The official "let's impeach Trump" thread

[fishonjazz]

The crazy thing to me is that people aren't even mad at or don't even talk about, one of his policies that are effecting us all daily. As a manager in a major retail store every Friday I print out pages upon pages of price changes. People don't seem to realize that at least my average customer is paying a good 20+ dollars more per visit. At least.

Today I printed one out that has been the same price since 2009. Today it went up $5. This is a very household item.

This is the type of stuff Democrats should be using as ammo not shady whistleblowers who won't even testify.

I don't think imposing tariffs is impeachable. I could be wrong though. If it is then I agree with you, it should get more discussion in this thread about impeaching Trump.

@colton @Catchall @Zombie is imposing trade tariffs impeachable?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[Safetydan]

I don't think imposing tariffs is impeachable. I could be wrong though. If it is then I agree with you, it should get more discussion in this thread about impeaching Trump.

@colton @Catchall @Zombie is imposing trade tariffs impeachable?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

No it's not. But it is a good reason to not vote for him.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

 

[JazzyFresh]

No it's not. But it is a good reason to not vote for him.

Sent from my SM-G975U using Tapatalk

That's all I was getting at.

 

[fishonjazz]

I also hate the border wall and how the ultra rich are paying a lower percentage tax rate than the middle class under the new tax plan. And yes it sucks that the price on many things we buy has gone up due to the trade war.

Glad that's been covered now.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[fishonjazz]

That's all I was getting at.

It's been gotten at before. There just isn't much to say or talk about after it's been said that prices have gone up due to trade wars. That kind of covers it.

You could start a thread about it though if you want and see if there are people who want to talk more about it. That's the beauty of a message board.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

 

[JazzyFresh]

I just feel you aren't going to beat him through impeachment. No matter how bad you want it you still have to get through Senate.

The only way you are going to beat him is with policy. Unless the left starts focusing on that, Trump will be here another 5 years.

 

[colton]

I don't think imposing tariffs is impeachable. I could be wrong though. If it is then I agree with you, it should get more discussion in this thread about impeaching Trump.

@colton @Catchall @Zombie is imposing trade tariffs impeachable?

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

Aside from impeachable being a political question rather than a legal one, from the legal standpoint I believe it depends entirely on motivation. If it's in an honest attempt to act in the best interests in the country, then not impeachable, no matter whether it's misguided or not, or what the consequences may be. If it's done in an attempt to get personal gain or other advantage, then yes that would be both illegal and impeachable. For example: if Trump were to short stocks (or tell a proxy to do so), then announce a series of tariffs knowing that the effect would be to cause the market to go down (hence making money via shorting the stocks), then that would be both illegal and impeachable.

edit--I'm not saying Trump has done that. It's a hypothetical as far as I know.

 

[Hotdog]

I also hate the border wall and how the ultra rich are paying a lower percentage tax rate than the middle class under the new tax plan. And yes it sucks that the price on many things we buy has gone up due to the trade war.

Glad that's been covered now.

Sent from my ONEPLUS A6013 using JazzFanz mobile app

What prices have gone up due to the trade war?

 

[Stoked]

What prices have gone up due to the trade war?

the estimates I’ve seen have been negligible so far. Estimates under 200$ a year.

 

[colton]

Why do you assume that? I now assume that Trump isn't listening to any sort of ethical or legal advice when it comes to stuff like this, and as far as I can tell I'm right 100% of the time.

But anyway
a) it doesn't matter if the resort profits or not, it's still against the emoluments clause
b) there's no way that it will be for break even or worse
c) even if it is for break even, the resort is currently losing money (from what I have read) so that's a huge gain for Trump Corp

and most importantly
d) YOU CANNOT STEER GOVERNMENT FUNDS TO YOUR OWN BUSINESS. IT'S AGAINST THE LAW, NOT JUST AGAINST THE EMOLUMENTS CLAUSE.

Hey, what do you know? @CrimeADay tweeted the exact section of the code.

 

[silesian]

It’s becoming clear that there are two distinct emerging paths for trump supporters to choose.

One has their fingers stuck in their ears chanting “la la la la la” and missing that the consequences of trumps corruption and incompetence are finally land-sliding. Case study denial bias. It is too painful for them to grasp.

The other group is gradually accepting this reality and repositioning themselves to save face. “Yeah I voted for him but just to lower my taxes/ appoint judges/ because Hillary/ because socialists. I didn’t know he would be this bad”.

The trump world is collapsing. Time to choose.

 

[silesian]

Imagine the outrage if HRC funneled taxpayer money to benefit the Clinton Fund charity.

such corruption!!!!! Lock her up!!! And rightly so I might add.


But Doral. Totally okey dokey.

I’ll wait for incoming Rationalizations

 

[fishonjazz]

For the first time, a majority of Americans said this week that they supported the impeachment of President Trump. Not just in one, outlying poll — in an average of all current national polls compiled by the data journalists at FiveThirtyEight.

For Trump this polling milestone comes less than one month after reports first surfaced of a Ukraine whistleblower and roughly three weeks after House Speaker Nancy Pelosi announced the start of a formal impeachment inquiry — meaning that it represents a historical milestone as well.

Trump hasn’t just crossed the 50 percent threshold on impeachment, peaking at 50.3 percent earlier this week. He’s gotten there faster than Richard Nixon — and, for that matter, Bill Clinton, who never got there at all.

President Trumps approval rating has been stuck between 38 and 42 percent since March 2017, and a majority of Americans have disapproved of his job performance since then as well. In contrast, Clinton enjoyed approval ratings in the 60 to 70 percent range the entire time Republicans were trying to impeach him, and Nixon’s fluctuated wildly, falling from a high of 68 percent in January 1973 to a low of about 25 percent for most of the last year of his presidency.

To survive impeachment and win a second term, Trump needs to keep his party united. But senators and House members want to win reelection too, and they’ll be watching the polls as closely as the pundits. If Nixon’s impeachment proved anything, it’s that new evidence can emerge suddenly, changing everything. The facts matter. In 1974, congressional Republicans had backed Nixon uniformly for more than a year — until the smoking gun surfaced. And then they didn’t.

 

[colton]

Republican congressman from district that Trump won by 20 points says he's open to impeachment. Lot of great quotes in this article.

"The president has said many times there wasn’t a quid pro quo . . . and now Mick Mulvaney goes up and says, ‘Yeah, it was all part of the whole plan.’ ” Rooney said in the Capitol.

Mulvaney later reversed his comments in a written statement, but Rooney said that did not erase the impact of his earlier comments: “The only thing I could assume is he meant what he had to say, that there was a quid pro quo on this stuff. . . . It’s not an Etch A Sketch.”

“So you didn’t buy the walk-back?” a reporter asked him.

“What is a walk-back?” Rooney said. “I mean, I tell you what, I’ve drilled some oil wells I’d like to walk back — dry holes.”
...
“I’ve been real mindful of the fact that during Watergate, all the people I knew said, ‘Oh, they’re just abusing Nixon, and it’s a witch hunt,’ ” he said. “Turns out it wasn’t a witch hunt. It was really bad.”
...
“I didn’t take this job to keep it,” he said. “I took this job to do the right thing at all times — the right thing. And if that means I got to go find, go back to my other job, that’s okay, too. I like building buildings and drilling oil wells.”

He added, “I’ll be looking at my children a lot longer than I’m looking to anybody in this building.”​

 

[Zombie]

“I didn’t take this job to keep it,” he said. “I took this job to do the right thing at all times — the right thing. And if that means I got to go find, go back to my other job, that’s okay, too. I like building buildings and drilling oil wells.”

He added, “I’ll be looking at my children a lot longer than I’m looking to anybody in this building.”

It's a shame that this kind of sentiment is an outlier in Washington instead of the norm.

 

[colton]

It's a shame that this kind of sentiment is an outlier in Washington instead of the norm.

This.

And also, I hope #notanEtchASketch becomes a thing.

 

[colton]

Exactly this: https://abovethelaw.com/2019/10/trump-doral-g7-corruption/

Again, the law is complicated and full of exceptions and I’m no compliance wonk. But the point is that this law EXISTS. So do others. The Trump administration needs to show that it complied with the law, or show that it doesn’t need to comply with the law because it is eligible for some sort of exception. ALL OF THAT MUST BE WRITTEN DOWN. If those arguments don’t hold water, Trump is in violation of statute. If those arguments are lies, on official government documents, those lies are crimes.

Making the Emoluments Clause argument against the president for this deal is valid, but it’s a little bit like pursuing a Fourth Amendment violation against the president for a car-jacking. Sure, it probably is. But, also, THERE ARE LAWS AGAINST CAR-JACKING.​

 

[colton]

So I guess someone explained to Trump that it was illegal and impeachable.

 

[Hotdog]

So I guess someone explained to Trump that it was illegal and impeachable.

Or he did it because it was the right thing to do.

 

[Zombie]

Or he did it because it was the right thing to do.

If he thought it was the right thing to do he wouldn't have tried to do it in the first place, and he wouldn't have thrown a tantrum on twitter over it.



This doesn't exactly scream, I'm doing this because I believe it's the right thing to do!