicious profile image86
                    crankaliciousposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                    Except you concluded something from the headline that wasn't true and used it to vilify President Obama, indicating either an ignorance of the issue or an unwillingness to read and learn.

                    1. colorfulone profile image89
                      colorfuloneposted 2 months ago in reply to this

                      You are cheery picking. There really are bigger things to obsess over.  Trump will not be impeached.  That is hyperbole to create hysteria, but it isn't to be taken seriously.  There is a real world.

    7. Oztinato profile image81
      Oztinatoposted 2 months ago

      We can now add contempt of court to the growing list of Donald crimes.
      How about attempting to jimmy a facist state as well. That's a crime in  the USA. Isn't that sedition?
      I note here again we have a well known chronic atheist in these discussions who now supports the newly reborn "Rev. Donald" now a  chronic religious fundamentalist.
      This is related to the Hitler parallels where people "liked some of hitlers shtick" so they rationalized turning a blind eye to hitlers other "small failings".

    8. Castlepaloma profile image21
      Castlepalomaposted 2 months ago

      Would have made a bet he would not make it for 8 years. Wow, out by June, did not know you guys cared.

    9. ptosis profile image78
      ptosisposted 2 months ago

      In Case of the Removal of the President from Office, or of his Death, Resignation, or Inability to discharge the Powers and Duties of the said Office, the Same shall devolve on the Vice President.......

      I would think above more likely http://www.rawstory.com/2017/02/he-does … n-a-month/

    10. Kathleen Cochran profile image86
      Kathleen Cochranposted 2 months ago

      Anyone who can laugh about Trump as president, deserves him.

     
    working