Here’s one reason to impeach the president:
Amid pleas from Republicans and Democrats for the parties to begin work on a bipartisan health care bill, President Donald Trump and White House officials on Friday doubled down on his call to put off any action until Barack Obama’s 2010 law fails.
Here’s another reason to impeach the president:
There was no paper statement issued signaling the president’s preferred next move on an issue that was central to his 2016 campaign message. But Trump weighed in during the wee hours of Friday morning — and endorsed only one path for addressing health care.
“As I said from the beginning, let ObamaCare implode, then deal,” Trump tweeted at 2:25 a.m. Friday. He then ended the tweet with what seemed like a guarantee: “Watch!”
Likely to the chagrin of Republican and Democratic lawmakers, a White House official on Friday said the president’s tweet represents the administration’s preferred path ahead on health care.
“I’d stick with the tweet,” the White House official told Roll Call, adding a more nuanced description could be coming at some point.
Here’s a third reason to impeach the president:
Pitching a scenario under which GOP lawmakers and the White House would stand by and let the 2010 law to continue sputtering — forcing Democrats to beg him to cut a deal to fix it — has been a steady drumbeat for Trump. And, just like early Friday morning, the president always brings it up without being prompted — suggesting that has been his Plan A even as Senate Republican leaders struggled to find one of their own.
If he does any of the following, they would provide additional reasons to impeach the president:
The president has more than one way to nudge Obama’s law toward failure: Trump could opt to stop paying subsidies to insurance companies; he can order agencies to cease enforcing its requirement for most Americans to obtain health insurance; and he could undermine its markets by stopping all federally financed advertising urging folks to enroll under the law.
Deliberately killing American citizens by undermining our health system is an impeachable offense, and if anyone tells you otherwise, please set them straight.
Another reason:
“President Donald Trump on Friday encouraged police officers to be rough with suspects they are placing in patrol cars and paddy wagons”
–Baltimore Sun, 7/28/17
The police frighten me more than the Republican president does, and he fucking terrifies me.
smile, and laugh, and applaud, with apparent unanimity.
Disgusting.
Chilling.
Yes, all true, but remember that you need to give Republicans reasons to impeach the president, since they’re the only ones who could do it (at least, until after the midterms). I could think of only one thing that would get their attention ( barring, of course, sex in the oval office, but that is probably OKIYAR, and is so ’90’s anyway given the pussy-grabber-in-chief’s destruction of all civilized norms of behavior) :
working with the democrats on legislation that would help the country. If Trump does that, his number’s up.
None of that is a High Crime. You are urging treason.
GFYS.
I don’t come to and contribute $ to this blog to read this kind of response.
He accused me of a capital crime.
A strong response was in order, which is what other commenters offered. You’re a respected blogger. I don’t think you have to stoop to that level of response. No big deal. I am just worn out by the tenor of remarks made in the atmosphere generated by our hideous uncouth President.
Accusations of committing or advocating a capital crime are way beyond the pale. I’d like to think the commenter in question who made the accusation of treason is better than that. Heck, Voice and I had some generally okay discussions recently even if he and I don’t quite see eye to eye. But getting back to the treason accusation: I honestly don’t know if I would respond any differently to that if it were hurled at me. Maybe the better lesson is that we shouldn’t be flippantly making those sorts of accusations towards one another – the atmosphere is poisoned enough as it is already. Just my two cents for whatever it’s worth.
Hey, Boo is simply quoting Dick Cheney. Just as I’ve taken to saying “Argle Bargle” from time to time, because I take pride in my big brain’s ability to quote Tony Scalia. And that’s not “pure applesauce” in the “jiggery-pokery”!
I just deleted 100 words about equating impeachment with treason, because why bother? However, obviously, your comment counts as negligent homicide.
They may not be high crimes and misdemeanors (such as lying the county into a multi-trillion dollar war that spread death and destruction, but Nancy took that one off-the-table), but neither was getting a BJ and subsequently lying about it. Thus, the US House makes up its own rules as to what is an impeachable offense. Still, when the bar is exceedingly low for impeachment, conviction in the Senate remains a high hurdle.
Martin’s fantasy overlooks the impeachment part with a GOP House. They would only be moved to impeach if they desire to substitute Pence for Trump. Then it’s still 2/3rds in the Senate for conviction and removal from office. The GOP didn’t come close to that in 1999. Merely 45 yes on perjury and 50 yes on obstruction of justice, only five Republicans put principle above party: Chafee, Collins, Jeffords, Snowe, and Specter. (Interesting list — two later bolted from the GOP, the son and successor of one did the same, and one bucked Trump yesterdy.) I’d hope that there would be far more than five principled Democrats in the Senate, but perhaps I’m naive.
Oh, thank you, thank you, THANK YOU, for reminding us of Pelosi’s failure of 12 years ago! Certainly it is beyond dispute that she could have impeached Bush, all on her own. Never doubt that your constant equating of democratic perfidy with Trump and his administration is not appreciated.
.
Cuz from where I sit, it kinda looks like you piled together negatives right up to the point where your sarcasm turned into truth-telling.
Do you think that average American respects letting the big crooks off the hook without even an indictment while going after petty criminals and other on BS charges? No wonder you can’t grasp why Democrats have been losing elections nationwide in the past four election cycles.
The BS impeachment of Clinton hurt the GOP with voters. (Not as much as it should have because Democrats weren’t good at framing it.) A BS impeachment of Trump would hurt the Democratic Party — and I assure that the GOP will know how to frame it for maximum advantage for them.
If either political party isn’t even going to attempt to impeach over objectively evident high crimes and misdemeanors, then impeaching over BS or minor stuff will be seen as nothing other than DC partisan political gamesmanship most Americans loathe that.
you see comprising the case for Trump impeachment?
Gob-smacking revelation, that.
Political disagreement isn’t an case for impeachment. Nor is support for policies that lead to the death of humans. How many people in other countries were sickened and died from AIDS because of GWB’s family planning restrictions in African and S/C American countries? Tens of millions.
Tens of millions are physically and psychologically hurt when the minimum wage isn’t increased in accordance with inflation, but we don’t impeach Presidents for failure to move/act on this. Major stuff but we use the ballot box and not impeachment to address this.
Are crimes committed before taking office impeachable? Undefined, but if such are discovered we assume the office holder would resign. Although it’s not unprecedented for someone convicted of a crime and serving time to later get elected.
Impeachment AND conviction is neither easy nor fast which is why it has never happened. In the first year from the Watergate break-in (a real smoking gun) with the convictions of the burglars, the resignations of the WH inner circle, and the Senate hearings the case for impeachment still had holes. Many filled in over the subsequent year as the House was drafting articles of impeachment when Nixon resigned. They followed proper procedures: investigate first and go wherever the evidence leads. They and the public weren’t screaming for impeachment throughout those two years. They only got there late in the process of collecting the evidence and a majority of the public was able to appreciate why the step was necessary.
The Clinton impeachment made a travesty of why it exists as a remedy in the Constitution. A gaggle of partisan hacks that with no sense of decency and decorum. However, as eager as they were to go there from the day Clinton was inaugurated, it still took them six years.
Excuse me but:
“he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
I don’t think I have to explain where that is from.
The Affordable Care Act is a law. All means by which Trump will “let Obamacare implode” by his own admission involve not doing what the Constitution explicitly requires him to do. This is not telling ICE to lay off the harassment of immigrants, this is intentionally breaking the system so that the law become dysfunctional.
You say: Nor is support for policies that lead to the death of humans.
The ACA is not “policy”, it’s the fucking law. And before you say “but Obama…” nothing Obama did directly led to people dying, by not enforcing the law. So yes, it’s a big fucking deal that what Trump intends is “policies that lead to the death of humans”. He is obviously not getting the point that he was elected to serve NOT JUST REPUBLICANS, BUT ALL AMERICANS. By his own admission he got all these votes to pass this abortion, and fell only a few votes short. THAT IS ONLY TRUE IF YOU PRETEND THE DEMOCRATIC VOTES AGAINST THIS ABORTION DO NOT EXIST.
Well, when you put it that way …
I also think that when he invites police or others to violate civil rights of people, criminal or not, he violates the law, and his oath of office. Why do we tolerate this hack?
From what I’ve read there are many ways to undermine the ACA that would be within the scope of the law. Reducing the sign up period. Reducing funding for this or that aspect of it.
That it is legal is besides the point, just as whether it’s illegal to support policies that result in human deaths.
Again:
“he shall take Care that the Laws be faithfully executed”
Neither one of those things can in any way be construed as the law “faithfully executed”. Rather, it would be the exact opposite: “executing the laws in bad faith”.
Right, that’s why they call him the chief EXECUTIVE.
If the law says the president must “take care that the laws be faithfully executed”, then it recognizes there is such a thing as executing law in BAD faith. So he can LEGALLY execute the law any way he wants, but by openly saying he will administer it so it will “implode”, that’s in bad faith.
Before you say the Republicans would never impeach him, remember that in many R districts, people are now reaping the benefits of Obamacare. This is going to bite the republicans in the ass, bigly.
Steven Pearlstein gets it:
http://www.denverpost.com/2017/07/28/donald-trump-is-now-a-lame-duck-president/
http://thehill.com/homenews/senate/342876-report-republican-says-trump-doesnt-even-scare-senate-page
s
I really tire of people pointing out that GOP won’t fry one of it’s own, and water is wet, no? History needs to record that Trump was a shitty president, and rolling over because the GOP won’t play along is defeatist. He’s a shitty president, a circus freak show and he always has been. He’s been given ample chance to prove his creepy genetic superiority complex is real, and he has done nothing but step on rakes.
What is most certainly going to bite the Republicans in the ass is an undisciplined executive. Trump has been very lucky so far he hasn’t said anything that would throw a murder trial, and it’s not because of his restraint. The law and order types that make up a large part of the GOP don’t seem to be bothered by this possibility, and won’t be until it actually happens.
Worse for all of us, is when Trump unilaterally strikes North Korea without the approval of Congress. And I say “when” not “if” because these 2 clowns (Trump and Kim) are both playing a game of chicken, and no one is going to stop them. I’m not sure AUMF even covers North Korea, but I haven’t heard anyone claiming Al-Qaeda has taken hold in North Korea, so I’m guessing not. I’m not sure Trump gives a damned if it is or not. If it isn’t, IMHO Trump is ignorant enough to claim authority under AUMF and dare anyone to stop him.
Oh I know! When will democrats EVER learn! Certainly you reminding us of their failures will help them finally start electing candidates with acceptable moral character. Like you, I’m sick and tired of Democrats that don’t meet my personal, and highly variable and arbitrary, ethical standards. Most around here don’t appreciate it, but let’s be honest…you and I live on a higher consciousness than they do.
You should write another diary on the many foreign policy crimes of past American administrations. If it’s one thing that will get democrats winning elections again, it’s reminding the American electorate that their culture is build on murder and exploitation!
And if it’s not thing we both want…it’s democrats winning elections..amirite?
.
You know there’s somebody else that flips out when historical facts are used to make a point* that doesn’t cast him/his in a favorable light and attempts to censor the speaker.
*As causing a war on false pretenses seems to me to fall in the category of high crimes and misdemeanors, my larger point was that GWB should have been impeached. A failure to do so (or for any DA to fail to indict) isn’t a crime, but individuals or the public at large doesn’t have to respect that failure.
Your snide mocking of my comments plays as well with your audience as that somebody’s thin-skinned displays of anger plays with his. Not admirable or adult behavior.
Is that what you want?
As awful as Pence is (and he would likely be a more effective awful person), I think Pence is less likely to start up a war somewhere just to distract everyone.
Of all of those, only the third and fourth really count as impeachable offenses. Failing to follow the laws, essentially. The others things, while despicable, don’t qualify. And yes, I know, impeachment is mostly political.
I think you have a wrong understanding of “high crimes and misdemeanors.” “An impeachable” offense is an action that inspires a majority of the House Judiciary Committee to vote in favor of bringing articles of impeachment before the full house, and then getting 218 votes (a simple majority of the House) to forward the Articles to the Senate, and then persuading 67 Senators to vote “Guilty!”. I feel quite sure that however strongly you feel about it, you aren’t going to find 21 people on the House Judiciary Committee to vote in favor.
Given most Republicans want Obamacare to fail one way or the other, it’s hard to see why they would consider enabling such a failure a “high crime and misdemeanour” and vote to impeach.
If resultant harm were the criterion, many other government actions or inactions would rank higher e.g. the War on Iraq on falsified intelligence. By comparison, ditching Obamacare merely returns us to the status quo ante.
The bottom line is that the bar for impeaching a Republican has been set almost impossibly high, and their is only one (flawed) remedy – its getting out the dem vote for the mid-terms in what is a very gerrymandered suppressed process. There are no short cuts, and Mike Pence certainly isn’t one. He would merely normalise what is becoming more extraordinary by the day.
Only the last example, where Trump would stop paying subsidies to deliberately destroy the insurance markets and hasten the deaths of people relying on care to stay alive appears to fit the “high crimes and misdemeanors” political standard of the impeachment process. Key word being “political.” And being a political rather than a legal process, the first three examples don’t meet the same standard.
Being a political process, all four are reasons for democrats to want to impeach Trump. None are reason enough, apparently, for republicans. I can see any number of republicans in the Presidency doing the same thing, just minus all the bombast.
Here’s what I would call impeachable offenses:
(a) The nine-minute delay between Trump tweets on the transgender issue causes the Pentagon and many others to think he was about to announce strikes on N. Korea or some other military action:
http://nymag.com/selectall/2017/07/the-pentagon-was-just-as-confused-by-trumps-tweet-as-you.html
(b) Trump holds a meeting in the Oval Office with Russian ambassadors and officials, and without any US press present, tells them he fired Comey to stop the Russia investigation. Then, bragging, he inadvertently leaks classified information: https:/www.nytimes.com/2017/05/16/us/politics/trump-intelligence-russia-classified.html
(c) Trump and his campaign have had previously undisclosed meetings with Putin and others:
https:
/www.theguardian.com/usnews/2017/jul/18/trump-and-putin-undisclosed-second-meeting-whit
e-house-confirms
The Russians have hinted at the strong possibility that there may have been even more meetings. And given how Russian intelligence “trade craft” works, this information becomes compromising and is grist for blackmail.
These are just three examples, each are issues that put the security of the nation at risk. Then there are the several, unmistakable, documented, emoluments clause violations, which could also result in Russian “compromat.” One can even add that the money laundering investigation that may prove to involve Trump and his companies at some point is also reason why he should not be president. Definitely “high crimes and misdemeanors.”
I would say the examples BooMan lists here are reasons why the nation would be better served to not have Republicans in charge of any branch of government, because even without Trump as President, all of these are policies that the republican party supports and would support regardless who the president is.
say about this — though I already put it up with brief comments — so outraged by it do I find myself.)
The President of the United States of America inciting an assembled audience of cops to commit violence against and violate the civil rights of suspects (repeat: suspects, detained but not yet convicted nor indeed benefiting from any due process whatsoever). Not that what he incites would be conscionable even against convicted criminals whose identities were unequivocally verified.
And that audience of cops — to a person, as far as I saw — responding to that incitement with smiles, laughter, and applause.
But cops rail against the criticism they face over what they always respond are the actions of just a few bad apples (e.g., summary executions of unarmed black men . . . with the occasional white Aussie woman thrown in for good measure), not representative of the vast majority of cops.
Well, I see all bad apples in this video, behaving inexcusably, shamefully. The only appropriate response to Trump’s incitement would have been polite, stony silence.
Which their superiors in whatever PD this was should impress upon them with official, formal reprimands, accompanied by an unmistakable message that if they think what Trump incited is ok, they need to find a different line of work, starting yesterday.
If, that is, this department actually wanted what they all always claim to want, i.e., cooperative, harmonious relations with the communities they police (and, allegedly, “serve and protect”). Unless and until that happens, I’m not open to a self-serving whine from any of those visible here about an alleged “war on cops”. They invite the criticism they rail against by the behavior on display here:
faces in that opening youtube freeze-frame. Go figure.
far better than I managed (h/t digby):
Successful fascists need compliant state police forces that obey the rightful authoritarian leader…in addition to the private citizens whose use of force the fascist has already provided public, candid approval.
btw: